Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

SN_Rajan wrote: In any case, IVC script/symbols/language/proto-language does not look as advanced as RV. So, we cannot date RV prior to IVC. Plus, all the differences between IVC and RV like urban, pastoral, etc, etc.

And, if we date RV prior IVC, it cannot be in IVC area, right?

i feel we are just taking the easy of way of trashing Linguistics - by that standards, we can trash anything other than Pure Mathematics.

And, i am in search of 'truth', and i have no issues in knowing that all of us came from Africa long before(and from monkeys much before that).
IVC script does not look so advanced? Oh my. This is solid science. We have to accept that if something does not look so advanced to you it must be earlier.

If we date RV earlier it cannot be the same area? Why? Time-space warp?

Sir your search for truth is probably as intense as mine. But I suggest that you are doing this as a form of trolling - to quote your own post "mirch masala". You have read all that has been said and you choose, for the purpose of "mirch masala" to post Witzel. Indeed you are a great sage in search of truth. By the mirch masala route because the truth sometimes does not look spicy enough or advanced enough for you. In my search for truth this is called trolling.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

venug wrote: Take Indian languages for example, you will find similarities between Sanskrit and Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Bengali etc., but is it true with Sanskrit,IE and PIE?

The way it has been done in Europe uses this model

Find "Old English" and compare with modern English and see if there are any patterns being followed in changes of pronunciation and sound

Find "Old German" and compare with modern German and see if there are any patterns being followed in changes of pronunciation and sound.

Do this with a whole lot of other languages that seem to be related.

Then find an even earlier language - like Greek or Latin that contained the root words of all European languages and look at what types of sound and pronunciation changes cause Latin or Greek to change to Old German, Old French or Old English.

If consistent patterns are found they become "rules" These rules are then applied backwards in time to create a non existing proto language that in theory should become any one of the modern European languages if certain rules are applied.

If you create more than one proto language, then you can work further backward and create PIE. This is good theoretical modelling. Probably fun as well but it cannot be validated for dead languages and it does not work across the board even for existing languages. The idea is probably a good tool to study language. But it is being used to write ancient history. Ancient history based on archaeology is often random and inexact. The creation of proto languages is also inexact. if you add the errors of the two together you can make huge errors. But these errors are no skin off anyone's balls. No one's life gets affected "Nothing goes of anyone's father". In engineering, such errors could cause disaster. When you make errors combining lingusitics with history, no one's life is at risk, no one is bothered, and so a whole lot of assumptions can become "common knowledge" and appear as "truth" across a whole lot of school history books, popular media and encyclopedias. You will find that this is exactly what is happening.

A simple mathematical analogy would be as follows. Imagine that you create rules that say:
1 x 1 =0.92
2 x 2 = 4.3
3 x 3 = 8.7
For history and linguistics errors of this magnitude are acceptable. You can "round off" errors and arrive at a reasonable approximation of what you want. But when you combine these rules and repeat them again the error becomes very large.

Unfortunately that is what linguists are doing as they dabble with archaeology to rewrite history

For example the date for Sanskrit in Shri Anthony's book is 1500 BC. Why 1500 BC? Because Sanskrit was known to exist via cuneiform tablets found in Egypt containing letters to an Egyptian Pharaoh by a Mitanni king. So Sanskrit gets a date of 1500 BC even if it had existed earlier. Anthony actually uses this date to calculate backwards to say when PIE should have existed. Even that calculation can have huge errors - but I will not explain that now - it will double the size of my post.

Once they dated Sanskrit as 1500 BC based on a chance finding of cuneiform tablets found in Egypt, they started searching for suitable archaeological candidates to fit a theory that Sanskrit must have some from some earlier language, so where did it come from? Why are these people bothering to search for an earlier version of Sanskrit? Because they are searching for European language history.

