Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Jun 2012 17:24

ManishJi,
between lectures - so just dashing off a few points - detailed reply will follow.

(1) This is not quibbling. You are carefully avoiding actually stating here that you have conclusive proof that the Vedic "Aswa" is the modern "horse". You know very well that this is disputed - even within "linguists" - just one author constantly touted by you based on his 1985 dissertation work on the "horse+wheel" is not the universally accepted version. His quotation of archeology is much appreciated by linguists not so well-conversant with the archeological method itself - but that is as far as it goes.

(2) Are you yourself a "specialist" in Greek? We can have a nice exchange on this then. Why did the "i" get added to PIE root for horse - please? and the "h" later again?

Dogmatic religions also change a lot. You are not aware of dogma then.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 12 Jun 2012 17:37

1. Rg Veda was composed long after PIE dispersal.
2. Rg Veda was composed in India, in a region where people had been living - (around the million square kilometers of the extent of the Indus-Saraswati Harappan culture).
3. Rg Veda as per the linguists has only 4% non-IE-root words in a vocabulary of about 10,000 words (e.g., see Kuiper, Witzel) Ancient Greek, in comparison, is 30% non-IE. Presumably non-IE words come from borrowings from non-IE languages.

Doesn't the conclusion have to be that the people preceding the Rg Vedic people also spoke mostly IE languages? Or is the claim that the Rg Vedic language was what Persian is to India c.1800?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Jun 2012 20:01

I was interested in knowing about Indian way of calculating time so I asked Wiki chachi about it. I read up a little on Water Clocks in Ancient India. There were pointers made by N. Narahari Achar and Subhash Kak on the topic.

In the notes section, both N. Narahari Achar and Subhash Kak are annotated with [unreliable source?].

These are the kind of under the belt methods these AIT proponents use to discredit Indian scholars! It really is a trench war!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jun 2012 21:10

In the link below the history of Asia and Europe are summed up in 3 pargraphs. Also read how linguists conjure up proto languages
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/langevol.html

Let's look at a real example of a very influential people:

Around 5000 bc, between the Danube river valley and the steppes of what is now the Ukraine, there lived small tribes of primitive farmers who all spoke the same language. They cultivated rye and oats, and kept pigs, geese, and cows. They would soon become the first people on earth to tame the local wild horses -- an accomplishment that would make them a significant part of history for thousands of years to come. And their proximity to the culturally more advance people of Asia Minor -- what is now Turkey -- would allow them to learn the metal working invented there, beginning with copper.

Beginning around 3000 bc, these people would spread into Europe and the Russian steppes. Around 1500 bc, they would continue into Persia and India, even as far as western China. Later still (in the last 500 years), they would spread to the Americas, Australia, the Pacific islands, and parts of Africa. They would take their language with them, although it would gradually change into hundreds of mutually unintelligible languages, including English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Persian, Hindi and many more.

By examining the oldest examples of modern and classical languages such as Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, linguists have been able to reconstruct an educated guess as to what the language of these ancient people was like. They call the language Proto-Indo-European. The work that went into reconstructing Proto-Indo-European has led to efforts to reconstruct other prehistorical language ancestors as well.

This story has suspect dates, but the whole page, while written in a pleasant style for the lay person is probably unreliable, but it serves to illustrate the "democratic way" fake half knowledge becomes commonly accepted. Central Asian horse people had a language (no proof) that went to Europe first and then to Iran and India by 1500 BC . This man is referring to the "Aryan invasion". The whole business of horse, mobility, power, military, rapid spread etc is to lay a basis for saying "Have horse, will travel", and conquer the world. Linguistics, having worked its way backwards in time by conjuring up a non existent language was in search of a history to place that language. And on this page, that is exactly what is done. The language PIE is placed next to the horse taming civilization leading to an easy conquering of the world by Europeans.

Note that a language has been created for the horse people. At least according to this page. Funnily enough I suspect that the survival of the Rig Veda has played a huge role in enabling this particular version of world history to be conjured up. I can now see why the horse discussions come up again and again.

Horse came. Copper tech picked up from Turkey. Winner people took their language all over along with horse. That is why the absence of significant horse remains in India becomes so significant to this story. If there was no invasion and no horse why did the Rig Veda end up worshipping horse mounted Gods? And why didn't the horse spread into India 1500 years after it was domesticated? But according to this story the language PIE came into India (perhaps by about 2500 BC?) and later became Sanskrit - taking 1000 years to do that . Must have come with walking people although there were domesticated horses where PIE is alleged to have come from. Why did PIE come walking and not on horseback? Mountain passes? How could a people who were so dependent on the horse leave their horses behind and travel to India on foot in 2500-2000 BC?

Meanwhile here is another slightly more complex page on how linguistics has been developed. this page lists some of the problems/pitfalls that might occur on the way to creating root languages and discovering sister languages.

Linguistics 101
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_ ... hange.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2012 21:46

Note shiv, how did the domesticated pig get dropped of? In the Middle East and hence created teh repulsion in the Abrahamic religions? Or took it to western China? Arent the Uighers there?

Around 5000 bc, between the Danube river valley and the steppes of what is now the Ukraine, there lived small tribes of primitive farmers who all spoke the same language. They cultivated rye and oats, and kept pigs, geese, and cows. They would soon become the first people on earth to tame the local wild horses -- an accomplishment that would make them a significant part of history for thousands of years to come. And their proximity to the culturally more advance people of Asia Minor -- what is now Turkey -- would allow them to learn the metal working invented there, beginning with copper.

Beginning around 3000 bc, these people would spread into Europe and the Russian steppes. Around 1500 bc, they would continue into Persia and India, even as far as western China. Later still (in the last 500 years), they would spread to the Americas, Australia, the Pacific islands, and parts of Africa. They would take their language with them, although it would gradually change into hundreds of mutually unintelligible languages, including English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Persian, Hindi and many more.

tyroneshoes · Post by **tyroneshoes** » 12 Jun 2012 22:15

Horse came. Copper tech picked up from Turkey. Winner people took their language all over along with horse. That is why the absence of significant horse remains in India becomes so significant to this story.

Several points, so will use bullets:

1. Rig Veda talks more about Bulls, Cow, Kine than it does Horses, Stallions, Carouser, Charger.
(I've shown this with my simple crude experiment over couple of pages -
SDRE COW >> TFTA HORSE onlee!)

2. Dyaus Pitar (is represented as a Red Bull) and Mata Pritvi (as a cow). Dayus Pitar is the father of
Agni, Indra, Ushas, etc. The father of all the "horse rider" Gods is the Red bellowing BULL!

3. Rig Veda is the only oral text we have of that time. There are no other oral texts of that antiquity
preserved for us to cross check and verify what people in Steppes are India were chanting (not singing)
at the same time periods.

4. The Sredny Stog culture (6500 - 5500 BP), Khvalynsk culture (7000-6500 BP), Samara (7500-6800 BP),
etc. All can be shown to had contacts with Iran and India. One classic example is the copper
techniques used. Many of these cultures are (incorrectly in my humble opinion) considered illiterate.
Further, the lost wax method is uniquely Indian and has been accepted by most scholars.
The Rig Veda clearly mentions - pillars of Ayas (not I am not sure if its copper, bronze or iron).

5. Varuna (Ahura Mazda) becomes chief of Iranian monotheism (first version). There is also politics
between Agni and Indra. I have not dwelled into details here, but give us data points for lack of
conformity even in the India-Iran complex. Perhaps the distancing is due to these differences.
People like Croatians do believe they moved from Iran. If a substantial number of tribes moved west
from Iran (indirectly) rather from Sapta-Sindhu, then perhaps several did not remember their origins.

