Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 20 Jun 2012 21:18

ramana wrote:Shiv, I think you theory that the Rig Veda is prior to Harappa is most likely. However Harappa does have deities mentioned in Rig Veda: pasupati or mulabandana asana figureine with forest animals. Could be a yogi in the forest the begining of the sanyasi/aghori orders of latter day Hinduism.

Hinduism today is conglomerate of various streams of faiths evolved over time. Vaidik stream is just one of the many streams making up this ganga..

I do not know whether The seal of Babaji sitting in Yoga Mudra (Mool bandha - one of the difficult bandha of Hathyoga) wearing crown and surrounded by animals is really Pashupati.. I mean, how did they come up with this name. it could be just another normal yogi meditating in yogmudra..

But they called this babaji as Pashupati. This was used to imply that Shiva is non vaidik, hence native indian.. Then comes how aryan rudra is different from native shiva and how rigveda castigates phallus worshippers (word in RV is Shishna puja and it is conveniently equated to Lingam which literally means identification mark). I had one such debate recently elsewhere. Guys were insisting that aryan rudra hijacked native Shiva. When I pasted verses from rudra prashna (part of yajurveda) where "shivaay namah" appears, there was all sorts of logic came up like how yajurveda is less important and how rigveda is most important etc..

Calling the seal of yogi babaji surrounded by animals as "pashupati", when there is no way to read the harappan script is either stupidity OR mischief.. Now as a result, Shankara has become part of a nasty mudslinging politics.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jun 2012 21:22

what mythical stories we have to know the oldest bridges built across rivers?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2012 21:25

Atri, You are right. The figure could be meditating rishi/yogig in the forest. One of the many streams of our culture.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 20 Jun 2012 21:37

Only bhimbetka shelter is 30k years old. the painting is post harappa. It is established by john pelgama. It was drawn by people who had domesticsted horse and also knew paintimg. there is no evidence that native people of bhim betka region knew painting or horse riding. they learnt it from invaders or migrants.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jun 2012 21:48

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53762601/Mahabharata
Dwaraka was a strongly garrisoned fortress built on an island and well provided with means of defence. Ample barracks had been provided and there was an abundant supply of food and weapons and the garrison included many illustrious warriors. Ugrasena imposed a stringent ban upon drinking and amusements generally for the period of the siege.
All the bridges were demolished and ships were forbidden entry into ports in the realm.Iron spikes were planted in the moats around the fortress and the city walls kept in good repair.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 20 Jun 2012 21:51

It is sometimes painful to think about discussing with people whose nations and civilizations were adharmik to the core. genocides, crookedness, cheating etc are the foundation. they want to know their roots but in the process apni jaat pe utar aate hai and start cheating and insulting their counterparts.

PIE walas, the adharmiks will not be able to wash their sins by connecting with dharmik people.

Other painful thing is that such a large group of dharmiks unnecessarily try to convince adharmiks about dharmiks root. adharmiks will be losing all the significance numberwise or influencewise.

All our endeavours should be for our conviction. we do not need to convince others especially adharmiks about our roots, culture or antiquity.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jun 2012 21:53

Notice the bridge in the picture above… Thats Bheem Pul… Legend has it that when the Pandavas came here during that great final-journey, they found Saraswati river cutting the mountain, and thundering across… To cross it at this point would have been too dangerous… And to find a place to cross it would mean walking a long way downstream, and Draupadi was not up to it… So Bheemasena, picked up a huge rock and placed it across the river… So that Draupadi could cross…

The bridge you see above is across the Saraswati river. The bridge-of-bheema, renovated over time…

http://gkamesh.wordpress.com/tag/saraswati-river/

at the origination point of rivers, it is easier to bridge across.. any such bridges stories down the plains?

.. and q: do we still have a current river named saraswati?.. is this a different river or the same one.. except perhaps the old river is defunct cause of change of route.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2012 22:06

RajeshA, The Maruts look like good Taliban!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jun 2012 22:13

ramana, who is taiban? typo?

btw, we need to link them by some reference point right?

i would not like talibanization though.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 20 Jun 2012 22:56

Subhash Kak and David Frawley, make the case based on lunar constellations marking the vernal equinox. This is based on references to Ashwini, Krittika, Mrigashira, Punarvasu and Tishya. They make the claim that these solstice points range from 400 AD to before 6000 BC. They state that there are references to suggest the vernal equinox in early Taurus. They further claim that the Rig Veda looks back to a time when the winter solstice, began near the beginning of the sign Aries.

There is a verse on Surya Savitri, the Sun goddess in the Rig reflecting on the Ashwini era of the winter solstice dating it to 6000 BC, the winter solstice was in Aries, going back possibly to as early as 7000 BC, when the winter solstice first entered Ashwini.

They give four distinct periods for the composition of the Rig.

1. Proto-Rig: Before 6000 BC and some going to 7000 BC
2. Early Rig: 6000-4000 BC
3. Later Rig / Four Veda Period: 4000-2000 BC
4. Transitional: 2000-1000 BC

The Proto Rig was the era of the early seers such as the Dashgwas, Navagwas, Bhrigus, Angirasas and Manu.

They locate the Vedic Aryans in India to as early as 6000 BC, as there are verses on the land of the seven rivers by them. This is just based on astronomy. There is increasing material based on literary and dating of artifacts evidence that puts the Vedic peoples presence in our lands much further in time. This 2000 BC stuff is bum kum.

In my readings, there is a particular way to interpret the verses and an understanding of the symobologies and ethos is important. If one gets this right, the verses are comprehensible. If not, then the translations do not make any sense.

This is the reason why I tend to rely more on the lines of the Aurobindo mode of translations, which is inspired and uses symbolism to get to the meaning of the verses. Is that the most correct way, will probably be debated forever but it is meaningful for me. It is something, I can relate to easily.

