Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jun 2012 23:53

By David Frawley (Pandit Vamadeva)
Vedic Origins of the Europeans: the Children of Danu: American Institute of Vedic Studies

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 19 Jun 2012 01:12

ManishH wrote: BTW, Dr. Hock was the chair of session on Vedic Literature at World Sanskrit Conference earlier this year in New Delhi.

ManishH ji, are you Prof. Hock? You don't have to answer, of course.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 19 Jun 2012 01:37

For reference, not as an endorsement, here is a condensation of the reasoning that goes into the linguists' dating of the Rg Veda:

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:32:57 +0100
Reply-To: Indology <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Indology <[log in to unmask]>
From: Michael Witzel <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Age of the Veda ...
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Here we go again... There must be multiple records of this sort of discussion in the Indology archives. But since J. Silk says, "Although he will no doubt jump in himself to clarify this, Michael Witzel..."

I suppose I have to: About the only thing we can say about the date of the RV , based on the RV itself, is that

* it is a pre-iron age (copper/bronze) age text of the Greater Panjab (incl. parts of Afghanistan). This sets a date ante quem of c. 1200, the earliest iron in India. (iron is, not surprisingly, found in an old section of the linguistically slightly later text, the Atharvaveda, both SS and PS)

* a date ad quem is the linguistically and mythologically closely related Mitanni Indo-Aryan in Syria/Iraq of c. 1380 BCE with the names of the major gods: Mitra, VaruNa, Indra and Naasatya (Azvin) and slightly *earlier*, pre-RV forms such as -azd(h)- for Vedic -ed(h)-, e.g. Mitanni: Priyamazda :: Ved. Priyamedha. <The development *az > e is found in the oldest sections of RV , and not just in expected locations (*sazd > sed-) but already in analogical forms (yem-). Note the slight difference in dialect/linguistic development between Mitanni and Panjab Old Indo-Aryan.>

* a date post quem is more difficult. Nowadays we usually invoke the absence of Indus civ. cities in the RV and thus put it after c. 1900 BCE, the date of the demise of the Indus civ.

As Dr Ganesan said, horses are indeed not found in South Asia before 1700 BCE, all other reported finds are fom UNSTRATIFIED or BADLY recorded excavations: such bones belong to the native half-ass (khor, hemiod, onager) which is very similar to a horse (see R.Meadow's various papers). (NB: all other claims, such as 'astronomical data', do not apply. -- Long story) Chariots of Indo_Aryan type first occur around 2000 BCE west and east of the Ural mountains. This points to a group of people using the horse drawn chariot, using an Indo-Iranian (and Indo-European)-derived language and IE/IIr-derived complicated poetry all of which were introduced into the Greater Panjab after the demise of the Indus civ., which has neither chariots nor horses nor IE type language, religion, rituals etc.

<NB: The speakers of IA do NOT need to be *genetically identical* with those in the Ural areas! "Aryan bones" are not required: language,poetry, religion & ritual are; cf. Ehret & Mallory on such questions>

A possible date post quem thus is 1900 BCE, probably closer to 1700 BCE (horses in the Kachi Plain of the Baluchi/Sindh border).

* In addition, the trail of the speakers of Indo-Iranian increasingly becomes clearer: there is a strong Central Asian substrate (of Bactria-Margiana), both in the RV and in the Avesta/Old Persian (Witzel in EJVS 1999, Lubotsky, forthc.)

This substrate most likely comes from the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC, (alibrated radiocarbon dates 1950-1700 BCE) and nearby areas. -- Which again points to c. 1700 (and later) for the Indo-Aryans of the RV.

-----------------------

This is about as much as we can say today. Max Mueller has nothing to do with the sketch given above (he simply guessed well -- for his time!), nor inertia.

On the contrary, with new evidence, the picture is fine-tuned year by year. Sorry for all Mueller- and Orientalist Indologist-bashers.

<NB: The 3 levels of texts inside the RV, and the much later *final* redaction of the RV by Sakalya are altogether different questions. The redaction has done nothing but changing a few, well-known sounds and even less syllables in the established text. -- And, the relatively few hymns that were added after the first collection of the RV materials in the RV Samhita (c. 1200 BCE, under the Kuru) also have been well known for 100 years (since Oldenberg 1888!) and do not change the scenario sketched above. >

At 4:52 -0800 11/30/99, N. Ganesan wrote: >I understand that the RV's time range ....

>Perhaps many Sanskrit texts are liberally assigned older dates. Of course. -- Ditto, for some Tamil texts.
>I would like to know whether important inscriptions
>in Sanskrit exist prior to Rudradaman in 2nd cent. AD?

(Iravatham >Mahadevan said, "No"). Hardly, but there are some in Mathura which are a hundred or so years earlier. See now S. Rhie Quintanilla, Harvard PhD 1999 (on Mathura sculptures, with inscr. included) . Plus the language of Patanjali's MahAbhASya, usually assigned to 150 BCE., probably from the same area. MW.