6. The Greek immigrants who spoke Sanskrit (new form) forgot Dyaus Pitar was the Red Bull Sky Father.
They called him Zeus-Pater - the father of the Gods - which he was. The Romans eventually called
him Ju-Piter. There are other Gods that have such similarities. Much so that when Alexandar invades
(comes back) to India, he is well aware and comfortable with the Gods. This also shows why later
Greeks easily adopted Krishna, etc. quite easily.

So, if the Rig Veda is composed in India at such a late date. Then how did Dyaus Pitar go to Greece?
How did Varuna become chief of the Iranian belief system? How did Indian copper and bronze techniques
reach the West? How did Cordedware folks (supposed speaking PIE) move into Germany and Nordic regions in 4400 BP and carry Indian Gods in their memory?

tyroneshoes · Post by **tyroneshoes** » 12 Jun 2012 23:02

Perhaps it was all much older. The SDRE Dravidians and TFTA Aryans together invaded Europe long ago!

Perhaps the melting ice from glaciation gave way to new migration routes westward....

Linearbandkeramik Culture

Chronology of the LBK

The earliest LBK sites are found in the Starcevo-Koros culture of the Hungarian plain, around 5700 BC. From there, the early LBK spreads separately east, north and west.

The LBK reached the Rhine and Neckar valleys of Germany about 5500 BC. The people spread into Alsace and the Rhineland by 5300 BC. By the mid-5th millenium BC, La Hoguette Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and LBK immigrants shared the region and, eventually, only LBK were left.

Who really got invaded? Indians or Europeans?

Linearbandkeramik and Violence

There seems to be considerable evidence that relationships between the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe and the LBK migrants were not entirely peaceful. Evidence for violence exists at many LBK village sites. Massacres of whole villages and portions of villages appear to be in evidence at sites such as Talheim, Schletz-Asparn, Herxheim, and Vaihingen. Mutilated remains suggesting cannibalism have been noted at Eilsleben and Ober-Hogern. The westernmost area appears to have the most evidence for violence, with about one-third of the burials showing evidence of traumatic injuries.

Further, there is a fairly high number of LBK villages that evidence some kind of fortification efforts: an enclosing wall, a variety of ditch forms, complex gates. Whether this resulted from direct competition between local hunter-gatherers and competing LBK groups is under investigation; this kind of evidence can only be partly helpful.

However, the presence of violence on Neolithic sites in Europe is under some amount of debate. Some scholars have dismissed the notions of violence, arguing that the burials and the traumatic injuries are evidence of ritual behaviors not inter-group warfare. Some stable isotope studies have noted that some mass burials are of non-local people; some evidence of slavery has also been noted.

AIT or AMT?

Diffusion of Ideas or People?

One of the central debates among scholars about the LBK is whether the people were migrant farmers from the Near East or local hunter-gatherers who adopted the new techniques. Agriculture, animal and plant domestication both, originated in the Near East and Anatolia.

One such invaders or migrants were the Natufian people
(Natufian Period)

Natufian Artifacts

Artifacts found at Natufian sites include grinding stones, used to process seeds, dried meats and fish for planned meals, and ochre for likely ritual practices. {reminds one of India doesn't it?} Flint and bone tools, and dentalium shell ornaments are also part of the Natufian assemblage. Specific tools created for harvesting various crops are a hallmark of Natufian assemblages, such as stone sickles. Large middens are known at Natufian sites, located where they were created (rather than secondary refuse pits). Dealing with refuse is one defining characteristics of the descendants of the Natufians, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic.

Some scarce evidence indicates that the Natufian people may have cultivated barley and wheat.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jun 2012 00:47

A series of posts from India Forum germane to this thread:

Dhu:Also, there is evidence that the keepers of the holy mecca are directly descendant from S Asia/Iran.
---------------
Ramana:
Dhu, Please elaborate. Thanks, ramana
--------------
G.Subramaniam:
There have been several waves out of India not only to Europe but also to middle east

The berbers, MtDNA is U6 which originates in Punjab, 40k years ago

The Arabs and Jews are Y-Haplogroup J, which also originates in India
-------------------

Dhu:
The clades of R1a1 seen in Saudi Arabia are Indo-Iranian specific and actually span the full spectrum of Indo-Iranian specific clades, meaning large scale migration into Arabia from Iran/India.
These include the specific tribe (Koresh?) that is the keeper of the "holy mosque" at mecca: the name of the tribe I cannot remember.
Within the Kurds are found entire clades equivalent to the european-specific clades, and this is a good indicator of the diversity to be found further east from where the Kurds are to have migrated. Equivalent clades have also been found in India.
The C Asiatic clades including Tarim and Andronovo are India-specific.
What is seen is the wave model of R1a1 expansion: 1st was European-specific expanding out of the ME (probably Iran), with a 2nd wave trailing the the 1st which was more Asiatic-specific with percolations also into Europe..

Sort of matches the evolution of gods among Persians and Greeks....

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2012 01:15

ManishH wrote:
brihaspati wrote: Nope, ManishH ji. You are consistently trying to bring Talageri into a claimed logical argument - where his proposals in a related but different direction [stages] is not really relevant.
I think it is very relevant That book is the only one where I've found some sort of comprehensive attempt at layout of a chronological order of OIT. Without a comprehensive account, one cannot show the contradictions in OIT.

So, your main motivation is to show contradictions in OIT? Why is it you never write anything about the contradictions in AIT? Or even attempt exploring such contradictions? Is it because you are committed to AIT? It will be intellectual dishonesty - sometimes seen no doubt in linguists in suppressing or barely mentioning - or mentioning in such a way that the full logic is not addressed and a half representation attacked and claimed to be
debunked, if you don't cite contradictions already well known and discussed even among linguists. If you are a linguist - you are aware that AIT's contradictions are well discussed in several subgroups of linguists. I never see you mention any criticism of AIT. Is that a restriction due to any political or ideological affiliation? If so, then I will not press more on this.

By the same logic, the absence of steppe river names/goddesses in India should prove that AIT did not take place.
Where's the 'absence' ? Sarasvati does not go back to united IE times. But I also quoted the example of 'dyaus pitar' and 'jupiter' that go far back to IE dispersals.

Well even the Danube/Dnieper does not go back to any "united" IE times. Since the whole edifice of "unity" is a hypothesis - with wildly varying time estimates given by your infallible linguists [you never seem to quote or write about the errors, and sometimes denial of errors when pointed out - made by linguists], the whole assumption is axiomatic.

Would you like to consult your notes again before you reaffirm your claims about "dayus pitar" and "yu-piter"? Through and through you use hypotheses as established facts. Its rather jarring on modern scientific training and practice. You should get into the practice of saying "under my axioms and assumption" "xxxx is likely to be true with a very high probability". thereby you leave some space for falsifiability of claims which are after all - based on a lot of axiomatic assumptions and not on real direct data. You don't have audio recordings of ancient phonetics, neither do you have a a very large number of data points based on epigraphy.

Something you never really find the chance to mention it seems - is the nature and paucity of inscriptional data - on which all these fabulous reconstructions in PIE have been made.

You make it an article of faith that there must have been continuities in two forms of language ... - but you refuse to accept this for other elements of social life so pivotal as theology or theogony.
The bio-mechanics of human mouth determine phonetic regularity. Whereas the human mind which choses the forms of theology, is not so mechanical.