I have the book by Frawley with me called "Gods, Sages and Kings", but Kak also has a lot of material online.

PS: Edited some spellings.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jun 2012 23:02

ramana wrote:RajeshA, The Maruts look like good Taiban!

ramana garu,

I think the Rohan in the "The Lord of the Rings" are modeled, perhaps accidentally, on Maruts.

I think the message to take away is that Rig Veda does not just talk about one tribe but there are other tribes, which would have occupied a different geography outside the Indian Subcontinent, stretching into Central Asia and the Steppes.

So we see the Lunar Dynasty expanding over Central Asia.

There really is no need for us to show that horses were indigenous in India, or that chariots were developed in India only, or that linguistic theory does not allow Vedic Sanskrit to be the mother of the Indo-European languages.

The Druhyus/Danavas, even as they belonged to the Lunar Dynasty, probably had developed a different dialect when Rig Veda was being written. This dialect is not recorded in the Rig Veda or in other scriptures. It was the dialect of the various Druhyus tribes, whereas Rig Veda is a record of the PUrus!

So if we are looking for a common language, a PIE, we should call it the "Lunatic Language"

a Proto-Lunar Dynastic language.

But we would probably not find it, but we should still call it "Proto-Lunar" to distinguish it from the AIT PIE.

Vedic Sanskrit could simply be a dialect of it. That however need not mean that Proto-Lunar and Tamil did not have a common history.

But the point is there is no need to try to persuade the AIT proponents that proto-Vedic Sanskrit is the mother of all Indo-European languages.

The three messages that we need to emphasize are:
a) Lunar Dynasty, and that includes the Danavas/Druhyus/Maruts/Proto-Europeans, all had their origin in North India in the Indian Subcontinent. So the Indian Subcontinent should be considered as sacred land by all the three groups - Hindus, Iranians and Europeans, and thus dealt with care and respect. There is no reason for racism.

b) Lunar Dynasty, had more or less the same religious beliefs and customs. It was Zarathustra, who rebelled. There were always some differences, including between the PUrus (Vedic Aryans) and the Druhyus (Proto-Europeans) which the priestly classes used to exaggerate and thus denigrate the others, but that happens even now among various sects of the same religion. So one should not make too much of it.

c) Only among the Hindus has the original philosophy and customs evolved further naturally and organically, and thus only Hindus have continuity with the past of the Lunar Dynasty through Vedas and our concept of Dharma.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jun 2012 23:04

Talageri writes in "The Rig Veda: A Historical Analysis" Chap 07

1. The first historical emigration recorded is that of the Druhyus. This emigration is recorded in the PurANas, and it is so historically and geographically specific that no honest, student of the Puranic tradition has been able to ignore either this event or its implications for Indo-European history (even without arriving at the equation PUrus = Vedic Aryans):

The PurANas (VAyu 99.11-12; BrahmANDa III.74.11-12; Matsya 48.9; ViSNu IV.17.5; BhAgavata IX.23.15-16) record: PracetasaH putra-Satam rAjAnAH sarva eva te, mleccha-rASTrAdhipAH sarve hyudIcIm diSam ASritAH.

As Pargiter points out: “Indian tradition knows nothing of any Aila or Aryan invasion of India from Afghanistan, nor of any gradual advance from thence eastwards.”53 On the contrary, “Indian tradition distinctly asserts that there was an Aila outflow of the Druhyus through the northwest into the countries beyond where they founded various kingdoms.”54

P.L. Bhargava also notes this reference to the Druhyu emigration: “Five PurANas add that Pracetas’ descendants spread out into the mleccha countries to the north beyond India and founded kingdoms there.”55

This incident is considered to be the earliest prominent historical event in traditional memory: The Druhyus, inhabitants of the Punjab, started conquering eastwards and southwards, and their conquest brought them into conflict with all the other tribes and peoples: the Anus, PUrus, Yadus. TurvaSas, and even the IkSvAkus.

This led to a concerted attempt by the other tribes against the Druhyus. AD Pusalker records: “As a result of the successful campaigns of SaSabindu, YuvanASva, MAndhAtRI and Sibi, the Druhyus were pushed back from RAjputAna and were cornered into the northwestern portion of the Punjab. MAndhAtRI killed their king ANgAra, and the Druhyu settlements in the Punjab came to be known as GAndhAra after the name of one of ANgAra’s successors. After a time, being overpopulated, the Druhyus crossed the borders of India and founded many principalities in the Mleccha territories in the north, and probably carried the Aryan culture beyond the frontiers of India.”56

This first historical emigration represents an outflow of the Druhyus into the areas to the north of Afghanistan (ie. into Central Asia and beyond).

2. The second historical emigration recorded is that of the Anus and the residual Druhyus, which took place after the DASarAjña battle in the Early Period of the Rigveda.

As we have already seen in our chapter on the Indo-Iranian homeland, the hymns record the names of ten tribes (from among the two main tribal groupings of Anus and Druhyus) who took part in the confederacy against SudAs.

Six of these are clearly purely Iranian peoples:

a. PRthus or PArthavas (VII.83.1): Parthians.
b. ParSus or ParSavas (VII.83.1): Persians.
c. Pakthas (VII.18.7): Pakhtoons.
d. BhalAnas (VII.18.7): Baluchis.
e. Sivas (VII.18.7): Khivas.
f. ViSANins (VII.18.7): Pishachas (Dards).
One more Anu tribe, not named in the Rigveda, is that of the Madras: Medes.

All these Iranian peoples are found in later historical times in the historical Iranian areas proper: Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia.

Two of the other tribes named in the hymns are Iranian peoples who are found in later historical times, on the northwestern periphery of the Iranian areas, ie. in the Caucasus area:

a. Simyus (VII.18.5): Sarmatians (Avesta = Sairimas).

b. Alinas (VII.18.7): Alans.