========================================================================== Michael Witzel Elect. Journ. of Vedic Studies Harvard University www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs --------------------------------------------------------------------------- my direct line (also for messages) : 617- 496 2990 home page: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 19 Jun 2012 01:47

A lot is made of the Rig Veda not mentioning the tiger. But please note in the map on this page, even as late as 1900 AD, the tiger's range extended into the areas where supposedly the Indo-Aryans originated.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/mammals/tiger.htm

Considering the tiger's adaptability - as Encyclopedia Britannica puts it:

The tiger has adapted to a great variety of environments, from the Siberian taiga, where nights can be as cold as −40 °C (−40 °F), to the mangrove swamps of the Sundarbans, where the temperatures reach more than 40 °C (104 °F). Tigers haunt the ruins of buildings such as courts and temples and are at home in habitats ranging from dry grassland to rainforest. Grasslands, mixed grassland-forests, and deciduous rather than densely canopied forests support maximum population densities, as these habitats maintain the highest number of prey species.

, it is very likely that the tiger's range was much large in 2000BC than it was in 1900 AD. Which will require the Rig Veda to have been composed in outer space.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2012 01:58

A_Gupta wrote:A lot is made of the Rig Veda not mentioning the tiger. But please note in the map on this page, even as late as 1900 AD, the tiger's range extended into the areas where supposedly the Indo-Aryans originated. it is very likely that the tiger's range was much large in 2000BC than it was in 1900 AD. Which will require the Rig Veda to have been composed in outer space.

These kind of analysis of presence and absence of animals was OK for 19th century scholarship but not for the current world. If these are used even now in the 21 century then there has been not much progress and this whole theories are just to hood wink the public.
The indologists are just defending their theories and are not coming up with any new way of analysis other than the simplistic ones of the previous centuries.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 19 Jun 2012 02:23

Koenraad Elst has this quote:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/kochhar.html

We should also take into account, against both the rice and the food surplus argument, the weakness of all argumenta e silentio. As Kochhar himself (p.11) quotes from Macdonell: "A good illustration of the dangers of the argumentum e silentio is furnished by the fact that salt, the most necessary of minerals, is never once mentioned in the Rgveda. And yet the Northern Punjab is the very part of India where it most abounds."

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 19 Jun 2012 02:35

From wikipedia regarding argumentum e silentio - which seems to be the favorite method employed by the AIT/AMT camp in case of horse and OIT camp in case of non-mention of PIE people's travels from the c. Asian steppes

Some scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[6] Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[5] Yifa has pointed out the perils of arguments from silence, in that although no references appear to the "Rules of purity" codes of monastic conduct of 1103 in the Transmission of the Lamp, or any of the Pure Land documents, a copy of the code in which the author identifies himself exists.[1]

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 19 Jun 2012 02:36

Please note again the basis of this conclusions:

* a date ad quem is the linguistically and mythologically closely related Mitanni Indo-Aryan in Syria/Iraq of c. 1380 BCE

Quote another nut case to support one's thesis based on the assumption of PIE:

As Dr Ganesan {is this guy a Dravidian-Aryan divide supporter? }said, horses are indeed not found in South Asia before 1700 BCE, all other reported finds are fom UNSTRATIFIED or BADLY recorded excavations: such bones belong to the native half-ass (khor, hemiod, onager) which is very similar to a horse

Like Bji asked, how do these guys know which species of horse is referred to in the Rg Veda? what if it is indeed an ass? what if the Asva is a reference to something else?
Fine, lets say there are no horses. But there is domestication of Cows (7000 BCE), water buffaloes (8500 BCE), why do these buffoons need horses? see how much they are stuck with horses, they need horses because PIE is linked with horse domestication, PIE's assumption, non-existence is fine, but not astronomical data :

(NB: all other claims, such as 'astronomical data', do not apply. -- Long story)

Remove what is inconvenient, genetics? oh you must be crazy:

<NB: The speakers of IA do NOT need to be *genetically identical* with those in the Ural areas! "Aryan bones" are not required: language,poetry, religion & ritual are; cf. Ehret & Mallory on such questions

And this guy is from Harvard

, awesome.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2012 02:51

A_Gupta wrote:Koenraad Elst has this quote:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/kochhar.html
We should also take into account, against both the rice and the food surplus argument, the weakness of all argumenta e silentio. As Kochhar himself (p.11) quotes from Macdonell: "A good illustration of the dangers of the argumentum e silentio is furnished by the fact that salt, the most necessary of minerals, is never once mentioned in the Rgveda. And yet the Northern Punjab is the very part of India where it most abounds."

On the contrary its mentioned ~35 times in Old Testament and 6 times in New Testment and also in some hadiths!

So looking for salt in religious documents is their way of comparing their salty tales!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jun 2012 02:57

can't we take up religious practices that is prevalent & traceable and deduce from there?

goat sacrifice?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 19 Jun 2012 03:15

How do we evaluate statements like:

(The Origin of the Indo-Iranians
By Elena E. Kuz'mina, Elena Efimovna Kuzʹmina, J. P. Mallory)

Actually, from the Vedic texts we know that in everyday life the Indo-Aryans used ceramics thrown on a potter's wheel by the sudra, the indigenous craftsmen. (Later the similar situation is recorded in Iran under the Achaemenids: the Persians themselves did not practice such crafts). According to the Satapatha Brahmana (6.5.1.1-6; 14.1.2) it was only for cult purposes that an Aryan with his wife made with their own hands a ritual vessel, ukha, following the precepts of their ancestors.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2012 03:26

Extra ordinary conclusions and references to the Rg V is done liberally to support their theories and their perception about how the life was in that period.