And I don't 'refuse to accept'. I'll quote some other older portions of theology - like jupiter, varuna and uranus, danu.

You will quote what suits to support your agenda of establishing AIT and PIE-not-in-India claims. You will remain silent on each and every aspect that may jeopardize your agenda. When your quotes become problematic you will move goalposts : when saraswati+cow+vak and "danu" as well becomes a problem you will move goalposts to "varuna" and "jupiter". By the way, would you be honest enough to mention the earliest epigraphical use of varuna and jupiter please?

Moving to jupiter or varuna does not disqualify all the problems associated or raised by Saraswati. I am willing to go into "jupiter" too - linguistically. It will be more in my domain.

ManishH wrote:On the topic of rivers, the IE root 'danu' is often used for rivers - right from Danube, Don, Dniepr (danu-para: the river away), Donetz (danu-nazdya: the river closeby). In RgVeda, the mother of demons is called दनु who is in form of waters and from which दानव are born. Looks quite probable that might be some contact between the IE group that associated 'danu' with rivers and another group that treated them as enemies.
[brihaspati] But this other group who treats "them" as enemies - do not ascribe any river name to "dnu".[brihaspati]

Of course, no one names one's rivers after enemies. do they In RgVeda, दनु is the mother of वृत्र and associated with waters ...

http://protosanskrit.wordpress.com/2011 ... an-schism/

In Avestan the word 'dānu' means river.

Would you like to commit here that "danu" and danu's apatya are clearly demarcated as enemies all along in RV? Why would you associate enmity with something as important as "water"? The more damaging natural forces are typically deified. What blind irrationality claims that as core a part of existence as water can be associated with "enmity"?

The "vritra" == water is disputed. I hope you would not be so much of a linguist as to pretend that it is not disputed.

Further if it was the steppelanders who brought PIE to India, they still should have connected the most common root "often used" for rivers, also in India.
Again you are assuming an unusual cohesion in steppes whereas none exists. The archaeology of Bronze age eurasia shows as much internecine warfare as any other place.

They have cohesion about grass and horses and chariots and lots of other aspects of "pastoral" life - apparently, by PIE claimants. They have this cohesion about many geographical entities and features - and which you must be aware of as a linguist, yet - onlee for river, onlee for river - they forget. This is avoiding the main problem posed by the lack of "dnu" root river names outside of Steppes/Balkans.

But Indra has not been forgotten and erased completely in the "Hindu".
Not forgotten - but transmuted into a helpless Nero-like personality. Thanks to a tradition of oral preservation and later on writing of manuscripts, nothing can be forgotten now.

No use pussyfooting here. The fact is that Indra has not been erased and wiped off the records. You want writing and oral tradition to jumpstart/sayambhu exactly at the convenient point of time that helps your AIT/PIEOI theory? And that jumpstart point will conveniently fluctuate wildly as and when new counterpoints turn up that problematizes such jumpstarts?

If you change tack now and claim that may be the matriarchal steppenwolfs came to India.
What is a "steppenwolf"

Thats a pun on Hesse's character. Used here in the sense of your AIT/PIE zuperior culture donating founding expanders from steppes. Heroic civilizing wolves. [ Maybe, in a weird weird way you might be right. If so many bootlickers of western hero's as the ultimate source of everything, the ultimate theory of everything, still survive among us faithfully doing their masters work - maybe some steppenwolfs really came and left their traces in our gene pool!

]

Problem - is you chose not to understand the context of my pointer. The horse is central in RV theology because the largest number of "gods" ride them? But the supreme god is still not a horse - onlee a rider of the horse. If the RV world's pivot was the horse - you would expect a hose god - won't you?
Both cattle and horses are important in RgVeda. Since there is no Cow God either, I'm not sure what you want to imply.

Look up anthropology of religion. By the way, would like to commit here that the cow has not been deified in the Vedic? Moeover, the cow is not such a pivot of RV that it will displace all others. It is your PIE version - that makes horse the pivot that stands over and above all other aspects of PIE culture. It is the unwavering component of PIE theology. Gods and goddesses may come and go - but horse remains forever. Such a trans-period, trans-national, trans-dialect, trans-areal component is usually deified, or molded into anthropomorphic god/goddess attributes.

It is not the nature of phonetics - but a modern observation based on already stabilized or converged pools of phonation.
It's not 'observation' of emitted sounds. It is the way human vocal cords, lips, tongue and breath combine to produce sounds. If the human moves his tongue forward to articulate a vowel, there is a tendency to also move the velar consonant forward to the human palate.

It's not empirical - but based on bio-mechanics of phonation.

I thought you did not believe in anatomically determined [ or ultimately biologically or genetically determined] mechanisms ruling sound formation. So you want to only allow this predermination of tendencies if it helps to support the claim of "palatalization" of velars?

Okay, but then this brings us full circle back to an initial exchange we had - if the tendency is to "move forward" - why initially construct or invent a velar in such a position in connection to vowels - that will be moved forward anyway? Your "predetermination" theory would rule out the formation of such combinations as a stable and converged configuration - which it has to be to have such a string impact on subsequent daughters. You of course do not engage on this - since linguists in general do not bother to justify their origin theories in a logically consistent and processual framework.

Your claim actually rules out initial invented/constructed use of velars to start with in connection with front vowels.

The horse is so important that it remains static in theological importance. While river names, gods and goddess identities mutate - change - disappear completely.
That's exactly what 'natural' non-dogmatic religions which are not controlled by central authority do - they keep what is relevant, like the horse which is crucial to their lifestyle. And forget old Gods or transmute them.

I find it surprising that you have failed to see this contrast in your very immaculate studies of centrally controlled theologies that you make on other threads.

Natural religions which are not controlled by "central authorities" can be as dogmatic as "unnatural religions". In fact you will not see "natural" religions without central control - discarding their natural "gods" and "goddesses" or even changing them in such a way that strong traces and manifestations of earlier forms are completely erased. The natural religions that were partially erased by imperialist theologies - had to be erased by physical coercion and physical elimination. Even then erasures have not been complete. But this is another issue - well-studied in the pagan-vs-christian dynamics in Europe.

No, I do need to see the identification of RgVedic conclusive proof of "aswa" meaning modern horse. Because if you are saying that you cannot conclusively prove this - the whole debate about horse underlying PIE theory is unfounded.
This is probably the height of quibbling. If you want to claim that the current meaning of a word is not what the ancient one was, it's you who must show evidence. Without which, the current meaning stands

I have already dealt with this in a previous post. I do need to see your commitment one way or the other. You know that this equation is disputed even within linguists.

[I fail to see why you have to be so blindly defensive about the Myc. inscription. The dilemma is not the proof.
[ManishH]I think it is. Eg. if someone misspells quality as 'kwality' in certain ambiguous words; and spells other non-ambiguous words as 'kw' too, we can be reasonably sure the sound is a velar + labial or velar + glide + labial.[ManishH]

[brihaspati] No, it merely shows that the writer does not have a symbol map to distinguish k from w pronunciation when done in quick succession. [brihaspati]

They do have a symbol map. And sometimes separate symbols for k and w are also used.

[brihaspati]It is an alternative hypothesis. "Specialists"?[brihaspati]

Specialists are those who are familiar with Greek and it's development and have studied Minoan inscriptions.

Minoan or Myc? Are you sure you are not mixing up A and B? I can get by in Greek and Latin "origins" - which is pretty problematic for traditional PIE theorists anyway. So do fire away.