And the name of one more tribe is clearly the name of another branch of Indo-Europeans - non-Iranians, but closely associated with the Iranians - found in later historical times in the area to the west of the Iranians, ie. in Anatolia or Turkey: the BhRgus (VII.18.6): Phrygians.

Significantly, the names of the two tribes found on the northwestern periphery of the Iranian area are also identifiable (as we have noted in our earlier book) with the names of two other branches of Indo-Europeans, found to the west of Anatolia or Turkey.

a. Simyus (VII.18.5): Sirmios (ancient Albanians).
b. Alinas (VII.18.7): Hellenes (ancient Greeks).
The DASarAjña battle hymns record the emigration of these tribes westward from the Punjab after their defeat in the battle.

Taken together, the two emigrations provide us with a very logical and plausible scenario of the expansions and migrations of the Indo-European family of languages from an original homeland in India:

1. The two tribal groupings of Anus and Druhyus were located more or less in the Punjab and Afghanistan respectively after the Druhyu versus non-Druhyu wars in the earliest pre-Rigvedic period.

2. The first series of migrations, of the Druhyus, took plate shortly afterwards, with major sections of Druhyus migrating northwards from Afghanistan into Central Asia in different waves. From Central Asia many Druhyu tribes, in the course of time, migrated westwards, reaching as far as western Europe.

These migrations must have included the ancestors of the following branches (which are not mentioned in the DASarAjña battle hymns):

a. Hittite.
b. Tocharian.
c. Italic.
d. Celtic.
e. Germanic.
f. Baltic.
g. Slavonic.
3. The second series of migrations of Anus and Druhyus, took place much later, in the Early Period of the Rigveda, with various tribes migrating westwards from the Punjab into Afghanistan, many later on migrating further westwards as far as West Asia and southwestern Europe.

These migrations must have included the ancestors of the following branches (which are mentioned in the DASrAjña battle hymns):

a. Iranian.
b. Thraco-Phrygian (Armenian).
c. Illyrian (Albanian).
d. Hellenic.
The whole process gives a clear picture of the ebb-and-flow of migratory movements, where remnants of migrating groups, which remain behind, get slowly absorbed into the linguistic and cultural mainstream of the other groups among whom they continue to live, retaining only, at the most, their separate names and distinctive identities:

1. The Druhyus, by and large, spread out northwards from northwestern Punjab and Afghanistan into Central Asia (and beyond) in the first Great Migration.

A few sections of them, who remained behind, retained their distinctive names and identities (as Druhyus), but were linguistically and culturally absorbed into the Anu mainstream.

2. The Anus (including the remnants of the Druhyus), by and large, spread out westwards from the Punjab into Afghanistan in the second Great Migration after the DASarAjña battle.

A few sections of them, who remained behind, retained their distinctive names and identities (as Anus), but linguistically and culturally, they were absorbed into the PUru mainstream and they remained on the northwestern periphery of the Indoaryan cultural world as the Madras (remnants of the Madas or Medes), Kekayas, etc.

3. Further migrations took place from among the Anus in Afghanistan, with non-Iranian Anu groups, such as the BhRgus (Phryges, Thraco-Phrygians), Alinas (Hellenes, Greeks) and Simyus (Sirmios, Illyrians or Albanians) migrating westwards from Afghanistan as far as Anatolia and southeastern Europe.

A few sections of these non-Iranian Anus, who remained behind, retained their distinctive names and identities, but, linguistically and culturally, they were absorbed into the Iranian mainstream, and remained on the northwestern periphery of the Iranian cultural world as the Armenians (who, however, retained much of their original language, though greatly influenced by Iranian), and the Alans (remnants of the Hellenes or Greeks) and Sarmations (remnants of the Sirmios or Albanians).

The literary evidence of the Rigveda, thus, provides us with a very logical and plausible scenario of the schedule and process of migrations of the various Indo-European branches from India.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jun 2012 23:13

ramana wrote:RajeshA, The Maruts look like good Taliban!

Yes and no.

The Danavas allied with Devas to take out the Asuras.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jun 2012 23:46

so, what is yes, and what is no? a bit more aam detail pliss.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Jun 2012 23:52

Jhujar wrote:Irish claiming this Gundestrup cauldron belongs to them . How similar and close is ancient Irish culture, language etc to indians?

Jhujar ji
Actually it would be nice if they prove that the cauldron belongs to them. You see, Celtic is derived from the so-called PIE. If there is evidence that the Celts know about Pashupati, then the astrochronology of Subhash Kak (Rg veda has been composed - not compiled - around 4000 BCE) wins over the claims of Hock and Witzel (rg veda compiled - which they according to ManishH ji is "composed" around 1400 BCE). That would be a stake, may be even the final stake, in the heart of AIT/AMT. In fact, I have a theory regarding the terseness of the ancient Indic documents, especially Sulva Sutras. I think they have been compiled as some kind of manuals for the new immigrants and would be widely available so that the new immigrants can get well integrated into the autocthonous people. All of those who are naturalized US citizens can relate to this. USCIS publishes terse brochures so that the new immigrants can pass the citizenship interview. These documents are available in much larger numbers than the more detailed scholarly works. After thousands of years, when this civilization is long gone, statistically speaking, the documents which was published in large numbers have the most probability of survival.

Regards

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jun 2012 23:56

SaiK wrote:so, what is yes, and what is no? a bit more aam detail pliss.

Yes: The Danavas were in Afghanistan, they were against the power on the Indus, they were our allies

No: They were the third tribe, not one from among the Asuras. They provided military help. Bharata did the fighting.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2012 23:58

RajeshA, Now tie in the prevalence of Lunar dynasty symbols to the artifacts found all over the Asian Middle East archaelogy. There was an old article in New Scientist(mid 90s) about how moon symbols are found all over ancient Middle East and was not unique to Islam.