They look around and find that by sheer chance, some people in central Asia had buried horses and chariots in graves and those remains had survived the ravages of time and could be dated. the dates fit the dates and selected parts of Rig Veda text that linguists are ready to accept for Sanskrit (the inconvenient parts are rejected). But still, the place is not right. So they say "Hey the people migrated". In fact Anthonyji clearly criticizes archaeologists in his book saying that they do not understand migration.

This sort of approximation, fudging and conclusions are fine for a closed boys club or a kinky religious order who have their own rules and belief system. But real science requires the answering of solid questions posed by others without getting angry or enjoying "mirch masala" . True to form, the discussion of historical linguistics seems to attract just such creatures.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RamaY »

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/361 ... agiri.html
While I was taking pictures, a local farmer introduced me to S T Rajasimha, of the Archaeological Society of India.

He first took me to see the burial ground of Mauryan times. Then he took me to the Brahmagiri excavation site and showed me the pottery pieces and the polished stone pieces. A nice farmer there gave me fresh groundnuts straight out of the ground and other fresh, delicious seeds to eat.
Then we went to see the Asoka silashasana. That means the Rock Edict of Asoka. At that time the place was called Isila Patna. The Sanskrit word – Sila was pronounced as Isila in Prakrit, the language used by Asoka in the edict. So the place name must have been Sila Patnam (sila – rock, patnam – town). It is very likely that Samrat (Emperor) Asoka knew Sanskrit.

But he wanted his edict to be read and understood by the common people. So he used the Prakrit language and the Brahmi script. In his edicts in the north west of India, he used a different script. This also implied that in his time there were common people who could at least read what was chiselled on the rock.

References to Brahmagiri
In his book A history of South India, K A Nilakantha Sastri, said that the Brahmagiri site, near Ashoka Siddapura, “is remarkable for its culture continuity extending from the polished stone axe culture to early historic cultures.”  He also said that there were two phases of the stone axe culture here (known from a study of the pottery found here)., and that the authors of this culture knew how to use Neolithic celts, microliths, and how to work copper and bronze.  The French Institute of Pondicherry, has published a Historical atlas of South India. If we superimpose the maps of the Stone Age, the New Stone Age and the Iron (Megalithic Age), we can see that Bellary had a continuous human civilization from 500,000 years ago. :eek:
N Kameswara Rao of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore, has published a research paper in which he said that the megalithic stone circles at Brahmagiri, which have been dated at 900 BC show clear astronomical orientation.
The geometrical properties of the circle indicate the sunrise and the full moon rise at the time of solar and lunar solsitices and equinoxes. “The megalithic people were aware of the 18.61 period of the moon's solstice, in addition to keeping track of the sidereal day, the seasons and the year.”
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by SaiK »

well.. that is in total error(times*100), and does not correspond to megalithic age that is mentioned.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

When you attempt to build models around theoretical constructs it is wise not to insist that they are the truth.

Let me take one example relevant to his thread - linguistics and the dating of Sanskrit.

In his book Shri Anthony uses a "rate of change of language" argument based on various estimates to say that the time taken for a proto-language to develop into a daughter language and its sister languages is about 200-300 years. One could argue against it, but it cannot be dismissed as totally wrong. So let me accept it. It is only a model and does not claim to be the truth.

Linguistic theory has been used to say that Avestan and Sanskrit are sister languages. Avestan is dated around 1100 BC and Sanskrit around 1500 in Anthony's book. Already there is a 400 year gap - long enough to make Sanskrit a mother and Avestan a daughter in terms of time using Anthonji's own rules, but linguists say that they are sisters. Not mother and daughter. Let me accept that as correct as well.

Now look at the problems.