It could be the result of an imperfect assimilation or approximation attempted to mimic one specific sound - depending on two distinct population groups who have their preexisting predilection in two different directions.
Give pointers to population groups and their predelictions.

The whole "Greek" origins is highly problematic. There are many who question the unilinear inheritance and PIE dominance structure. Pure inheritance from one PIE succession chain is no longer entirely supportable for Greek.

By the way - I waited for a long time to see you quoting something - some wee bit at least - of the alternative and critical voices from among linguists, who criticize both the labiovelar theory as well as its supposed period of break-up. Would you like to do so now? Especially since you mention the "Minoan"!

I would be keen to know about breaking of the Minoan code. Please refer to the concerned work.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Jun 2012 01:44

RajeshA wrote:I was interested in knowing about Indian way of calculating time so I asked Wiki chachi about it. I read up a little on Water Clocks in Ancient India. There were pointers made by N. Narahari Achar and Subhash Kak on the topic.

In the notes section, both N. Narahari Achar and Subhash Kak are annotated with [unreliable source?].

These are the kind of under the belt methods these AIT proponents use to discredit Indian scholars! It really is a trench war!

They want the RgV for their proof in AIT but will use it to mock anybody else who has actual explanation of the RgV. This is the marxist narrative.
Any Hindu/indigenous view point is dismissed and mocked.

Need to ask Manishji if he has marxist inclination.

tyroneshoes · Post by **tyroneshoes** » 13 Jun 2012 03:10

^^^ Internet provides some anonymity. I do my posting since its stress release from "real" work for me

There are ideas (theories) and there is defense of those theories - this is the ancient way of the Vaidikas.
Historic peer review would cause modern scholars to shudder! It was face to face, in your face all polite of course.

If it turns out that indeed everyone were immigrants to India then such a "we are all immigrants onlee" narrative can be easily built. The Indian civilization has produced enough value to stand on its own legs, irrespective of where its people came from. For example, if the out of Africa theory is correct, everyone came to India from Africa onlee and it makes no difference to current day Indians.

On the other hand, if it turns out Indians went OIT, then the onlee folks getting kujli are the Europeans, no?
So, if the Europeans have set up bogus theories that Indians are constantly defending against, then the devil is kept busy onlee
If the devil now makes accusatory bogus theories, whose father what goes onlee?

I think Shiv and Rajesh summed this up better, but my only point is move beyond defense...
Study Europe and Middle East to set up theories for those folks to defend.
Enough of this horse and bull!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jun 2012 03:36

The Greek word for horse doesnt fit in with so-called "regular" sound changes. The classical "h-" form does not exist in the so-called fossilized compounds used as personal names (such as "Alkippos" - His-horses-are-his-defense, not "Alkhippos"). However "i" exists right from the beginning and has no explanation really. It means we have only two routes left open.

One, as a loanword, but then it will mean - according to the requirements of the PIE lexicon, a language in which *é- transmuted into "i" by some so-called "regular" sound change, or second, a non-Indo-European language that could have borrowed the word and altered it in that way.

Using Greek as an exemplar of PIE succession and development is highly problematic.

Pages can be written about the complicated twists in horse-theology in PIE reconstruction. Anthony is sort of pushed here as a kind of bible on horse domestication. People can look up - that Anthony is most cautious, for example in context of the Anatolian and proto-Anatolian version about "horse". He acknowledges that parts of his own pointers are speculations - and no archeological proof exists so far.

Linguists more or less acknowledge that the reconstructed root is not analyzable. Also that a large quadruped equid - or a wide variety of closely related species of equids or equid like quadrupeds were given the "root word".

"Ass" cannot be ruled out. Hittite always represents supposed "horse" with a cuneiform symbol sequence that best transliterates as "donkey of the mountains". As far as I know, even Armenian derivation is actually used for ass/donkey. [The ass derivation itself can be looked into].

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 13 Jun 2012 05:40

Indra is not just important in Hinduism, he is important in all the other Indic Traditions.

Just a small indication from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra#In_B ... m_and_Bali

In Buddhism and Jainism, Indra is commonly called by his other name, Śakra or Sakka, ruler of the Trāyastriṃśa heaven. However, Śakra is sometimes given the title Indra, or, more commonly, Devānām Indra, "Lord of the Devas". The ceremonial name of Bangkok claims that the city was "given by Indra and built by Vishvakarman." The provincial seal of Surin Province, Thailand is an image of Indra atop Airavata.

In Jainism, Indra is also known as Saudharmendra, and always serves the Tirthankaras. Indra most commonly appears in stories related to Mahavira, in which Indra himself manages and celebrates the five auspicious events in that Tirthankara's life, such as Chavan kalyanak, Janma kalyanak, Diksha kalyanak, Kevalgyan kalyanak, and Nirvan kalyanak.

In China, Korea, and Japan, he is known by the characters 帝释天 (Chinese: 釋提桓因, pinyin: shì dī huán yīn, Korean: "Je-seok-cheon" or 桓因 Hwan-in, Japanese: "Tai-shaku-ten", kanji: 帝釈天). In Japan, Indra always appears opposite Brahma (梵天, Japanese: "Bonten") in Buddhist art. Brahma and Indra are revered together as protectors of the historical Buddha (释迦, Japanese: "Shaka", kanji: 釈迦), and are frequently shown giving Shaka his first bath. Although Indra is often depicted like a bodhisattva in the Far East, typically in Tang dynasty costume, his iconography also includes a martial aspect, wielding a thunderbolt from atop his elephant mount.

Some Buddhists regard the Daoist Jade Emperor as another interpretation of Indra.

In the Huayan school of Buddhism and elsewhere, the image of Indra's net is a metaphor for the emptiness of all things.

In Bali, the legend of Tirtha Empul Temple origin is related to Indra. The sacred spring was created by the Indra, whose soldiers were poisoned at one time by Mayadanawa. Indra pierced the earth to create a fountain of immortality to revive them.

Remember, Bali would have been Indianized much later than the Rg Veda. Therefore this statement of ManishH

Not forgotten - but transmuted into a helpless Nero-like personality.

has to explain why this helpless Nero-like personality got carried all over the world.

Also why people even today have names like ending with -inder, where do those come from? A helpless Nero-like personality?

Anyway, the underlying mental framework is evident here. "Nero-like" personality - there is no one in the tens of thousands of characters in Indian literature to compare to, only to a Roman emperor? When did Indra fiddle while Swarga burned, by the way?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 06:26

tyroneshoes wrote:
Diffusion of Ideas or People?

One of the central debates among scholars about the LBK is whether the people were migrant farmers from the Near East or local hunter-gatherers who adopted the new techniques. Agriculture, animal and plant domestication both, originated in the Near East and Anatolia.

Forget facts, which may be difficult to glean. Listen to the language.

You see, as long as culture is seen to be spreading east and south it is germane to talk about horse, power victory etc. When you start looking at movement in the opposite direction, that is north and west the questions start coming if it was conquest or peaceful spread.

With science and even the language in which we communicate being weighted/centered very heavily in the west - in the western Euroope/USA region all knowledge gets filtered via the lens through which people of Europe and the US see that history. Much of the history was written and expanded upon in the 1750 to 1950 period which was a period of great expansion and victory and a civilizational conviction of superiority of the west.