I think even Muhammad appropriated the moon symbol onto his flag.

Saik,Any way it was joke. No need for Saikological analysis.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Jun 2012 23:58

Rajesh ji, nice hypothesis regarding the Greeks. Hope this whole thread is archived for later reference.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Jun 2012 00:22

I am with ShauryaT ji on the symbolism. I feel we will make much better sense of RigVeda if we think RV as a communication and recording mechanism that tried to work at two different levels.

Symbolism has an important restriction : it must be understood for significance by the intended audience. Therefore all symbolic communication has to use objects, entities, memes, or illustrations that are more mundane than the message itself.

What the dominant academic analysis of RV goes on is fixate on these mundane/daily life expressions/objects as the core or fundamental of RV. All that the daily life objects show is that when the verse is being stated some of these objects were within the collective social memory. Linguistically of course there is still the remaining problem of identifying a word with an object based on more recent usage.

The problem these two aspects create for study of RV is that, first it assumes continuity of usage without gradual subtle change or attribution over time. This is then compounded by the possibility that RV was high on sylmbolism and even its language use might have been deliberate to hint of or preserve older or earlier memes and experiences.

Thus what is meant as a "sacrifice" of an "animal" need not really mean actual slaughter of an animal. It could be symbolic and a symbolic sacrifice or offering of an idol/icon in the shape of the animal. That it is garbed in the fashion of an animal sacrifice - could simply be a communication mode, that strikes a bell in the audience who know/see/or slaughter animals for other daily livelihood purpose.

Same goes with aswa/ratha/krisnayas. The possibility is there.

Moreover, the whole of RV language could be based more on object-relational descriptions compared to hardcoded or entity specific attribute list. I think this came up for discussion some time ago too:

There are two ways of defining /characterizing an "object" X in terms of a "language",

(1) specify abstract or other "objects" as attached to the X - to which are delegated the task of defining the object. For example we can define a "man" as the ensemble {hands, head, stomach, legs, hair}. The task of outlining what a "man" is, then devolves to the objects "hand", "head", etc as a cumulative process.

(2) specify X as as relations between X and elements that are not-X. This requires more description that method (1). For example, in this layout, "man" is among many others - the relation "uses hands to arrange hair on head". The relational method is more explicit and error correcting.

RV/Sanskrit appears to use the (2) as underlying engine.

Thus, the object could become secondary to the relational aspect in RV verses.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 21 Jun 2012 00:54

Thus what is meant as a "sacrifice" of an "animal" need not really mean actual slaughter of an animal. It could be symbolic and a symbolic sacrifice or offering of an idol/icon in the shape of the animal. That it is garbed in the fashion of an animal sacrifice - could simply be a communication mode, that strikes a bell in the audience who know/see/or slaughter animals for other daily livelihood purpose.

This is pretty much a possibility. Remember how Rama replaced Sita with a Golden statue in her place for Ashwamedha sacrifice? even to this day, every major auspicious occasion this kind of symbolism is still practiced so it could be true.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 21 Jun 2012 00:56

From the UNESCO report of Bhimbetka Sai ji posted, some excerpts :

Bhimbetka’s rock shelters far outnumber the largest known evidence of the prehistoric caves of Dordogne in southwest FranceWhile evidences from Dordogne yield cultural products between 100,000 BP and 10,000 BP, very few of the caves show continued occupancy during this period. Bhimbetka is exceptional in the fact that in at least one of the excavated shelters (III F-23), continued occupation is demonstrable from 100,000 BP (Late Acheulian) to 1000 AD.

The Bhimbetka excavations have also significantly questioned the widely believed exogenous origin of the Middle Paleolithic.

On the surface, the most outstanding aspect of this site is the profusion of paintings on the walls and upper areas within the shelters across a discernible long and continuous span of time. There are over 700 shelters distributed over the site. Paintings in the rock shelters at Bhimbetka range from largely Mesolithic {10,000 to 5000 BCE}, through Chalcolithic {atleast 7,000 years BP} and historical to the Mediaeval period, and constitute a rich source of study in various fields.

Pictorial narratives of events such as large processions of men on caparisoned horses and elephants, battle scenes depicting spears, bows, arrows, shields and swords highlight the Historical period. Inscriptions painted in white and red, and engraved on the rock surface in Sunga Brahmi (second century BC), post-Gupta Brahmi and Sankha Lipi (first century BC - seventh century AD) and later paintings, also bear testimony to the use of the shelters in the Historical and Mediaeval periods.

Please see the image on page 29 Bhonrawali, Cluster II E (must see!). How can anyone mistake that to be an ass or any other species of horse other than Caballus? the guy is mounted on a horse, if Caballus is ridden for wars, then it must be caballus.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 21 Jun 2012 01:21

Brihaspati,

I think this is the right track. If Rg Veda was about the mundane I doubt the tremendous effort to preserve it would have ever been undertaken. Even if we take it up one level to be canonical prayers to the various devas, I doubt it would be preserved in the way it has been. It is not story, or history, like the Puranas either. The word-for-word English translation (e.g., into English by Griffiths) makes it all sound trite - it is not clear at all why anyone would bother even to compile the collection in the first place.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Jun 2012 02:45

RajeshA wrote:
SaiK wrote:so, what is yes, and what is no? a bit more aam detail pliss.
Yes: The Danavas were in Afghanistan, they were against the power on the Indus, they were our allies

No: They were the third tribe, not one from among the Asuras. They provided military help. Bharata did the fighting.

Interesting.. off the wiki again:

The Danavas revolted against the Devtas under the leadership of Bali[1] and others, but were defeated.[2] In the Rig Veda, nearly all the demons described as being defeated by the Devas are Danavas.

so q: allies with us against whom?

..now on to bali: under the leadership of bali..

but but..

no other place in India celebrates Onam other than Kerala, way down in SI.