Not only that they have imbibed it as their own during period of antiquity

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2012 03:55

Tamil Language words and sanskrit words came from Lord Shiva's udukkai and trishul when Lord Shiva was doing the arudra dance. Tamil words fell in southern part of Vindhyas (south of Vindhya parvat) and sanskrit words fell in north of Vindhyas. And that is how languages started in India, but the words and letters were few and did not evolve. From then on Hindu kings took task of building languages, chola,chera,pandiya made Tamil, krishnadevaraya made telugu, purandaradasa made kannada, parasuram saint made malayalam., tukkaram made marati, chaitanya made bengali, kabir/rahim made hindi/urdu/kashmiri,sindhi, sikhs made punjabi, gajendra made odisha.

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 19 Jun 2012 06:33

@Acharyaji,
I do not know what is the source of the above statement, but Dnyaneshwari was written in 13th century (by Sant Dnyaneshwar). It is Bhagvat written in prakrut (Marathi).

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2012 08:28

This is one of our passionate friend who wrote this which is understood to be folklore. This friend is a true bharatiya.
He was also upset with the word foolish tamils since for no fault of theirs their language is being hijacked by the missionaries. California Tamil Academy is supported by Baptists and anglicans.

I take objection to the word foolish tamils.Who ever used it should offer an unconditional apology to 6.5 crore (aararai kodi) Tamilan.

Sorry for sending everybody in the list.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 19 Jun 2012 08:51

^IBTL

forgot the

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jun 2012 09:15

Folks I cannot believe that of all people, I have found an odd discrepancy in the proof" offered for the into India theory. But heck, when I look at the number of objections, one more is no big deal.

Manishji has quoted a book by one Shri Anthony called "horse, wheel and language". It appears that this is a widely quoted reference that links Rig Veda with Central Asian horse and chariot burials. The reason stated is that the chariots, horses and horse sacrifices that are suggested by the burial sites are just like the Rig Veda says.

But there are no Rig Vedic burial sites. All refs point to the fact that human remains could be buried or cremated at the time of the Rig Veda. With fire being so important, the practice of cremation was probably widespread. But the only "proof" of cremation comes from Harappa which has graves with the bones of cremated people buried in urns (so called "late Harappan" 1700 to 1300 BC). However there is no known connection between Rig Veda and Harappa. If there is a connection there are very few horses in Harappa. But there are over 1500 urban settlements in Harappa/Indus valley. None are mentioned in the Rig Veda.

If you look at the history of cremation, check this out from Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation#History

Early Persians practiced cremation, but this became prohibited during the Zoroastrian Period. Phoenicians practiced both cremation and burial. From the Cycladic civilisation in 3000 BC until the Sub-Mycenaean era in 1200–1100 B.C., Greeks practiced inhumation. Cremation appearing around the 12th century B.C. constitutes a new practice of burial and is probably an influence from Minor Asia. Until the Christian era, when the inhumation becomes again the only burial practice, both combustion and inhumation had been practiced depending on the era, and area.[60] Romans practiced both, with cremation generally associated with military honors.

In Europe, there are traces of cremation dating to the Early Bronze Age (c. 2000 B.C.) in the Pannonian Plain and along the middle Danube. The custom becomes dominant throughout Bronze Age Europe with the Urnfield culture (from ca. 1300 B.C.). In the Iron Age, inhumation becomes again more common, but cremation persisted in the Villanovan culture and elsewhere. Homer's account of Patroclus' burial describes cremation with subsequent burial in a tumulus similar to Urnfield burials, qualifying as the earliest description of cremation rites.

Hinduism and Jainism are notable for not only allowing but prescribing cremation. Cremation in India is first attested in the Cemetery H culture (from ca. 1900 B.C.), considered the formative stage of Vedic civilization. The Rigveda contains a reference to the emerging practice, in RV 10.15.14, where the forefathers "both cremated (agnidagdhá-) and uncremated (ánagnidagdha-)" are invoked.

Cremation remained common, but not universal, in both Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. According to Cicero, in Rome, inhumation was considered the more archaic rite, while the most honoured citizens were most typically cremated—especially upper classes and members of imperial families.

Cremation and not burial was the standard practice in Greece, Rome, Persia and Vedic India. Burial of cremated bones has been found in Harappa and that has been linked with the "Vedic period" and Central Asian urn, horse and chariot burial.

There may be nothing to suggest out of India here, but into India itself is fake because it is not possible to link he Rig Veda with the graves of Central Asia and Harappa except by cooking up.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jun 2012 09:19

Acharya wrote:
Tamil Language words and sanskrit words came from Lord Shiva's udukkai and trishul when Lord Shiva was doing the arudra dance. Tamil words fell in southern part of Vindhyas (south of Vindhya parvat) and sanskrit words fell in north of Vindhyas. And that is how languages started in India, but the words and letters were few and did not evolve. From then on Hindu kings took task of building languages, chola,chera,pandiya made Tamil, krishnadevaraya made telugu, purandaradasa made kannada, parasuram saint made malayalam., tukkaram made marati, chaitanya made bengali, kabir/rahim made hindi/urdu/kashmiri,sindhi, sikhs made punjabi, gajendra made odisha.