Sanskrit has passed unchanged from 1500 BC to 2000 AD. That is 3500 years. Using Anthonyji's 200-300 year rate of change of language, Sanskrit should have changed beyond recognition in 3500 years. But due to reasons unique to Sanskrit it has remained unchanged. We know that it has remained unchanged from at least from 1500 BC because of Mitanni tablets in Egypt. But did it get frozen to its form in exactly 1500 BC? Or did it get frozen in 1700 BC? Or did it get frozen in 2000 BC? It is quite possible that the same rules that preserved Sanskrit for 3500 years were invented 500 years prior to 1500 BC. You see, if Sanskrit can remain unchanged for 3500 years, an error of 500 years in estimation is quite acceptable. It could have been unchanged for 4000 years. In fact, if a Mitanni king wrote a letter in 1500 BC, it is entirely possible that the language had existed 200 years earlier, in 1700 BC. That error offers no problem to anyone except people who are trying to fix the date in a particular point. It's not a big deal for anyone else.

The problem is that if you take Sanskrit as having existed in 1700 BC or 2000 BC the time line does not fit in with Sanskrit and Avestan being sister languages. The two languages should have diverged greatly in 800 years and should not be so similar.

What explanations can be offered for this discrepancy?
1. Sanskrit and Avestan are sister languages, but the dates assumed are wrong and the rate of change of language is much much slower than the 200-300 years assumed by Anthony
2. Linguists are wrong. Sanskrit and Avestan are not sister languages but Avestan is a later development of Sanskrit
3. Linguists are right in both the dating and the language assumptions.

Anthony is quite content to let his story rest at point number 3, and the likes of Witzel try and duck questions by rhetoric and anger. But 1 and 2 remain valid questions. Even using Anthony's assumptions it is difficult fix the date of Sanskrit at 1500 BC and not some centuries earlier. And when you go 2-3 centuries earlier you have to ask how the Vedic people completely missed a huge urban civilization of more than 1500 towns and settlements in the Indus valley and Harappan region.

References to the Saraswati and dating the Saraswati clearly point to an earlier origin for the Rig Veda. From the point of view of the passages of the Rig Veda this earlier date is perfectly rational in every way. It creates no complications. The only argument that has been used against an earlier date is "horse bones". And the horse bones argument has been taken to the absurd length of saying that the people who composed the Rig Veda were singing about horses, Sapta Sindhu and Saraswati in Central Asia while sitting in Syria in 1500 BC before moving to Punjab. And these Syrian Rig veda poets have failed to notice the urban settlements of the BMAC culture where they came from and also failed to notice the Harappan civilization whose area they went to later even as they wrote cuneiform letters to Egyptian pharaohs.

It is the horse bone argument that is a bogey. It is important only to fit linguistic theories to a cooked up time line that is needed to create a history for European languages. As long as some prominent linguists declare their own assertions correct, they have seen it OK to diss everyone else and everything else except what is convenient to their theories.
member_23630
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_23630 »

Shiv Ji,

what i was trying to say with respect to IVC is what you have also mentioned:
And when you go 2-3 centuries earlier you have to ask how the Vedic people completely missed a huge urban civilization of more than 1500 towns and settlements in the Indus valley and Harappan region
secondly, while they say RV is like a 'tape recorder', they have also dated multiple layers, mandalas for RV... something like evolution. So, it may not be stretchable in time backwards. From Witzel paper: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf
A good, possible date ad quem would be that of the Mitanni documents of N. Iraq/Syria of c. 1400 BCE that mention the gvedic gods and some other Old IA words (however, in a form slightly preceding that of the RV).8
Plus the usual suspects Horse, Chariot, etc - looks like we don't have strong case/evidence here.

Finally a question on psychology: the current scholarship maintains Steppes as the the proto-IA language origin, which is somewhere in Ural/Ukraine, and the people are Slavs - strictly not 'westerners' like Anglo-Sax, Germanic, etc. So, i am not sure of the psychology angle / their motivation here. do they like Slavs better than us. i doubt.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

Rhetorical question: Is it possible to determine the history and origins of European languages without taking Sanskrit into consideration and ignoring Sanskrit altogether?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

SN_Rajan wrote: secondly, while they say RV is like a 'tape recorder', they have also dated multiple layers, mandalas for RV... something like evolution. So, it may not be stretchable in time backwards.
Nothing needs to be stretched. The only stretching needs to be done by linguists trying to match language change theories to archaeological finds. It is a question of trying to fix an absolute "earliest date" for the start of the Rig veda. the rest of the tape recorder automatically runs without any stretching or contraction from that date.