What proof do I have of this? None whatsoever. I spend my time picking up nuances that point to this and there are many. The actual fake history pretty much came to a dead end in the last few decades with the "rise of the east" but the hangover of the rubbish written for over a century will need rechecking, revalidation and cleaning up.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 08:07

I am no linguist, although I have a reasonable working knowledge (like most educated Indians) of 3 languages and a smattering of 2-3 more. When it comes to the ability to recognize "Indo-European" cognates - or words that sound like the same mother has produced them from different men - I judge my ability to be better than most people of European/American stock who grow up with only one language and later learn a second or third as part of scholarship. But that is my personal view, not proof.

But many of the controversies that we have seen on this topic will only get addressed by the philosophy that mountain will have to be taken to Mahomet, if Mahomet won't come to mountain. Unfortunately it appears that discussions on this topic in the last few years have come up against a brick wall of linguistic jargon that sets up a "first barrier" (outer fence) to any discussion. But the actual conclusions and new languages conjured up in linguistics serve a sort of mountain that any sceptics will have to climb. No doubt the presence of spreadsheets and computers has led to a revolution in the way linguistic research can proceed particularly with the use of constructs like "lexicostatistics".

To some extent linguistics has become a field like Saudi/Paki Mullahs in modern Islam. "What we say is right. You cannot question anything we say until you master our text. Our text is written in archaic Arabic that you will not be able to master. But we are past masters. So we are right"

An introduction to the jargon and techniques is on the page I linked earlier
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_ ... hange.html

Just for my own information I am willing to make mistakes on the forum while describing how modern linguistics seems to work. While I won't say it is all wrong, I believe it is in need of serious peer review because the chances of mistakes are high given the way in which conclusions are reached.

One method is to take a group of modern languages that are related (say "Germanic" or "Slavic") Common words from all those languages are tabulated and compared

For example:

Say you have 5 languages A1 to A5. Let me create a hypothetical nonsense word for father in these five languages

A1-"kata"
A2="chata"
A3="catu"
A4="shat"
A5="sat"

From these five roots linguists seem to go back to an existing older language - say A0 and look at the word that the older language had - Let is say the older language word for father was "ksat"

Then linguists say "Hey, "ks" has changed to "k", "sh" ..and so on.

Then they look to see if the same change (of "ks" to "k" - "sh" etc) occurs across the board for words with similar meaning over many other languages from A1 to A5. If that occurs you have a "rule" The rule is: the sound "ks" changes to k, sh, ch, c etc. This "rule" can then be used at a later date to "predict the past" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). the rules are used to create a proto-word that does not exist.

Clearly two things have added to this process.

The first is the creation of an "International Phonetic Alphabet" (IPA) that you too can learn if you want . The second thing is computers. Once you have documented all words in all related languages and coded them phonetically on an Excel like spreadsheet, the click of a mouse will give you patterns to interpret. From this you can build up a huge database of cognates, proto syllables, proto-sounds, general phonetic rules etc.

The problem is that there are many sources of errors in this process and unless those errors are detected, it is easy to build up a huge database of "proto words" from which enthusiastic people build up proto languages, proto sentences, and proto stories. And from this another enthu bunch search archaeology and history to see where the newly created proto language fits and apply the language there and say "This is the language these people probably spoke 5000 years ago in this area" Fake history gets created, waiting for some archaeological finding that fits.

The IPA itself is something I myself want to learn because I am certain that the IPA cannot match all sounds and pronunciations that exist and non native speakers learning the IPA may be making huge undocumented errors. For example how do you write "cot" or "balls" in Hindi or Kannada?. Even the word "the" as used in English cannot be written phonetically accurately.

So when you have a huge database of words in hundreds of languages all coded in a previously accepted standard phonetic format (which itself may not be totally accurate) and then computer databases are played with to produce long lists of cognates, possible cognates etc and proto words are made up - you need a robust and transparent error correction mechanism. In the case of aviation engineers, errors in complex data creation and prediction lead to crashes, so they have to be careful. In medicine, errors of data/knowledge creation or predction by such methods lead to deaths. So they too have to be careful. In both areas as in many others there is a robust culture of experimental validation and scepticism in the absence of such validation. In linguistics nothing serious happens if mistakes are made, only disagreement between those in the field so the need for transparent means of error checking does not seem to exist. If errors have crept into the process of proto word and proto language creation, they are neither admitted nor is there a transparent and well established process for working backwards to point out why there is no error or what assumptions were used in the past by someone else to create a word. This is much like saying Quran is always right.

And this is only one way in which new words are arrived at by analysis of the old. There is another method called "lexico statistics" linked on the Lingusitics 101 page (created by a man called Swadesh)

I will merely quote the pitfalls of lexicostatistics from that page rather than launching my own commentary

There are two distinct controversies about the use of lexicostatistical methods. One issue is whether the family trees produced for languages with fairly high cognate percentages (say 60% and higher) are a reliable indication of the detailed structure of "genetic" relationships among languages. Everyone accepts that two languages with 85% cognates are certainly related; the only question is whether they are (necessarily) "more closely related" in a historical sense than either is to a language whose cognate percentages with both are (say) 80%.
<snip>
The second controversy is what to make of relationships involving very low cognate percentages, say below 10%. Depending on the nature of the languages and the methods used to determine cognation, these percentages are getting into the range that could (it is argued) arise by chance, or by superficial or indirect recent contact.

Language prediction and the creation of proto languages have proved to be correct in a few instances. That means that the methods used are not totally wrong. But it is not proof that they are all right and always right. I can only use a medical example to illustrate. If you have a pain in the belly and you feel better after drinking milk that is great. If you take 100 people with a pain in the belly and give them milk and 10 of them get better, it is cause for some celebration. Milk is not totally wrong as treatment of a pain in the belly. But you have to worry about why it is not working in 90 others. Proof that language prediction is accurate in one or two instances does not make the entire body of assumptions and extrapolations correct. And much of it is only extrapolation based on earlier assumptions made by someone else working with multiple unfamiliar languages using a phonetic system that may not be infallible. Who is checking that? And where? What cross checking system exists?

The problem comes up only when the newly created information starts impinging on previously fake history or creates new, previously non existent history. Nobody dies or gets injured so assumptions and false constructs can remain undetected and unquestioned for long periods and might even be declared "truth" after a while. That is, after all exactly what happened with concepts like the Hamitic races and colour based racism, as well as the Aryan Dravidian story.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 13 Jun 2012 09:18

I would use language to indicate a relationship, but not as proof of anything. Proof can only be by hard evidence - archaelogical findings, inscriptions, and so on.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 09:41

A_Gupta wrote:I would use language to indicate a relationship, but not as proof of anything. Proof can only be by hard evidence - archaelogical findings, inscriptions, and so on.

No doubt, but when you create a new language and make a new relationship and claim that "The language I have created is the mother of 8 different daughter language-groups and grandmother of 400 different grand-daughter languages which are all related" you are making a jump back in time on totally hypothetical grounds. And then if you take that hypothetical language as existing fact and fit it into some archaeological finding - you are actually creating fake history.

It is very difficult prima facie to declare that as "fake history" because of the complex process in which that history is created. The brick wall that current day sceptics face is PIE. PIE has been built out of hundreds of nested assumptions.

Groups of languages like Germanic, Slavic or "Indo Iranian" have been used to create "proto-sounds". Proto words of an earlier proto language have been created out of these proto sounds and are published as scientific fact with the disclaimer that they are "hypothetical". Then the proto words of each of these sub-proto langauges derived from groups like Germanic, Slavic or Indo-Euroean have been further compared for "root sounds" and a Proto-language (PIE) has been made up of proto words based on previosly conjured up proto sounds and words .