The story goes that the beautiful state of Kerala was the capital of the Asura (demon) king, Bali.

so, danvas were in Kerala earlier?

...

well, for all we know mr. bali may be some hero who went on the wrong side.

full aap compooshun onlee:- wiki:
Asuras versus Devas

In the days of Rigveda, there were two major groups of Aryans; The Indo-Aryans who believed that Aditi was the true mother of the gods and Irano-Aryans (Dasyu) who believed Diti, the twin sister was. Bali was the descendant of this line. Scholar D. R. Bhandarkar writes in his Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture that "Parsus or Persians" was an old term for "Rakshasas" (demons).)[43] He further says that the word is used together with Asuras in Panini's Parshvadi-gana.

now, we have two major invasions to discuss.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 21 Jun 2012 03:34

Genealogy of Bharata starting with Brahma, see it in full resolution:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The ... harata.png

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jun 2012 06:41

ShauryaT wrote:
They give four distinct periods for the composition of the Rig.

1. Proto-Rig: Before 6000 BC and some going to 7000 BC
2. Early Rig: 6000-4000 BC
3. Later Rig / Four Veda Period: 4000-2000 BC
4. Transitional: 2000-1000 BC

The Proto Rig was the era of the early seers such as the Dashgwas, Navagwas, Bhrigus, Angirasas and Manu.

They locate the Vedic Aryans in India to as early as 6000 BC, as there are verses on the land of the seven rivers by them. This is just based on astronomy. There is increasing material based on literary and dating of artifacts evidence that puts the Vedic peoples presence in our lands much further in time. This 2000 BC stuff is bum kum.

Thanks Shaurya.

To me an earlier date seems intuitively right, but intuition is no good in this business.

With the Rig Veda having no dates what has been done is to date the work AFTER the domestication of horses but before the Iron age.

Horses, collected as herds and early domestication goes back as far as 8000 BC depending on what sources you look at. Very little hard evidence exists but modern horses apparently have descended from at least 77 mares (using mommy only type DNA). This means that at least 77 different female horses were domesticated and used to produce ponies which were then sub-bred for herds. This suggests multiple areas of domestication. If you must expand on that story imagine you are a 6000 BC horse herder and you want ponies. You got any randy stallion and one willing and tame mare and get babies. Then us keep the ponies and use the mares among them to breed further. Randy stallions are plenty. Tame mares that get pregnant and produce live ponies are precious. You don't get 77 different females, using a new one each time and breed from them; you start from one good female. So more than one area of domestication is likely to have occurred. Furthermore early horses were all small and it is known that onagers were used in early days and horse use came in later as they were stonger. Breeding probably produced stronger horses. But when you talk of spped - see the link I have posted earlier that shows that onagers are fast too.

The onager is a very fast animal. An adult male can run at 60-70 km/h over a distance of 10 km, while at
a lower speed it can run 20-25 km without rest. This animal is also rather big: about 200-260 cm in length,
height at the base of neck 1.5 m, and weight up to 350 kilos. Onager meat had a high price in olden times,
while its skin was used for producing shagreen leather.

The Iron age starts 1200 BC in India.

So the Rig Veda, dated after horse domestication and before Iron age could be any time between 8000 BC and 1200 BC

Guess why are they dating it from 1900 to 1200 BC? They are dating it thereabouts ONLY because they have found domesticated horse remains in Central Asia dating about 2000 BC and therefore need to date the Rig Veda after that, but before Iron age. You see, even if you say archaeologists do not intend to screw India and Indians, and have no need to play any AIT games, they still have a problem dating the Rig Veda earlier. That is because if they date the Rig Veda earlier, they will also have to date the domesticated horse earlier, and they have no proof of such domestication. But the 1500 BC date of Rig Veda is based only on the "available proof'" of domesticated horses. That proof is 2000-3000 km away. And as I stated earlier ancient objects have less than one in a million chance of surviving 5000 years (probably even less than that but I will not go into that now).

The real problem about dating the Rig Veda from 1900-1200 BC is that it falls after Harappa. How do you explain cities before and pastoral later? That is why two things had to be cooked up simultaneously
1. Invasion of horsemen from the North
2. Driving of "black, dasyu Dravidians" south

Unfortunately many of the biggest names in history, archaeology and linguistics still have not got past this hangover. The dating of the Rig veda It does not take into account other issues that hit you in the face the minute you start asking yourself questions. Note that linguists and archaeologists get no honours from dabbling with astronomy. But the archaeologists rule the roost for dating horses. So how can linguists claim to date the Rig Veda accurately using archaeological proof from 3000 km away and not take astronomy and other obvious dating discrepancies into account? They are just not bothered about accuracy, that is all. Their interest is language, not dating accuracy.

You see, the simplest explanation for the completely "who the fk would write such weird rural stuff? " passages of the Rig veda is that they were composed long long before urban civilizations. Harappa existed in 5000 BC and had carts and horses, maybe onagers. Central Asia had a thriving urban civilization of cities made of brick in 2000 BC. The current incredible story about the Rig Veda is that the composers somehow missed seeing all the cities in central Asia in 2000 BC but came to India in the next 100-500 years and completely missed the Harappan civilization of over 1500 urban centers thet was still at its tail end when they came here? This is worse than a B grade Bollywood plot. How can the "Aryan migrants" miss hundreds of cities and towns in the land they came from and miss thousands of cities and towns in the area they migrated to in India?. And sing only about horse, cloud, butter milk etc? wtf? Who exactly is being stupid/naive here?