SN_Rajan wrote:A good, possible date ad quem would be that of the Mitanni documents of N. Iraq/Syria of c. 1400 BCE that mention the gvedic gods and some other Old IA words (however, in a form slightly preceding that of the RV).8
I would be happy to learn
1. How Mittani language (in the form of a few letters from one king to one Pharoah) has been accurately mapped and related to Sanskrit phonetically when the entire evidence rests on Sanskrit written in cuneiform and cuneiform decoded via ancient Persian. This is phenomenally inaccurate and I would like to be educated how it is accurate.
2. What are "Old Indo-Aryan words"? Which language represents "Old Indo Aryan"


SN_Rajan wrote:Finally a question on psychology: the current scholarship maintains Steppes as the the proto-IA language origin, which is somewhere in Ural/Ukraine, and the people are Slavs - strictly not 'westerners' like Anglo-Sax, Germanic, etc. So, i am not sure of the psychology angle / their motivation here. do they like Slavs better than us. i doubt.
The psychological argument made by me is a bogey, a strawman. It has no basis in reality. Pure speculation by me, but it awaits further data that I will post if I find it.
Last edited by shiv on 23 Jun 2012 10:41, edited 2 times in total.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5619
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RoyG »

Excellent presentation on the linguistic evidence supporting out of india theory!

[youtube]klalJHD-e-k&feature=g-vrec[/youtube]

[youtube]mmfLpNrYxho&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

[youtube]qYodGyFmIp8&feature=relmfu[/youtube]
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by disha »

SN_Rajan wrote:secondly, while they say RV is like a 'tape recorder', they have also dated multiple layers, mandalas for RV... something like evolution. So, it may not be stretchable in time backwards. From Witzel paper: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf
A good, possible date ad quem would be that of the Mitanni documents of N. Iraq/Syria of c. 1400 BCE that mention the gvedic gods and some other Old IA words (however, in a form slightly preceding that of the RV).8
Plus the usual suspects Horse, Chariot, etc - looks like we don't have strong case/evidence here.
RajanJi, many pranams to you first.

Second, can you stop quoting from that n*Kamap*op Witzel, unless of course you are into the "mirch masala" of trolling around.

Third, before you use a paper from your favourite gora idiot and try to comment., please read some more and try to use your brains before you tell us that we do not have a case. Now, leave that paper (you can use it in your toilet if you wish since it is worthless than that) and read the rest (with a calm and open mind)., and if you have not read the 40+ older pages and its URL contents cited (unless again you are trolling)

RgVeda could have been composed over time and compiled into a redacted final form as we see., however there are certain verses that are clues about time. For eg:
ambitame nadeetame devitame sarasvati
In case you do not have the translation., it is
The Mother, The River, The Goddess Sarasvati
Sarasvati existed* and was mentioned and located in the above rhyme. It is nobody's case., not even the n*Kamap*op Witzel's that the above rhyme has been tempered with. Since it is original, the case remains that it was composed in Vedic Sanskrit (as opposed to Pannini's Sanskrit) prior to 2000 BC. How much prior., that is whether 3000 BC or 4000 BC or 7000 BC remains an open question - but definitely prior to 2000 BC.

*There is now incontrovertible evidence that Saraswati existed. I will leave it up to you to find out the URLs mentioned in the 40+ pages here.

I, a lay person, am using a single verse here to demolish Witzel's case! Infact, once the fact that Sarasvati existed came out, he had ample opportunity to come back and rework the philology but the n*Kamap*op missed the bus. That is what is causing him severe heartburns.
Finally a question on psychology: the current scholarship maintains Steppes as the the proto-IA language origin, which is somewhere in Ural/Ukraine, and the people are Slavs - strictly not 'westerners' like Anglo-Sax, Germanic, etc. So, i am not sure of the psychology angle / their motivation here. do they like Slavs better than us. i doubt.
Slavs are still considered Europeans. It is not the question of like/dislike., there are several issues at work here., the simplest being money.