"PIE" or Proto Indo European is a proto language composed of cognates detected by comparing previously guessed and made up "Proto words" from European and Asian language groups. Proto upon proto. Wheels within wheels. If any errors exist in the earlier level of proto guesswork, they are all carried over into the next level of PIE.

If you accept PIE as unfailingly accurate then it is perfectly acceptable to try and paste that onto any tangible archaeological findings. But when PIE itself is assumption built upon assumption, the pasting of PIE onto Archaeology would be absolute GIGO. Yet, I find that PIE is increasingly appearing as "accepted truth".

tyroneshoes · Post by **tyroneshoes** » 13 Jun 2012 10:42

Did anyone use 'Aryan' at work yesterday in the Western World?
It seems only Linguists can get away with using this racist term at work.

Yet now Indian name their kids "Aryan" not "Arye" or "Arya" but "Aryan"

Do you consider aryan a bad word?

Meaning of Aryan:

1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use.
2. A member of the people who spoke the parent language of the Indo-European languages. No longer in technical use.
3. A member of any people speaking an Indo-European language. No longer in technical use.
4. In Nazism and neo-Nazism, a non-Jewish Caucasian, especially one of Nordic type, supposed to be part of a master race.

Which means only 4. is in use - Nazi, a non-Jewish Caucasian, especially one of Nordic type, supposed to be part of a master race.

Even if the other three were in use - notice:
"A member of the people who spoke the parent language of the Indo-European languages."

A non-existent race (Aryan), that spoke a non-existent parent language of the Indo-European languages

The joke is on us all, and poking fun of these jokers is stress relief onlee

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2012 11:06

Brihaspati ji, I want to be able to take the archive of this thread to my children, when they grow up. Please do keep posting things that are going to be relevant for the future generations (even the bare pointers will be great).

ManishH ji, Indra and its derivations is a common suffix in most north Indian names viz. Devendra, Ravinder, Satender. If you happen to be a Hindu there are about 1 in 10 chances that you carry this suffix yourself

. I really do not know how much more importance can be given to Indra. Any more an Hindus will become a moronic bunch of cult followers.

I really dont know how you arrived at the conclusion that Indra has gone down in Hierarchy. Could it be that the story of Krishna and Indra gave you that thought. But if that is the case then I hope you know how Krishna himself died. Sir every God in Indian Pantheon has had his inglorious moments. Even the members of the great Trinity did.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2012 11:06

shiv - Posted: 12 Jun 2012 09:37 –

Is there any evidence at all that Sanskrit is NOT the language of the central Asian steppes where the revered horse was domesticated.

Rig Veda dates from 3500 BCE. Domesticated horse burials are found in Central Asia, 1000 km away from 3500 BCE.

Few horse bones have been found in India leading to the conclusion that the horse is not indigenous to India but a later import. But Sanskrit (of the Rig Veda) is full of adulatory and worshipful references to the horse. What makes Sanskrit indigenous to India but the horse an import. Maybe Sanskrit was imported with the horse.

ManishH - Posted: 12 Jun 2012 09:50 –

You have a pre-conceived notion that AIT says RgVeda was composed outside India. Whereas reality is that no one has claimed so. When the real position is spoken out, it sounds like a 'comedown'.

In Linguist speak, RV is in daughter language of PIE which was the language of people like Kurgans (hereinafter ‘Kurgans’) who while writing RV were basically highlighting their love for the Steppes that the Kurgans had left a long time back. Kind of like Kabuliwala singing ‘Aye mere pyare watan…’.

Now if we find Sanskrit based ideas in these Kurgan lands in later times, then it is no big deal because the Indics (hereinafter ‘ex-Kurgans’) were doing what they did best, implant ideas everywhere in much the same manner as Kurgans did before them.

Also the consensus view amongst peer reviewed experts is that ex-Kurgans : cow :: Kurgans : horse. Only difference being you can travel a lot in one lifetime atop one, not so sitting atop the other.

Now since the Kurgans could go around anywhere in one lifetime, bringing them to Indian shores. I guess the ex-Kurgans should have moved around quite a bit even while writing RV. Moved around, as in pilgrimage to the Steppes. All the while also perhaps indulging in, Horse Trading, as side business. In fact such travels could have been more than once in one lifetime. Considering, a man can travel a lot in one lifetime on horseback.

Now the problem, it is only human character that as things begin to differentiate humans do usually the following:
(1) cling onto their own new beliefs and try to convince the ‘other’, their own ex-kin; and/or
(2) begin to pull down the ‘other’, their ex-kin who followed a different path and this particular state is basically sanatan/timeless/forever.

A behavior beautifully attested to by the behavior of ManishH ji himself who looks like he is no step 1 right now

. Coincidently what we observe is that the ex-Kurgans maintained links with Iranians. The relationship follows the general template the T. A usable theory I say, something that is able to tie up the past but also provide predictability for future without putting the tongue to any funny business.

There should be no reason why ex-Kurgans and Kurgans would not behave in exactly the same manner.

Kurgans, I agree in ManishH ji speak, are under no obligation to maintain any links with ex-Kurgans as they don’t remember the ex-Kurgans. Heck they are the mother language speakers.

But hey what about ex-Kurgans. Kurgan people are not really the first thing on the minds of ex-kurgans. If we are lucky enough to be able to linguistically examine some kind of Black sea scrolls of RV (some kind of lost Mandalas), we perhaps may just get to see the ex-Kurgans mentioning the kites and kite furniture with much the same reverence as they mentioned the Horses. In any case the ex-Kurgans later on took to Garud worship. If not reverence then at least as a part of the remembrance of the zeitgeist of the long lost homelands.

Similarly we should be able to find ex-Kurgans revering horse milk, horse milk ghee, horse milk curd basically Horse Panchamrit. Kefir/Ayran possibly. This is possible, esp. since ex-Kurgans used cow milk etc. for their ritual purposes later on. I dare say Horse Sh_t should be holy too in much the same manner as Cow Gobar is. Adaptable samskaras instilled in Kurgans, kya?

I would say we should be able to find some name too in general for the Kurgan lands with the emotions of a long lost lover, a son snatched away from the mother, a poet who lost her/his muse. Probably the words in RV said to be inspired by bird songs are actually names of Kurgan lands as called out in PIE. I am sure linguists relying on the bio-mechanics of the mouth should be able to understand some bird song also, considering bio-mechanical laws of mouth should be applicable to bird mouths also.

This RV is a strange composition. RV poets did not tell us on Affidavit that they were not talking of Kurgan lands. So equally likely that they were talking of Kurgan lands.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Jun 2012 11:28

Indra is still relevant

INDRA (Indian Doppler Radar)

Rajendra (Another Radar)

Narendra (Modi) (Sandhi Vicched Nar + Indra = Narendra)

Indra (Nooyi)

Indrayani (Express)

Indraprastha (Stadium, Gas, many businesses are named with Indraprastha)

Indraprastha is also name of Delhi where indeed most of the elected Nero-es of India do their unholy businesses, play their fiddles when India is burning. You are just spot-on

Indrapuram

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 13 Jun 2012 11:37

brihaspati wrote:ManishJi,
between lectures - so just dashing off a few points - detailed reply will follow.

(1) This is not quibbling. You are carefully avoiding actually stating here that you have conclusive proof that the Vedic "Aswa" is the modern "horse".

B-ji: I'll listen with open mind any alternate interpretations you have. I personally assume that ancient meaning is the same as modern meaning unless otherwise shown. Otherwise I can start disbelieving anything - eg. is the RgVedic 'rohitam' really red as we know it today - sans spectral data in RgVeda.