It is far more likely that the Rig Veda has a date far earlier than Harappa. It is going to cause massive cognitive dissonance among the most senior professors in archeaology, linguistics and history to be told this. They will be angry and in denial and many more will react like Witzel. But I think about 10-20 years will be needed to clear up this utter nonsense that started 200 years ago.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 21 Jun 2012 07:19

Shiv ji

Here are some excerpts from Mathematics in India by Kim Plofker regarding the astrochronogical dating of Rg Veda by two people.
(I am not capitalizing for faster typing)

It takes about 26,000 years to complete one cycle of precession, so the equinox moves about one degree of arc every 72 years. the vernal equinox point currently lies in the constellation pisces, while about 6000 years ago it was some 80 degrees further east, in the constellation taurus.

these facts have been invoked to suggest identifiable dates for occurrences mentioned in vedic texts. for eg., the satha-patha-brahmana recounts a legend that the creator-god prajapati in the form of a stag attempted to mate with his daughter rohini in the form of a doe. (from Subhash Kak 2005) Since two adjacent nakshatras in the vedic contellation lists are named mrgasira ("deer's head") and rohini ("reddish"), it is proposed that these names symbolize the shift of the vernal equinox point from the former to the latter nakshatra. in post-vedic astronomy, these two nakshatras were associated with particular stars, identified by historians as corresponding to a star in orion and to aldebaran (which is reddish) in the constellation taurus, resly. therefore, if the same association existed in vedic times, and if satha-patha-brahmana is really intended to symbolize this particular celestial event, we could date its origin astrochronologically on the basis of precession, which would give an approximate time of 4000 bce.

Another passage talks about krittikas which are certainely identical to pleiades who are married to saptarishis (big dipper stars). According to this dating satha-patha-brahmana can be dated to 2950 bce. but hock comes up with a different date 1400 bce based on

the sun at winter solstice to be in conjunction with moon(that is the new moon) in the month of magha...though varying interpretations give estimates ranging from at least the mid third millennium bce to the late second. similarly, seasonal interpretations have been suggested for the above mentioned yajurveda references to the year's commencing with the full moon in phalgunior chitra; if they mean that the winter solstice then fell in the month phalguni or chitra, it could imply a date sometime in the third or fourth millennium for the former, and the fourth or fifth millennium for the latter (ed. I think she means bce)

.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jun 2012 07:23

Folks, please look at the map below. I would like to explain a few things based on that map. Please note the following points which I will list according to currently known dates

1. Harappan civilization (Oldest, urban) 5000 BC to 1900 BC (Blue in bottom right)
2. BMAC Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (Urban) 2300 BC to 1700 BC (Ochre-yellow)
3. Andronovo culture (Most recent, pastoral) 2100 to 1400 BC (Rust colored dominant patch on map)

Link to bigger image of same

All of you know that the oldest, Harappa was an urban civilization

The BMAC was hidden by the Soviets till 1990. It was an urban culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E2 ... al_Complex

The inhabitants of the BMAC were sedentary people who practised irrigation farming of wheat and barley. With their impressive material culture including monumental architecture, bronze tools, ceramics, and jewellery of semiprecious stones, the complex exhibits many of the hallmarks of civilization. The complex can be compared to proto-urban settlements in the Helmand basin at Mundigak in western Afghanistan and Shahr-i Shōkhta in eastern Iran, or at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley.[9]

But guess where it is being claimed that the Rig Veda came from? All those horse and chariot burials have been found in the area of the Andronovo culture. So the Grand Poobahs of history, archaeology and language are saying that the people who composed the Rig Veda started off AFTER the Harappan and BMAC civilizations existed. They completely and magically missed the cities of BMAC and went to india. And in India they completely missed the cities of the Indus Valley and Harappa. And all the time they only had a memory of horses and chariots from Andronovo graves and sang about milk and butter in the Rig Veda.

How much more stupid can a theory be made? You have got to be stupid or at least very very naive to believe this. Our history has been messed with by a bunch of blithering nincompoops. I bet my left testimonial that Rig Veda is older than Harappa

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 21 Jun 2012 08:57

Here are the references from Plofker's book - in case somebody wants to chase down the references back to primary sources

1. Kak, Subhash. Vedic astronomy and early Indian chronology. pp 303-340.

2. Hock, Hans Henrich. Philology and the historical interpretation of the Vedic texts. pp 2282-308.

Both in

Bryant, Edwin F., and Patton, Laurie L.,eds. The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. London Routledge, 2005

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Jun 2012 09:08

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2012/04 ... -lord.html
video

disha · Post by **disha** » 21 Jun 2012 09:35

shiv wrote:But guess where it is being claimed that the Rig Veda came from? All those horse and chariot burials have been found in the area of the Andronovo culture. So the Grand Poobahs of history, archaeology and language are saying that the people who composed the Rig Veda started off AFTER the Harappan and BMAC civilizations existed. They completely and magically missed the cities of BMAC and went to india. And in India they completely missed the cities of the Indus Valley and Harappa. And all the time they only had a memory of horses and chariots from Andronovo graves and sang about milk and butter in the Rig Veda.

How much more stupid can a theory be made? You have got to be stupid or at least very very naive to believe this. Our history has been messed with by a bunch of blithering nincompoops. I bet my left testimonial that Rig Veda is older than Harappa

I have been very sick for a while so will take time to counter Manish'jis tall (and completely bogus) claims on the horse on ice. Reading up on B. Lal and Keynoyer in the meantime and one thing clearly emerges., Sarasvati-Indus Valley Civilization (SIVC) was the largest and most sophisticated "urban" settlement of its kind for well over 2500-3000 years. The "urban" settlement is a mis-nomer, particularly the "urban" part as seen from modern angle. The primary drivers for the SIVC was agriculture and trade., including feeding and taking care of cows and transporting goods over longer distances.

Further, the lay people does not have to be concerned about composing and propogating RgVeda (that is very high art)., in just the same way the modern day gypsies have only an inkling of RgVeda if at all they have. It is definitely possible that RgVeda was started to be composed @4000 BC with Mahabharata around @3000-3100 BC. It could be that over mature SIVC phase, RgVeda (and other vedas) got redacted, refined and recompiled giving us the current body of vedas and the rest.