There is not much money to be made if you are a European historian or archeologist. Even their budget is limited. And most of the exciting work in Archeology/History is done in India. So if you are US/Euro based philologist, anthropologist what do you do? You either work in S. America on the Maya/Inca/Aztec civilizations or work in US on dinosaur bone diggings (or go to mongolia and steal bones from there to produce history papers in US) or work in Sahel. The field in Europe is already crowded.

The only question remains is that how do the Indo-European languages have a common root and hence the plethora of people piling on using money from questionable sources to further their "careers".

There are questions that remain - From 1500 BC to 800 BC (for a period of 700 years) there was an interrugnum in the Indian History. Second the SIVC script is still not deciphered. So how did the SIVC script evolved into Brahmi is an open question. There is another smaller puzzle here - the Brahmi script went all the way to Korea and Indo-China., but its origin is obscure.

Either way, that area is where the Indian historians and archeologists are actively working. If you think they are not then you are definitely clueless :-)., but I digress., the history/archeology departments of several US/European universities just are locked out of the above discoveries - hence the alternatives proposed. Everybody knows that once the SIVC is linked with Brahmi and deciphered those US/Europeans have to close their departments and go home.

Now in this longish post., I might have been harsh on you. I apologize. I see n*Kamap*ops like witzels as cultural and history rapists no better than mao's goons and if they are glowingly referred then they do get a sharp retort.
member_23630
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_23630 »

Shiv wrote:linguists trying to match language change theories to archaeological finds
hm, i am trying understand what exactly is wrong with that? that's how pre/old history has always been dated. bronze age, iron age, etc. now, if the language says copper/bronze, horse, etc. one needs to correlate these to archaeological finds to arrive at dates, no?

well, i maybe wrong. i just want to discuss all sides of the debate, rather being one-sided. so, pls don't bash me up :-)
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by disha »

SN_Rajan wrote:well, i maybe wrong. i just want to discuss all sides of the debate, rather being one-sided. so, pls don't bash me up :-)
Humble request to read up as much as possible (go through the videos of Shri Kazanas above for eg. to start with) before coming to debate.

Your case is more like, after a debate on Ramayana, you are coming and asking was Sita ever a wife of Rama? And let us have a debate about that. You see, it does not gel and neither your entreaties about "pls. do not bash me up" at that stage.

So again with due apologies, do read up as much as you can. Ask questions - you are welcome to ask questions. Then you can indulge in debate without being bashed up. The moment you quote the n*Kamap*op Witzel, to support your argument in debate, you will receive several counterpoints and some may be very harsh.

Sarasvati is a fact. If you think it is a myth, can you prove it?

PS: SN_Rajan, welcome to BRF. If you are upto reading up., can you start with ASI's bulletins (they are available on internet) and if you are enterprising you will find in one of the ASI's bulletin an excellent counterpoint to ManishH's assertment about the wheel invented outside of SIVC.
Last edited by disha on 23 Jun 2012 12:07, edited 1 time in total.
member_23630
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_23630 »

disha

i am not saying river Saraswati is a myth. i am saying it also needs to be dated and located like any other real world entities. and it certainly is not Indus.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by disha »

SN_Rajan wrote:disha

i am not saying river Saraswati is a myth. i am saying it also needs to be dated and located like any other real world entities.
Thank you.

Sarasvati has been located right where it was mentioned in RgVeda. There are several URLs in the 40+ pages that indicate it. If you can wait for some fotus to come up by say 2-3 days, I will try to post it. It might be just a rehash.

It has been dated as well. The exact date of drying up is a matter of debate., but it is around 1500-1900 BC (per my understanding).