Acharyji I have known you from BRF for over a decade. Why do you still post totally obscure passages like this with no link, no context, no nothing? No one who reads your last few posts can figure out what you are trying to say or who you are quoting or what all this has to do with the thread.
no wonder one person has posted an IBTL.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 19 Jun 2012 09:50

Acharyaji
Is it something you heard from Prof Hock? Otherwise it does not make any sense.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 19 Jun 2012 10:14

2nd World Veda Conference 4-7 November

rganised by Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Vedvidya Pratishthan
(Under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India)
Pradhikaran Bhawan, Bharatpuri, Ujjain 456 010 (M.P.-India)

e-mail : [email protected],
web : msrvvp.nic.in

I hope all the sessions are chaired by Bharatiya people.

The research papers should be of original nature with latest facts in a standard form References should be checked before sending. Research papers should be in a printed form, correct and predicable in special format. In the research papers no appreciation or contempt of any person or organization should be given. Language of research papers should be either Sanskrit, Hindi or English. Time will be decided by the Pratishthan for the presentation of research papers. The rights will be reserved with the Pratishthan for acceptance or non-acceptance of research papers. Quoted Vedmantras should be marked with Swara-chinha (diacritical marks of Anudatta and Swarita, etc.).

Registration Fee : 2000/ For Scholars, 500/ for Bonafied Research Students (Boarding and lodging will be provided by the pratishthan) Please send demand : Secretary, draft in favour of Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Veda Vidya Pratishthan Payable at UJJAIN (MP) Last Date for Abstract : 31 May 2012

http://sanskritbhavan.blogspot.in/2012/ ... -2012.html

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 19 Jun 2012 10:25

ravi_g wrote: Manishji, I agree your rationale but find it hard to see how the translation will be any different if I choose to substitute:
1. ‘eastward’ with ‘earlier’
2. ‘westward’ with ‘later’

It's a very hard verse to translate so needs some background ...

From another verse, we know that apācī-apara was considered a state of un-Godliness or backwardness from which by worship (ījate), a people (janaḥ) could reach (tirate) the state of pra-pūrva which is Godliness (devayut).

RV_05.048.02.1 tā atnata vayunaṃ vīravakṣaṇaṃ samānyā vṛtayā viśvam ā rajaḥ
RV_05.048.02.2 apo apācīr aparā apejate pra pūrvābhis tirate devayur janaḥ
apo iti | apācīḥ | aparāḥ | apa | ījate | pra | pūrvābhiḥ | tirate | deva-yuḥ | janaḥ

So, I'd read the verse below from the same association of apara with backwardness and pūrva with Godliness ...
RV_07.006.03.2{09} pra-pra tān dasyūnragnirvivāya pūrvaścakārāparānayajyūn
pra-pra | tān | dasyūn | agniḥ | vivāya | pūrvaḥ | cakāra | aparān | ayajyūn

Noteworthy is that it's semantically unclear if pūrvaḥ is nominative (kartā) or shows directionality (pūrvañc would be expected). But it's clear that aparān-ayajyūn is accusative (karma). Adjectives are declined the same way as the word they apply to.

One hint is the very next mantra which uses the same wordplay using apācī/prācī
which again are overloaded as west/east and backward/forward and latter/earlier ...

RV_07.006.04.1{09} yo apācīne tamasi madantīḥ prācīścakāra nṛtamaḥ śacībhiḥ
yaḥ | apācīne | tamasi | madantīḥ | prācīḥ | cakāra | nṛ-tamaḥ | śacībhiḥ

Based on above, I'd translate it as ...
7.6.3 The foolish, faithless, rudely-speaking niggards, without belief or sacrifice or worship,
Those dasyu-s did Agni blow upon; he made them Godly, the un-Godly non-worshippers.

Agni basically turned the godless in a direction that is to fall ‘later’ in the direction of Sun’s apparent movement and himself turned in the direction which fell ‘earlier’ in the direction of the Sun’s apparent movement.

Even if we take semantics of pūrva as east and apara as west; the syntax doesn't stand for this translation. The 'pūrvaḥ cakāra ... aparān ayajyun' would still mean eastward he made the western non-worshippers.

Also I hope apart from the overloads you have highlighted you would also agree with the following overload:

apara : darkness

I agree.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jun 2012 10:26

For those of you who are interested - here is an 80mb pdf of Anthony's "Horse, Wheel and language". I have some questions about phonetic assumptions which I will post in due course.

http://dc392.4shared.com/download/q3rB9 ... 4-e810166e

I am unconvinced about the reasons that linguists attribute to some sound changes. I suspect that European language sounds and proclivities have been assumed to affect all of mankind. But I will be back in due course. The power has just failed and I will take a break as the power I was to get is supplied to Pakistan Ordnance factories to kill an Indian tomorrow. Jai Hind.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 19 Jun 2012 10:35

WAVES World Association of Vedic Studies

http://wavesinternational.net/D_Pages/Home.aspx

Next conference is in Dartmouth US in July July 13-15, University of Massachusetts

Hocks and Witzels will be there. can these guys pronounce sanskrit words properly?
Do they know what is Tarpan, Shraddha and Sanskars?
Tap, Saadhna, Kshama, Ahimsa etc?