Will start bringing content from the books currently reading to support the above., in the meantime - Witzel the nincompook suggested that onagers cannot be tamed. Zebras are more skittish than onagers and only a true blue-eyed, blonde haired aryan can tame them like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhlOkEpv ... re=related

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 21 Jun 2012 09:40

This is Celtic version of Pashupati .

This "Cernunnos" type in Celtic iconography is often portrayed with animals, in particular the stag, and also frequently associated with the ram-horned serpent, and less frequently bulls (at Rheims), dogs and rats. Because of his frequent association with creatures, scholars often describe Cernunnos as the "Lord of the Animals" or the "Lord of Wild Things", and Miranda Green describes him as a "peaceful god of nature and fruitfulness".[18] ( Bhole Nath )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Detai ... uldron.jpg

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 21 Jun 2012 10:49

RajeshA wrote:Since we are discussing the references of horse in Rig veda, let's see how many of those references are in connection with Maruts and how many connections are with Indra.

So Maruts seem to be central to understanding the requirements of horse evidence.

My understanding is that Maruts were Danavas/Druhyus who had established themselves in Afghanistan and Central Asia after being driven out of Sapta-Sindhu by the Anus.

Rajesh-ji: Please don't consider this a personal remark. You might have read this somewhere else. This mis-interpretation stems from ignorance of Sanskrit declension and difference betwen (u-stems) and (a-stems). I'll explain below ...

1. The epithet sudānu (सुदानु) used for marut-s means "good-giver". It has nothing to do with danu (दनु) or her progeny the dānava (दानव), or even the good progeny sudānava (सुदानव).

2. When meaning 'good-giver', Nominative case sudānu is singular, sudānavaḥ is plural. In ṛgveda, sudānavaḥ is always used as plural, not singular.

3. If it was 'good-progeny-of-danu', we'd expect Nominative case plural 'sudanavāḥ' or dual 'sudānau'/sudānā' to occur. Surprise, surprise, none of which occur in ṛgveda.

4. Even looking at other cases eg. Dative singular, we find sudānave (from root sudānu), no occurrence of sudānavāy (from root sudānava).

5. The epithet sudānavaḥ (good-givers) is used for many Gods not just the Maruts. Eg. for Aśvin-s (1-45.10), All Gods, (1-23.9)

It's fine for blogosphere to construct a story ignoring difference between 'a-stem' and 'u-stem', but doesn't cut with those with knowledge of Sanskrit grammar and declension.

There is one blog which shows a excellent understanding of Vedic grammar and sytax. He has commented on the same issue here ...

http://musingsofhh.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... -with-oit/

I find this person too has good command on linguistics and seems to favour the hypothesis that aryans immigrated into India.

ukumar · Post by **ukumar** » 21 Jun 2012 10:59

Deleted

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 21 Jun 2012 11:13

Subhash Kak speaks about possible dates of Veds in his work Science in Ancient India

http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/a3.pdf

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 11:33

Funnily Virendra posted about maraudering tribal bigots in 11th century, in Mil forum

---------------------------------------------
Found this at Kitab-I-Yamini (memoirs of Sabuktagin and Mahmud Ghazni) :-
Quote:
...And they bought out of the idol temple an engraved stone, upon which they had fastened a writing to the effect that it was forty thousand years since that building was constructed. And the Sultan expressed surprise at this extreme error and folly, for all the learned in rules, and skilled in guidance have agreed that the extent of the world's age is not more than seven thousand years...
...In these matters we must be content with the eyes of the learned and the explication of the wise, whoo all deny the assertion, and agree that the testimony of this stone is all a falsehood and untruth, and a mere invention of these bewildered liars.

It is mentioned in a section called - "Account of the event at Nazin" after which his attack at Thanesar is elaborated.
By the way I couldn't find this place called Nazin, but if it is before his attack at Thanesar then could be some Shahi King's region in Punjab.

Regards,
Virendra

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

To which it stuck me...

Virendra wrote: And the Sultan expressed surprise at this extreme error and folly, for all the learned in rules, and skilled in guidance have agreed that the extent of the world's age is not more than seven thousand years...

Sounds very similar to the behavior of the modern day Xian bigots (pretending to be scholars) like Wieztels, Wheelers etc. does it not (ref to OIT thread)

Cross posting your post in that thread.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 21 Jun 2012 11:52

shiv wrote: 1. Harappan civilization (Oldest, urban) 5000 BC to 1900 BC (Blue in bottom right)

There is no urbanism and cities in ṛgveda; so looking at urban civilizations and comparing dates between them is of no use. What should be looked at are dates for actual ṛgvedic lifestyle indicators like horse domestication, chariotry and use in battle.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jun 2012 12:09

ManishH wrote:
shiv wrote: 1. Harappan civilization (Oldest, urban) 5000 BC to 1900 BC (Blue in bottom right)
There is no urbanism and cities in ṛgveda; so looking at urban civilizations and comparing dates between them is of no use. What should be looked at are dates for actual ṛgvedic lifestyle indicators like horse domestication, chariotry and use in battle.

Sir there are some huge holes in the idea apart from the patronizing suggestion that you know what others should look for and what is or is not of use.