PS: Added later, if you do not think that the above is the right location and or date (and say that the real Sarasvati is in Russia), then you have to prove it :-). You cannot rely on a linguistic argument to locate and date it., you have to rely on archeology, geology, hydrology and anthropology/sociologic methods first and then attest it with a linguistic argument! That would be science and rigorous. Just by using linguistic argument (like n*Kamap*op Witzel) you can as well locate it on Amazon.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

Rajanji the intent is not to bash you but you are asking questions that have all come up and opinions posted earlier in this thread . You state your case as if the discussion has so far been partisan and that your doubts are an attempt at balancing the views. But if you actually took the trouble to read up what work linguists have done, you would yourself have answers rather than asking for a repeat discussion to establish fairness that you believe is missing

In fact you are being unfair to many of us who have put in days of reading before making posts by simply claiming ignorance and stating that your viewpoint is both noble and fair.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

SN_Rajan wrote:
Shiv wrote:linguists trying to match language change theories to archaeological finds
hm, i am trying understand what exactly is wrong with that? that's how pre/old history has always been dated. bronze age, iron age, etc. now, if the language says copper/bronze, horse, etc. one needs to correlate these to archaeological finds to arrive at dates, no?

well, i maybe wrong. i just want to discuss all sides of the debate, rather being one-sided. so, pls don't bash me up :-)
If you are serious about not being one sided you really ought to read the "other side" that I was having a rant about, after which I will state the reasons for my objections.

Please download and read this book available as pdf in the link below
The Horse, the Wheel and language
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by vishvak »

disha wrote: Sarasvati has been located right where it was mentioned in RgVeda. There are several URLs in the 40+ pages that indicate it. If you can wait for some fotus to come up by say 2-3 days, I will try to post it. It might be just a rehash.

It has been dated as well. The exact date of drying up is a matter of debate., but it is around 1500-1900 BC (per my understanding).

PS: Added later, if you do not think that the above is the right location and or date (and say that the real Sarasvati is in Russia), then you have to prove it :-). You cannot rely on a linguistic argument to locate and date it., you have to rely on archeology, geology, hydrology and anthropology/sociologic methods first and then attest it with a linguistic argument! That would be science and rigorous. Just by using linguistic argument (like n*Kamap*op Witzel) you can as well locate it on Amazon.
So it seems to me that barbarians cooked up random invasion theories to invade pagans and heathens in the name of pagans and heathens as invaders thereby putting the blame on those destroyed by the same barbarians; using Sanskrit, Vedas, post-Mahabharata regional changes and occurrences due to drying of Saraswati, and making this look like some discontinued civilizations inspected and observed by invading barbarians also passing off merely as civilized observers and innocent bystanders.

If it is true, is that all even civilized? Were invasions from the land and from the sea even civilized? 2 khota sikka only.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

In Central Asia, Steppes of Russia, pre-Aryan Europe, there were many many different languages. Today we are not even aware of all these languages because they died out without even having a script or leaving behind any written evidence of their existence.

Soviet Union itself, despite having Russian as its official languages, tried to make a list of those languages which were still surviving, and tried to create appropriate scripts to write down those languages. I don't know which languages were/are Ural-Altaic in origin and which were Indo-European. The point is many of these languages are already extinct or endangered.

These languages too must be included in any linguistic efforts of Europeans to develop their proto-European language. Either these extinct or endangered Indo-European languages would have constituted some branch of the Indo-European language tree, or they would have had a pronounced effect on the pronunciation observed in the Indo-European languages and the people would have mixed.

I am not sure if Europeans really have done this home-work.

But without knowing how a substratum language affects the phonetics of an ancient Indo-European language in Central Asia, one cannot know how a particular Indo-European language would have sounded without the substratum. This chain would have to followed back, always keeping in mind the operating substratum as well as the adstratums (neighboring languages).

That is how a journey backwards should take place, by understanding the operative substratums and not though some phonetic axioms.