If they dont, arrogant people like witzels should not be allowed to speak anything on veds.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 19 Jun 2012 10:44

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html

Finally, it must be kept in mind that the contributors to the Aryan invasion debate in this volume have generally sought to prove the AIT. If they have not succeeded, it only means that the AIT has not been proven, not that it has been disproven. Perhaps the proof is waiting to be discovered, and the first failed attempt to find it has merely postponed the discovery till such time when the invasionists really mobilize their scholarly and scientific skills. For non-in-vasionists, it would be wrong to sit back and enjoy the other party's failure, for their own theory is still in need of proof positive. Rather, the time has come to shift the focus from countering the argumentative basis of the AIT to building a corpus of positive evidence for the alternative out-of-India paradigm.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 19 Jun 2012 11:32

shiv wrote: Because Sanskrit has few clues in Harappa, they look for clues in central Asia. We accept that the Rig Veda dates from 1500 BC or so. Why? Why is it not older than that? The Harappan civilization "interferes" . That has been dated as 3000 BC. The assumption here is that Rig Veda is younger than that. One person (maybe Frawley or Elst, can't recall) has proposed that Rig Veda is older than Harappa. The argument used by Hock against this is "No Horse remains have ben found in Harappa so Rig Veda comes after Harappa"

ṛgveda before Harrappan civilization is even more unlikely as there is no evidence for chariotry and horse around Sindhu before 3000 BC. Even evidence of bronze age starts appearing only around 3000 BC in India.

One would expect some later Indian treatise or text to remember or recollect something about such a vast civilization. The purāṇa-s have lineage lists going back to many ancestors and none of them mention the Harappan civilization - it's cities or a person name. So putting ṛgveda before Harappan civilization is not enough, one has to put almost all of the brāhmaṇa/upaniṣad and purāṇa texts back too.

All of this shows contradictions with archaeological evidence of bronze age, horse domesticating society.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2012 11:38

ManishH wrote: The purāṇa-s have lineage lists going back to many ancestors and none of them mention the Harappan civilization - it's cities or a person name. So putting ṛgveda before Harappan civilization is not enough, one has to put almost all of the brāhmaṇa/upaniṣad and purāṇa texts back too.

All of this shows contradictions with archaeological evidence of bronze age, horse domesticating society.

Harappan civilization was named as such only in the 20th century

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 19 Jun 2012 11:40

shiv wrote: There may be nothing to suggest out of India here, but into India itself is fake because it is not possible to link he Rig Veda with the graves of Central Asia and Harappa except by cooking up.

Eurasian steppes have evidence of cremation and earlier than Cemetery H ..

From Anthony's book ...

Code: Select all

Sofievka cemetery, Borispol district, Kiev region
Ki-5012    grave 1, cremated bone            3080-2870 BCE
Ki-5029    charcoal                          3020-2870 BCE
Ki-5013    square M11, cremated bone         3020-2690 BCE

Also later in the Andronovo horizon (starting 2100 BC)

Alakul and Federovo are described as separate cultures within the Andronovo horizon,
...

Kurgans containing Federovo pots often had larger, more complex stone constructions around the grave and the dead were cremated, whereas kurgans with Alakul pots were simpler and the dead usually were buried in the flesh.

Kuzmina's book says about geographical distribution of mortuary ritual in the Fedorovo culture ...

The burial rite comprises cremation (where the burning was not carried out in
situ) and inhumation. Cremation dominates in the Urals; in central and northern
Kazakhstan the cemeteries are bi-ritual; in eastern Kazakhstan and south Siberia
inhumation prevails; children are mainly inhumed.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 19 Jun 2012 11:44

Acharya wrote: Harappan civilization was named as such only in the 20th century

Let it be a different name - I'm looking to see if any later Indian text describes or names something akin to the the cities archaeologically attested on the Sindhu river.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2012 11:51

ManishH wrote:
Acharya wrote: Harappan civilization was named as such only in the 20th century
Let it be a different name - I'm looking to see if any later Indian text describes or names something akin to the the cities archaeologically attested on the Sindhu river.

Why should the text describe archaeologically cities on the Sindhu river. Why should they. Who sets the rules.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 19 Jun 2012 12:09

shiv wrote: Krishamurthi has devoted several pages to what Sanskrit got from Dravidian languages. he calls that a Dravidian "subsrratum" which Hock, mentioned above, has opposed.