(2) Are you yourself a "specialist" in Greek?

By no stretch; but I'd like to believe that specialists these days don't gang up - they have enough competition and incentive to disprove 'dogma'. So when I see some consensus among them on this matter, I'd trust it. Let everyone use their judgement.

We can have a nice exchange on this then. Why did the "i" get added to PIE root for horse - please?

Textbooks call this an anomaly saying a regular sound change applied on PIE *h₁ek̂wos would have resulted in eppos, not hippos. But I think this is still regular if I see effects of e-colouring laryngeal h₁ in a cluster where 'e' is already present; eg.

Like PIE *h₁es > Greek eínai (to be) and PIE *h₁eĝwe > Greek eípe (said)

PIE *h₁ek̂wos > intermediate form eik̂wos > Myc. i-qo-s > Classical Greek hippos

and the "h" later again?

The progression from Mycenaean iqqo > Classical Greek hippos is however, very regular. Word initial 'i' glide becomes 'hi' in Classical Greek.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 13 Jun 2012 11:42

ravi_g wrote: (1) cling onto their own new beliefs and try to convince the ‘other’, their own ex-kin; and/or
...
A behavior beautifully attested to by the behavior of ManishH ji himself who looks like he is no step 1 right now .

raviji:

There is no attempt convincing &c from my end. I've always treated this as knowledge sharing. If people derive different conclusions, I have no issues.

For me, sharing knowledge is more important than arriving at consensus.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Jun 2012 11:44

Manishji was referring to worshiping of Indra in the traditions of Hindu practice.
He is below the other devas.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Jun 2012 11:53

We may not be having temple of Indra anywhere in India but naming kids with suffix -indra or pure Indra is very common.

Indra - various references

Indra may refer to (among other things):

The chief deity, Indra, of the Rigveda and the Hindu religion; or
The company Indra Sistemas, a Spanish Information Technologies and Defense Systems company.
The song Indra by the group Thievery Corporation.
Indra (comics)
Indrajal (comics)
Indra (film), 2002 Telugu film starring Chiranjeevi.
Indra (singer), a female dance singer from France.
Indra extract is the trade name of an extract of Tabernanthe iboga rootbark, containing ibogaine and various other iboga alkaloids.
INDRA is a radar system developed by DRDO and in use with the Indian armed forces.
Intermeccanica Indra, a sports car developed 1971 by Intermeccanica, Bitter Cars and Opel.
Bruno Koschmider's Indra, first of several clubs in Hamburg where The Beatles played in 1960.
Indra Sahdan Daud, A Singaporean Footballer
Indra, a Psytrance producer
Indra, Estonia, a village in Vastseliina Parish, Võru County, Estonia
Indra, Latvia, a village in Indra parish, Krāslava municipality, Latvia

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2012 12:06

Acharya ji,

OT but still,

The Hindu ritualistic practice normally has the Brahmin (kulguru) in between. The Jajmaan may have his own ideas. Jajmaan may be more interested in avoiding the wrath of both the Aaradhya Devta and Brahman Devta, both being more powerful then him

.

To most practicing Hindus the idea of avtaars imbedded in the Pantheon of Devtas and Gods is the real 'in thing'. Otherwise Shitala Mata and Tanot Mata and countless Ishta Devtas become difficult to reconcile with. And Avtarit Godhood is to my mind not any less then the Un-Avtarit God. Need of the hour being the deciding factor for usages of any particular Godhood.

In such a situation if someone concludes that Indra is separate from the rest and had his importance attenuated is their own problem. For the layman Indra had a time and place so do other Avtaars.

Acharya ji, there is something of a competition between the status of 'God and Guru' but never have I heard of anything like Vishnu =/= Ram =/= Shyam. Now new Avtaars may not have gotten conveyed to different people in different places but then there is a time and place for everything as do the Avtaars.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Jun 2012 12:19

http://www.jnanam.net/indra/

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 330AAqi9p4

Check this out. Very hilarious. Check what Alexander found in India
Great imagination

Sangh Parivar denounces the British history, that Aryans came to India. But its natural to see that the Intelligentsia(Buddhi-jeevi) of the West were disturbed by the Turmoil there. Many philosophers were killed ...... so history found them in India. When Alexander came to India in 350BC, he saw people from his land of Greece and Athens staying here imbibing the Culture and philosophy of India.

Science will tell us that Indra requires the help of Water(Ganga), Wind(Varun) and Sun(Surya) to create himself. We only realise the importance of Rain for growth of plants. So the basic definition of GOD as 'Brahma-Saraswati, Vishnu-Laxmi and Shiv-Shakti suffices (i.e. Generator, Operator, Destroyer). We can meditate on different parts/symbols of GOD with proper rituals for a particular achievement.

Looking at self development more leading towards Moksha, Trinity became reality as also supported by developing-science of psychological Brain(Male-Female OR Right-Left for balanced success).

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 13 Jun 2012 13:13

ravi_g wrote: I really dont know how you arrived at the conclusion that Indra has gone down in Hierarchy.

Indra in purāṇa's often rushes for help - eg. rushed to viṣṇu to help at samudra-manthan; also he takes help of apsara's to disturb viśvamitra's tapa.

Contrast to ṛgveda 1.174 where he is the king of Gods...
"tvaṃ rājendra ye ca devā rakṣā nṝn pāhyasura tvamasmān"

You are the king of Gods, defend the humans, protect us O Asura

Then 1.32:
"indrasya nu vīryāṇi pra vocaṃ yāni cakāra prathamāni vajrī"

I proclaim the brave deeds of indra which he first performed with the vajra.
...
"indro yāto 'vasitasya rājā śamasya ca śṛṅgiṇo vajrabāhuḥ
edu rājā kṣayati carṣaṇīnāmarān na nemiḥ pari tā babhūva"

Indra, the vajra bearer, is the king of those who are moving and those at rest, those who are meek and those who are horned.
He is the king who governs over people, like a rim over spokes (of the wheel).

Indra is chief God in ṛgveda who is invoked at battle too. RV 1.130-8

"indraḥ samatsu yajamānamāryaṃ prāvad viśveṣu śatamūtirājiṣu svarmīḷheṣvājiṣu"

Indra comes to the help of the noble yajamāna with much aid in battle, the battle for the grace of light/sky.

Indra's virility also earned him a quite graphical epithet sahasramuṣka - one with a 1000 t*****les. The ṛgveda has hardly one hymn that slights Indra.

However, from aiteraya/jaiminīya-brāhmaṇa onwards, we see an description of Indra's faults begin. Eg. he killed viśvarūpa, son of tvaṣtṛ. And only in mārkaṇḍeya purāṇa, do we see a full enumeration of indra's 3 sins and fall from top of pantheon and become 'nistejāh' (lacking tejas)

1. Killing of viśvarūpa
2. Breaking agreement (samayān and sakhyam) with vṛtṛa and killing him by deceit
3. Dalliance with ahalyā, wife of ṛṣi gautama

The story goes that daitya's seeing the king of Gods lose his tejas, conquer the earth (pṛthvi) and later pṛthvi begs the Gods to send their tejas down to earth and it comes in the form of the pāṇḍavas.

Sir every God in Indian Pantheon has had his inglorious moments

That's exactly what I'm saying about 'natural' theology. It so happens that in ṛgveda, Indra has mostly glory and not so much in purāṇa.

A little segue from our 'aryan' debate, but worth noting the contrast and evolution in Hinduism.