You see one glaring reason why there is no urbanism in the Rig Veda is that it could have been composed before urbanism. LOL! But that is an idea that is sure to upset a lot of "experts" who have their own often absurd reasons for avoiding the most obvious conclusion

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jun 2012 12:32

It is all based on date after 3000BC . What an absurd logic.
Harrappa is left as an orphan since the dates dont match! It is too urban for RgV which can only be after 2000BC. LOL

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 13:33

To see how the meanings of the words or bhavartha's change, a relatively more recent example

…And just here a necessary caution should be given. It is not always safe to assume that the meaning a technical term bore in early times remains the same in the Jainism of to-day. For instance, the term Tirtha-kara, or Tirthankara, would seem originally to have denoted the man who has made the passage across the ocean of worldly illusion (samsara), who has reached that further shore where he is, and will for ever be, free from action and desire : thus, the man who has attained unto a state of utter and absolute quiescence, and has entered into a rest that knows no change nor ending, a passionless and ineffable peace. But no Jaina whom I have ever consulted has assigned this meaning to the word Tirthankara. Widely different is the explanation given me by those whom I have asked, and they all agree. A Tirthankara, they say, is one who has made , has founded, the four tirthas . But what then is a tirtha ? Tlrtha, derived from the root tr, to save , is, they affirm, a technical term indicating the means of salvation , the means par excellence ; and the caturvidha sangha, or that fourfold Communion within which all who take refuge find ultimate salvation, consists of the four tirthas, or orders , namely, those of (1) sadhu or monk, (2) sadhvi or nun, (3) sravaka or lay-brother, and (4) sravika or lay-sister. These four tirthas are thus, as it were, four boats that will infallibly carry the passengers they bear unto the desired haven of deliverance (moksa). Hence the Tirthankara is one who is the Founder (with a very large F) of the four orders that collectively constitute the Communion or Sangha."

Note the drastic apparent change in the meaning of the word from "boatman" to "founder of holy places" -- with only a subtle change, or refinement in the inherent meaning of term.

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

And the above is all very nice and believable and impartial because it is by a gora. So no reinterpretation charges can be levied on us Chaddi-dhari hindutvawadis.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 21 Jun 2012 13:44

shiv wrote: Horses, collected as herds and early domestication goes back as far as 8000 BC depending on what sources you look at.

Source please - where has horse domestication been dated to 8000 BC and published in peer-reviewed archaeological journals.

You don't get 77 different females, using a new one each time and breed from them; you start from one good female.

Incorrect; all genetic data indicates breeding started from few stallions and a diverse variety of mares. From Anthony's book ...

Wild mares must have been taken into domesticated
horse herds in many different places at different times. Meanwhile, the male
aspect of modern horse DNA, which is passed unchanged on the Y chromo-
some from sire to colt, shows remarkable homogeneity. It is possible that just
a sll1gle wlld stalllOn was domesticated. So horse keepers apparently have felt
free to capture and breed a variety of wild mares, but, according to these
data, they universally rejected wild males and even the male progeny of any
wrld stallions that mated with domesticated mares. Modern horses are de-
scended from very few original wild males, and many, varied wild females.

Wildlife biologists have observed the behavior of feral horse bands ....
The standard feral horse band consists of a stallion with a harem of two
to seven mares and their immature offspring ...

A relatively docile and controllable mare could be found at the bottom of the
pecking order in many wild horse bands, but a relatively docile and controllable
stallion was an unusual individual-and one that had little hope of reproducing in the
wild.

From the horse's perspective, humans were the only way he could get a girl. From the human perspective, he was the only sire they wanted.

shiv wrote:The onager is a very fast animal. An adult male can run at 60-70 km/h over a distance of 10 km, while at
a lower speed it can run 20-25 km without rest. This animal is also rather big: about 200-260 cm in length,
height at the base of neck 1.5 m, and weight up to 350 kilos.

0. The Onager/Khur/Hemione and lesser equids already have different names in ṛgveda; these names survive to this day - they are rāsabha, gardabha.

1. The onager doesn't have a mane and tail with lush hair as described in these ṛgvedic mantras ...

RV_01.010.03.1{19} yukṣvā hi keśinā harī vṛṣaṇā kakṣyaprā
RV_01.010.03.2{19} athā na indra somapā girāmupaśrutiṃ cara

RV_01.016.04.1{30} upa naḥ sutamā gahi haribhirindra keśibhiḥ
RV_01.016.04.2{30} sute hi tvāhavāmahe

RV_01.027.01.1{22} aśvaṃ na tvā vāravantaṃ vandadhyā agniṃ namobhiḥ
RV_01.027.01.2{22} samrājantamadhvarāṇām

It's hilarious to imagine ṛgvedic sages calling this onager a "keśina hari" or "aśvam vāravantam" ...

The poetic imagery of is more like this bay horse ...

2. Nor are onagers of "dappeled" (pṛṣni) appearance as described in this mantra ...

RV_01.186.08.1{05} uta na īṃ maruto vṛddhasenāḥ smad rodasī samanasaḥ sadantu
RV_01.186.08.2{05} pṛṣadaśvāso 'vanayaḥ na rathā riśādaso mitrayujo na devāḥ
... which is more like this ...

All these excuses of onager,khur,magical power etc. are made because you haven't bothered to search ṛgveda for mantras which describe aśva. And when mantras are pointed out, you'll say - "ManishH is patronizing".

So the Rig Veda, dated after horse domestication and before Iron age could be any time between 8000 BC and 1200 BC

Wow! And pray, where is the evidence of Bronze in India in 8000 BC.

But the 1500 BC date of Rig Veda is based only on the "available proof'" of domesticated horses. That proof is 2000-3000 km away. And as I stated earlier ancient objects have less than one in a million chance of surviving 5000 years (probably even less than that but I will not go into that now).

Somehow, human bones survive in humid dense forests of Gangetic valley from 8000 BC (Mahadaha), but the horse bones being so elusive, cannot survive from claimed ṛgveda date of 5000 BC in a region which is claimed to have become arid (due to drying of Sarasvati region). Hard to swallow

And somehow, the proof seems to survive from beginning of 2nd millenium BC.

shiv wrote:2. Driving of "black, dasyu Dravidians" south

No modern scholar or vedic verse calls equates dasyu == dravidian, and dasyu's black and ṛgveda people white. But you seem to think that sprinkling your posts with reminders of colonial racist taunts will make your case easier to swallow.