This is what Krishnamurti has to say about Hock.
Hock (1975, 1982, 1996) has persistently questioned the theory of a Dravidian sub-
stratum in Indo-Aryan from pre-historic times. This is questioning over one-and-a-half
centuries of scholarship in comparative studies. While Kuiper has provided evidence for
the integration of some accomplished Dravidians into the Aryan fold (see section 1.7.1),
Hock (1996: 57–8) uses this evidence to suggest that Rgvedic Aryans and non-Aryans
̊met as ‘near-equals’. There is no such implication from the way that non-Aryans were
described as ‘dark-skinned’, ‘indistinct speakers’ and ‘godless’. In conformity with his
line of thinking, Hock calls the substratum theory a ‘subversion’ and supporters of it
‘subversionists’. His approach ignores both the history and geography of Aryan and
Dravidian contact, and the fact that the evolution of Middle and Modern Indo-Aryan
has been a slow and unconscious process and is not the consequence of the Dravidian
natives deliberately ‘subverting’ the structure and system of Indo-Aryan. The scenario
with three Dravidian languages scattered at distant points on the northern periphery,
with several islands in central India, and with thick concentration in the south indicates
that most of the early native Dravidian speakers in the north and centre had merged with
local speech communities within Indo-Aryan. Constraints of space prevent me from
countering his arguments, which sound clearly strained and biased.
Clearly no one agrees with anyone else here

No one, including Hock denies that Sanskrit has borrowed quite a bit from Dravidian languages. But Krishnamurthy wants to date the borrowings to a pre-historic age; which is not right. If we look at the older (vedic) and peel older layers out of ṛgveda, it's clear that vocabulary borrowings are found more in later maṇḍalas. Eg. there was earlier discussion on this thread on Sanskrit word for mouth - mukha (which is a newer word and more prevalent now); but in ṛgveda, mukha is much rarer than 'ās'.

Another thing is that Krishnamurthy is clearly using very old translations - "dark skin" etc. are wrong translations to what are at best ambiguous references in ṛgveda. Many compounds were not recognized as bahuvrihi formations by 19th century translators - A more appropriate translation would be "covered by darkness" (kṛṣṇa tvaca). The darkness in the form of no knowledge of vedic ritual or vedic Gods.

Yes, there is berating of Godless and indistinct speakers - but both attributes are learned human behaviour - so the berating is not on the basis of what a person's skin colour, physical built etc is. There is nothing here to say that ṛgvedic ethnicity did not welcome outsiders into their belief system. On the contrary, this post shows a verse that prescribes worship as a way to get out of darkness. This is just one amongst many-many others.

But one thing that the Aryan Invasion Theory did was to concentrate everyone on the "Indo-European" connection while ignoring the connections the other way where "Out of India" went off to the east. In fact, as Krishnamurti laments a lot more work is needed on the "Dravidian" languages.

Both connections exist - but one has to look at time as a factor too. The earlier layers show very few connections between Vedic and Dravidian. The later layers starting Epic and Classical Sanskrit show many more and of deeper nature.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jun 2012 13:07

Much of the confusion occurs because we mix up many narratives. Often we take some parts or explanations from the AIT as facts, where they need not be, and I am not talking about the overall theory, but bits and parts from it, which puts us on a completely wrong path making us unable to understand the evidence before us.

Let's take Talageri's theory of Out-of-India migration. It goes into the various geographies inhabited by various tribes of the Lunar Dynasty.

For the whole Indo-European Dynamics, it seems three tribes here have more relevance - Druhyus, Anus and PUrus.

According to Talageri, at one point or another each one of the these tribes occupied the area of Sapta-Sindhu, i.e. Punjab. First Druhyus, who were pushed out by Anus, who were then themselves pushed out by PUrus.

So it is possible that these tribes were responsible for the building of various cities at various times in history. So this information could help us solve some mysteries. However I don't know really whether I am cutting the branch I happen to be sitting on!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jun 2012 13:19

ManishH wrote:Another thing is that Krishnamurthy is clearly using very old translations - "dark skin" etc. are wrong translations to what are at best ambiguous references in ṛgveda. Many compounds were not recognized as bahuvrihi formations by 19th century translators - A more appropriate translation would be "covered by darkness" (kṛṣṇa tvaca). The darkness in the form of no knowledge of vedic ritual or vedic Gods.

Yes, there is berating of Godless and indistinct speakers - but both attributes are learned human behaviour - so the berating is not on the basis of what a person's skin colour, physical built etc is. There is nothing here to say that ṛgvedic ethnicity did not welcome outsiders into their belief system. On the contrary, this post shows a verse that prescribes worship as a way to get out of darkness. This is just one amongst many-many others.

Thanks for putting this out clearly! This must indeed be repeated where ever possible.

ManishH wrote:The earlier layers show very few connections between Vedic and Dravidian. The later layers starting Epic and Classical Sanskrit show many more and of deeper nature.

This however need not mean that Indo-Aryans came from outside. Even within the Indian Subcontinent, it would take time for various groups to have an increasing lingual influence on the other.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 19 Jun 2012 13:34

N.S. Rajaram reviews a book "Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science" by Stefan Arvidsson (2006), translated by Sonia Wichmann, The University of Chicago Press.

http://folks.co.in/blog/2012/04/18/a-eu ... ryan-myth/

The review consists of very vague generalizations - it's not clear what statements are being made by the reviewer and what are in the actual book. But a lot of the review is devoted to lambasting the messenger (viz. Indo-European studies). Again the name of Witzel crops up.