List of endangered languages in Russia
List of (known) extinct languages of Europe
List of (known) extinct languages of Asia
Last edited by RajeshA on 23 Jun 2012 16:16, edited 1 time in total.
member_23630
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_23630 »

Shiv Ji,

Thank you. i am just downloading the book, and will read as much as i can - this book, and on the topic overall. it is interesting topic as it goes on and on, in many many layers, like onion peels, across many subjects and areas :-)

while i will wait for the experts on the finer linguistics points, i think that IVC is the 'big gorilla' in the room. Dating RV before IVC is not correct IMHO.

Witzel does write about these in his paper:
§21. RV and the Indus civilization: horses and chariots, §22. Absence of towns in the RV, §23. Absence of wheat and rice in the RV, §24 RV class society and the Indus civilization, §25. The Sarasvatī and dating of the RV and the Bråhmaas, §26. Harappan fire rituals?, §27. Cultural continuity: pottery and the Indus script etc.

now, one more newbie question: why is that Witzel is 'persona non grata' here? when i started googling this topic, he is right on top as the indologist/scholor. So, i read up few of his papers, and the debates in The Hindu and 'Horse Play' in the Frontline. In fact, after reading the debates and horse play story, i am worried about our own OIT "Extremes" as some kind of nationalistic-pseudo-science like Lemuria Continent, Ram Sethu bridge, etc.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

SN_Rajan ji,

Please tell Witzel, he should write more about "Absence of Mare's Milk in RV".

Wouldn't you like to know how Rigvedic people felt about Barfi from a mare's milk? Ummmmh....! Subhan Allah!

RV doesn't talk about towns from the Indus Valley because it predates those towns!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

SN_Rajan wrote: now, one more newbie question: why is that Witzel is 'persona non grata' here?
Witzel is not persona non grata here. He is a person who resorts to foul language and ad hominem if people disagree with him and can understand that language

Some details in these two links
http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/ ... ponse.html
The publication of our paper in Science elicited hostile reactions from them, ranging from off-the-cuff dismissive remarks such as “garbage in, garbage out” (Witzel) to ad-hominem attacks (labeling us “Dravidian nationalists”) and a vicious campaign on internet discussion groups and blogs to discredit our work.
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/IIR.pdf
Why Witzel, Professor at Harvard, thinks it fit to insult his colleagues is not very clear.21 This
mode of attack reaches a climax in his article in Frontline, a marxist journal, in which he assails
some publication which allegedly used fraudulent material (non vidi) but goes beyond this to insult
all indigenists, Indian and Western alike, non-academics and academics, including Misra (2000: 14).
Why he should have resorted to a marxist magazine to publish such a critique when India has so
many academic journals is not very clear either.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

SN_Rajan wrote:why is that Witzel is 'persona non grata' here?
He is not a 'persona non grata". In fact he is talked about here quite a bit. But let's be honest. He is a AIT-Nazi!
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_22872 »

In fact, after reading the debates and horse play story, i am worried about our own OIT "Extremes" as some kind of nationalistic-pseudo-science like Lemuria Continent, Ram Sethu bridge, etc.
Rajan ji, it appears you bought Witzel's argument that who ever opposes Witzel's argument is an extreme nationalist. He must have quoted the above example to say why he thinks they are 'extreme' nationalists.

Since you are after truth, please take your time, follow the debate between shiv ji, Manish ji, Rajesh ji, Brihaspathi ji mainly and others. Keep an open mind and see why AIT/AMT argument isn't right. You might already read Witzel so you can always come back ask them and reason what you think is right. The debate is not partial, in fact from Manish ji's contention will tell you that all view points are taken seriously and that people here do consider all arguments and take pains to explain and debunk. So please first read through the debate.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by JwalaMukhi »

RajeshA wrote:
SN_Rajan wrote:why is that Witzel is 'persona non grata' here?
He is not a 'persona non grata". In fact he is talked about here quite a bit. But let's be honest. He is a AIT-Nazi!
Herr Witzel has a deep revulsion against Indians in general and NRIs in particular. He is contemptuous and has called many who he disagrees with, using derogatory terms such as "HINA" in many civil discussions. His ideas have limited civility and lot of supermacist attitudes. His ideas are going to be thoroughly dissected and rubbished. That does not mean we reciprocate his kind of civility.