PS: Has anyone come across temples where the main deity is Indra ?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jun 2012 13:33

A paper

Indian Institute of Science
Published Apr 18, 2005
Phylogeography and origin of Indian domestic cattle

The time-depth estimates around the two zebu clusters are in agreement with the history of cattle domestication (Z1 and Z2 yield 9978 and 12418 yrs respectively).

Our estimates
of time to the most recent common ancestor for two zebu clusters clearly indicate Neolithic transition. These are potentially the genetic signals of independent cattle domestication in India, in parallel to earlier suggested Near Eastern domestication for European and African cattle. In future, probing by Y-chromosome STR marker will shed more light on the unequal gene flow associated with such kind of single locus study.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 13 Jun 2012 13:42

Acharya wrote: Need to ask Manishji if he has marxist inclination.

Nope. are you

?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jun 2012 13:50

ManishH ji,

I wanted to get your opinion on a dilemma.

Usually one speaks of two places where cattle was domesticated - in Levant (bos taurus) and in India (bos indicus). As far as I know, Levant is not really associated with Indo-European Urheimat.

Remains of domesticated cattle were found in Mehrgarh from a time around 5000 BCE.

We also know that "Dyauṣ Pitā" is considered an Indo-European deity. He is spoken about as the "Sky Father" in Rigveda, divine consort of the Prithvi and father of Agni, Indra, and Ushas, the daughter representing dawn. He is also denoted as the Red Bull. Dyauṣ Pitā is reflected in Latin Jupiter; Diēspiter and Greek Zeus pater.

Similarly we have the story of Zeus abducting Europa, a Phoenician princess, where Zeus adopts the appearance of a bull.

Here we have an example of what is considered common Indo-European theology.

So shouldn't we be looking at places where the bull was first domesticated, as a potential Urheimat of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, considering that the primary God in this common theology is associated with a bull.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 13 Jun 2012 13:53

shiv wrote: Horse came. Copper tech picked up from Turkey. Winner people took their language all over along with horse.

Diffusion of copper smelting from turkey > balkans is much older (6th millenium BC) than horse domestication (3rd millenium BC)

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 13 Jun 2012 14:01

If Indo Aryans quickly demoted Indra after Rigveda, how come he remained the prime god for thousands of years after they left their home land? As for your natural religions evolving, there is enought time from steppe land to Rigveda for Indra to become a lesser god? Again how come the other cultures did not evolve other gods? Zeus was still the prime god for the greeks. So is Jupiter for the Romans.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jun 2012 14:07

1999
Mining of Copper in Ancient India

The earliest evidence of copper in the ancient times is a cylindrical bead from Mehrgarh that was most probably made of native copper. The date of this bead cannot be later than 6000 BC

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 14:15

ManishH wrote:
shiv wrote: Horse came. Copper tech picked up from Turkey. Winner people took their language all over along with horse.
Diffusion of copper smelting from turkey > balkans is much older (6th millenium BC) than horse domestication (3rd millenium BC)

I am sure you are right. I was only summarizing the history of the world in one sentence - condensed from the unnecessarily long 3 paragraphs on site I linked earlier.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2012 14:16

ManishH ji there may be a paucity of Indra Temples suggest you a simple test. Anytime someone brings you prasaad from the temple of Shitala Mata, Tanot Mata or Golu Devta just try to tell the devotees that these are lesser gods to Vishnu. Lets see the fun begin then. All these are known in only the very limited geographic areas. But I am yet to see any Hindu who says he will not pay his respects to these two because they were given a lower hierarchy. Indra is actually much better known then these Devtas.

In any case how do you even begin to make a hierarchy of countless Devi Devtas. Of course they can take up whatever work best suits them according to their own Swabhaav but Hierarchy. Naaa. And then you want to establish importance using number of times somebody is mentioned. That is an even stranger logic. I am afraid you are applying a linear logic where it does not apply. At this rate you would conclusively prove that it is impossible to slap anybody at all.

As for inglorious moments, I have already pointed out and you have not objected to it being a common feature across the whole pantheon. You in fact came out in support of it. After all Bhagwaan bhi to Insaan hi hai.

. Can we now agree that is hamaam mein saare Bhagwaan nange hein and there is no way one is superior than the other.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 14:36

ManishH wrote:
PS: Has anyone come across temples where the main deity is Indra ?

The nakula Sahadeva ratha in Mahabalipuram is stated to be an Indra temple in this link
http://indiatemple.blogspot.in/2005/02/ ... indra.html

Googal unkal has refs to an Indra temple in Puri.

Googal also claims Indra worship in the Thiruukkalukunram temple near Mahabalipuram

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Jun 2012 14:46

In this thread, a very important animal is forgotten - Elephant

Comparatively it is very easy to domesticate a wild horse than an elephant. Elephants were domesticated in India. RgVed has many mentions of elephant.

Srisuktam mentions all the three - Aswa, Ratha and Hasti in one sentence

asva purvaam rath madhyaam hasti naad pra-bodhinim ||3||

also aswa and gou

Asva-daaye gow-daaye dhan-daaye mahaa-dhane

****

In 350 bc, alexander the gay tried to invade india, his soldiers' asses were whipped by elephants and elephant mounted soldiers. I find it difficult to believe that indians had much respect for horses because of their power or speed. Oiropeans came on horses and whipped by elephants so hard that they forgot the route to India for almost two millennium

The memories of being whipped by elephant was so painful. Remember chandrgupta gifted 500 elephants to the loser Seleucus. the later day european emperors were so afraid of elephants, that roman emperors will insert a clause in every treaty with enemies not to use elephants against roman army. Tom Holland mentions this fact in his book Rubicon. A must read for everyone who wants to understand oiropeans as they are.

One example from wiki

The Treaty of Apamea of 188 BC, was peace treaty between the Roman Republic and Antiochus III (the Great), ruler of the Seleucid Empire. It took place after the Romans' victories in the battle of Thermopylae (in 191 BC), in the Battle of Magnesia (in 190), and after Roman and Rhodian naval victories over the Seleucid navy.

In this treaty, according to Appian, Antiochus III must abandon Europe altogether and all of Asia west of the Taurus, he had to surrender all the elephants he had, and he should have only twelve war-ships for the purpose of keeping his subjects under control, but he might have more if he were attacked. He should not recruit mercenaries from Roman territory nor entertain fugitives from the same. Antiochus had to give twenty hostages, whom the consul would select, the hostages should be changed every third year, except the son of Antiochus. For the future, he keeps no elephants and pay for the cost of the present war, incurred on his account...

The europeans had dreaded elephants more than indians respected horses, it seems perfect.

***

If gold, hiranya, suvarna was used in vedic times (as there are thousand references) copper must have been used with gold to make it little hard.

Adrija · Post by **Adrija** » 13 Jun 2012 15:00

Sorry, I must ask this question from ManishH ji, after having read the entire 26 pages:

Given that - as per your own post- the RgVed was composed in India, what exactly is YOUR position on the whole AIT/ OIT?

Would it be possible to state this in a single post please?

I am deliberately not posting my hypothesis of your view

No offense meant, just genuine curiousity

Thanks

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Jun 2012 15:13

murugan
yes and no, terrain plays an important part in the deployment of chariots, horses and elephants in battle. chariots need flat, firm ground. horses need relatively open spaces for formations to manouvre and concentrate shock forces. elephants can be more effective when uneven or broken ground prevents rapid movement of horse formations. there is no simple answer - however, it is true that the use of elephants by indian and then persian armies against the europeans was much feared. however, elephants can be defeated and are relatively high maintenance