There is a much better book review here ...
https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/folkl ... /3807/3645

The book appears to go into psychological reasons and speculation on how social circumstances of scholars affected their work. Just skirts the evidence altogether.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 19 Jun 2012 13:51

as always these things are taken over by "what we'd like to be the truth", rather than what is the truth. given that these events are long lost in time, we are compelled to rely on 'what we'd like to be the truth', and only hope that archeology can corroborate as far as possible

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jun 2012 14:17

I think Indians should not fear the efforts of Indo-European Studies scholars and authors trying to connect Indians with Europeans, either through language or through mythology.

The fact is that we have the bigger and more ancient literary corpus, the Rigveda, while they are a people in search for roots. We just need to ensure that their search for roots does not involve uprooting us from our roots.

For that we need to give them alternative theories for their roots as well, theories which ensure that they get some explanation and thus respite from this obsession and we too can save our roots from being attacked.

Basically a people (Europeans) who have no roots in the ancient era, were so upset by it that went about not just studying their own past but also attacking the past of the others in the process.

So people give these guys a past, please!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jun 2012 14:20

ManishH wrote:
shiv wrote: There may be nothing to suggest out of India here, but into India itself is fake because it is not possible to link he Rig Veda with the graves of Central Asia and Harappa except by cooking up.
Eurasian steppes have evidence of cremation and earlier than Cemetery H ..

From Anthony's book ...
Code: Select all
Sofievka cemetery, Borispol district, Kiev region
Ki-5012    grave 1, cremated bone            3080-2870 BCE
Ki-5029    charcoal                          3020-2870 BCE
Ki-5013    square M11, cremated bone         3020-2690 BCE

This only links Central Asia to Harappa. Where is the link to the Rig Veda?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jun 2012 15:17

Manishji, Shri David Anthony's arguments about how the Rig Veda came from central Asia is based on quite a number of assumptions. (Really no different and no more credible than the assumptions made by "Out of India) He connects up a series of separate facts or apparent facts to build up a story.

I am not at all sure how he can arrive at firm conclusions from tenuous links.

First of all he calls the Sanskrit of the Rig Veda "Old Indic". Why is he unhappy with the name "Sanskrit", I wonder. That is decidedly odd. But I think he is trying to avoid controversy. Be that as it may.

He says that the "Mitanni culture" and the people who spoke "Old Indic" (early Sanskrit) were contemporaneous. The "Old Indic" speakers migrated east to the Punjab where the Rig Veda was, according to Antony was "compiled" (not composed) around 1500-1300 BC according to " many Vedic scholars". (I suppose Hock and Witzel are among these "vedic scholars".) I wonder who or what defines a "Vedic scholar? I note new dates now for the Rig Veda. 500 years means nothing to these "scholars".

Anthony then goes on to say:

Both groups probably originated in the hybrid cultures of the Andronovo/ Tazabagyab/ coarse-incised-ware type in Bactria and Margiana

According to Anthony, the Vedic god Indra was an adoption of the Avestan god Verathragna. Anthony makes the Avestan Verthragna older and Indra younger. I think he has just made this up to suit his story.

Anthony also lists "non Indo European words" borrowed into Old Indic (Sanskrit of the Rig veda) and these words include words for bread, ploughshare, brick, soma etc. He says that these words were borrowed from the BMAC culture. he does not explain who or how the "old Indic speakers" remembered words like brick and ploughshare from an urban, town building culture like BMAC but yet did not mention any cities in their memories. The old Indic (Rig Vedic Sanskrit) speakers seem to recall a lot of their Central Asian past, but seem to have totally forgotten the fact that the BMAC culture lived in solid brick towns.

Anthony says of BMAC:

By 1600 BCE all the old trading towns, cities, and brick-built fortified
estates of eastern Iran and the former BMAC region in Central Asia were
abandoned . Malyan, the largest city on the Iranian plateau, was reduced
to a small walled compound and tower occupied within a vast ruin...

Abandoned. Not destroyed. Barely two centuries later the "Old Indic" people are in Punjab using non Indo Iranian words in the Rig Veda, recalling horse and chariot borne Gods. But they have forgotten all about cities from their old BMAC culture. And all this inferred from a mere handful of borrowed words? This is a glaring lacuna in Anthony's story.

Anthony, like many others in this game (yes it seems like a game to me) sees no harm (unlike nuclear scientists maybe) in "adjusting dates" by a few centuries this way of that way if it suits the story. Antony says that the Andronovo cultures borrowed a little bit of the vocabulary of the BMAC, but the later Old Indic borrowed a lot more. And he makes up his story by saying that about 453 borrowed non Indic words in Sanskrit are enough to explain his whole story. But where is the language of the BMAC? Or of the Andronovo? With no evidence of either language, and Sanskrit still being the oldest, Anthonyji probably has to depend on cooked up PIE. I will check if he does that in due course. I have looked at only selected paged using the key phrase "Rig veda" and Harappa.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 19 Jun 2012 16:09

The mortuary ritual of early, mid and mature Harrappan is different from later Cemetery H (stratum II) and Gandhara graves. The former has burial with no evidence of cremation. The latter shows the practice of cremation followed by collection of bones into urns and then burial of the urn. Sometimes, urns had a human face on it.

For vedic ritual, sūtras have more details than ṛgveda. The Cemetery H (stratum II) mortuary ritual matches what is prescribed by Gṛhya-Sūtra. this webpage gives a good description ...

The ceremony that follows the cremation is the Ashi-Sanchayana or the "Collection of Bones." It is the remnant of the ancient custom of burial. During the Sutra period, a compromise between the burial and the cremation was introduced. According to the then current custom , the dead body was burnt , but, in order to preserve the old tradition, the remains began to be collected and buried after a few days. The Grhya-Sutras contain a very detailed account of the ceremony. According to Asvalayana the Asthi-Sanchayana ceremony should be performed on the thirteenth or fifteenth day of the wane, while Baudhayana enjoins the third, fifth or seventh from the day of cremation. First of all, the cinders should be besprinkled with milk and water and the heap should be striken with an Udumbara staff to separate the bones. The cinders should be then collected and thrown towards the south side leaving the bones behind.
....
The bones, then, were washed and deposited in an urn, or tied up in piece of black antelope skin. The pot containing the bones or the bundle was to be hung from the branch of a sami tree. The bones of a person who had sacrifices were, however burnt again. The bones of others were accorded a burial. For this purpose, an urn was absolutely necessary. Asvalayana recommends an urn with spout for females and one without it for males. The urn which was closed with a lid, was placed in a trench prepared in the same way as the ground of cremation, or it might be laid under the root of a tree. According to other authorities grass and yellow cloth were placed in the trench and the bones were thrown in.

After the Sutra period the Asthi-chayana ceremony underwent a great change. During times, people had no regard for the custom of burying the bones of every individual. The sanctity of rivers increased. The cremation began to take place generally on the bank of some river. The burial ceremony of the remains was simplified.

There is some controversy if Cemetery H (stratum II) actually shows cremation of humans - because charred bones found in the urns have not been identified as human. However, similar buried urns were used for burying burnt human bones in the contemporaneous Gandhara grave culture.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 19 Jun 2012 16:46

shiv wrote:Manishji, Shri David Anthony's arguments about how the Rig Veda came from central Asia is based on quite a number of assumptions.

Nowhere have I seen anyone claiming ṛgveda "came from central asia".

First of all he calls the Sanskrit of the Rig Veda "Old Indic". Why is he unhappy with the name "Sanskrit", I wonder. That is decidedly odd. But I think he is trying to avoid controversy. Be that as it may.

OIA,MIA etc are terms used by even Out-of-India supporters - eg see works of late Dr. S.S. Mishra.

Anthony then goes on to say:
Both groups probably originated in the hybrid cultures of the Andronovo/ Tazabagyab/ coarse-incised-ware type in Bactria and Margiana

BMAC cities were in the same general region as the Andronovo/Tazabagyab culture - but their material culture is different - the former is urban and latter is not.

According to Anthony, the Vedic god Indra was an adoption of the Avestan god Verathragna. Anthony makes the Avestan Verthragna older and Indra younger.

That claim is made by Lubotsky, not Anthony.

Anthony says of BMAC:
By 1600 BCE all the old trading towns, cities, and brick-built fortified
estates of eastern Iran and the former BMAC region in Central Asia were
abandoned . Malyan, the largest city on the Iranian plateau, was reduced
to a small walled compound and tower occupied within a vast ruin...
Abandoned. Not destroyed. Barely two centuries later the "Old Indic" people are in Punjab using non Indo Iranian words in the Rig Veda, recalling horse and chariot borne Gods. But they have forgotten all about cities from their old BMAC culture. And all this inferred from a mere handful of borrowed words? This is a glaring lacuna in Anthony's story.

First of all, the BMAC city culture is not even claimed as 'theirs'; nor are 'they' shown to be the inhabitants of those cities. So the demise of those cities is inconsequential to the dates of movement of speakers of Old Indic.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jun 2012 17:38

what impresses is the nasadiya sukta, that hymns in rig veda to describe how everything came out of nothing. even gods were born. so, that is powerful enough concept for basing science and engineering.

compilations would have happened only after discoveries.. facts are researched and argued (neti neti), before becoming hymns (representation of facts as defined and discovered).

rig veda compilations happened after eons of discoveries and word of mouth passing under upa-nishad traditions.

ramayana and mahabarata happened much before in time[in contrary to the dates specified for the text]. shiva existed even before... at least from linking stories. facts were converted to story forms, and again refined to rectify discovered truth (facts).
vedas are understood to be entirely based on facts.. if the vedas are not explaining the facts, then the interpretations and context and time is all wrong.

siddha medicine, is believed to be 10K year old.. and siddhar traditions and rishi traditions have a lot of commonality. all siddhars are followers of shiva.

but what perplexes me is agastya-r is the first siddhar.. but the concept of medicine is 10K year old, meaning, agastya did the compilation later on after wonderful ages went past in discoveries, paramparas and traditions, transferring knowledge from father-son, guru-shishya etc.

so, what i am trying to say is that we can't just base a tradition to know its exact time of practice, and then deduce migration theories.

--
PS: i think there is big fallacy in agasthya as viewed from AIT angle.