He and his ilk generally are interested in having Indians to be "suppliers of data", so the arrogant TFTAs can pontificate on the analysis part and provide conclusions. The same is exhibited by linguists who demand that SDREs do the donkey's footwork to mine and provide data to the masters who will then tell SDREs how stupid they are.

BTW when can he come up with evidence for mare's milk?
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by JwalaMukhi »

My last post on witzel fellow. As we do not have to discuss him.
BTW, if anyone is interested here is a dossier on herr witjel himself...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14431336/Dossier-on-Witzel
2.0 Statements stereotyping Indian Americans
2.1: Indian Americans are ‘lost’ and ‘abandoned’:
Practically every month, Professor Witzel publishes a statement (in print or on the internet) thatdenigrates and stereotypes Indian Americans.
member_23630
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_23630 »

shiv wrote:He is a person who resorts to foul language and ad hominem if people disagree with him
well, certainly, this aspect is not a one-sided . i see the foul language and ad hominem from our side in this thread itself. :-)

but, in a serious discussion, one just filters out all these "noises", focuses on the "real points'.

while i continue my googling and studying, can anyone point to a reference of RV dating that is prior to IVC? this topic being "technical" as opposed, say BENIS-style, i am interested in a reference from a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal only.

i myself see lots of material online from various 'other' sources like blogs, many websites, etc, etc - but these are just speculation unless accepted in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal.

i am also trying with 'Google Scholar' search...
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Murugan »

Graham Hancock - Underworld: Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age

Talks about Finds near Gulf of Khmabhat, Dwarka, Dholavira, Connection with Harappa, Saraswati River and its disappearance.

49 Mins video. Worth saving for later use

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQZFS9Hi ... re=related
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_20317 »

Bhaad mein jaye Witzel. Aur Bhaad mein jaye Pear Reviewed Bakwaasbazi.

Lets have something else on this board. Look what I found.

Apparently Linguists have not just made up PIE. They even have ideas as to the Mathematics used by PIE people.

http://www.zompist.com/euro.htm

And to top it all the data is presented in a manner to suggest Base 10 counting was invented by PIE people (comparison presented is with other decimal numeral terminology). No not with Tally marks but with ‘ek, do, teen…Dus’.

This is a truly awe-inspiring discovery.

Now only geometry is left out and I am sure there would be some aspirated labiovelar Kw or whatever that carries to link to Euclid himself.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

On the Trail of the Lunar Dynasty

From Vayu Purana

THE SOLAR LINE
The sages requested Lomaharshana. “Please tell us the history of the solar line.” Lomaharshana complied.

...

Vaivasvata Manu ruled as Manu. He had ten sons. The eldest was named Ila. The other sons were named Ikshvaku, Kushanabha, Arishta, Dhrishta, Narishyanata, Karusha, Sharyati, Prishadhra and Nabhaga. The solar line owes its origin to Ikshavaku. In this line was born king Bhagiratha, who brought the sacred river Ganga down from heaven. Further down the line was Dasharatha and Dasharatha‘s son was Rama. You know about Rama from the Ramayana.

ILA AND THE LUNAR LINE
Vaisvasvata Manu‘s eldest son was Ila. When Vaivasvata Manu became old, he retired to the forest. Ila was appointed the ruler in his place. Ila set out on a voyage of conquest and travelled throughout the world. There was a forest named Sharavana, frequented by Shiva and Parvati. Shiva had decreed that any man who entered the forest would become a woman. King Ila did not know about this rule and set foot in the forest inadvertently he immediaely got transformed into a woman.

“What is going to happen to me now?” thought Ila. “Where will I live?” He even forgot all about his earlier life. The moon-god, Chandra, had a son named Budha. While Ila was wandering around. Budha came upon her and fell in love with her. The two had a son named Pururava and Pururava was the ancestor of the lunar line.

Meanwhile, Ikshvaku and the other brothers had started to look for Ila. When they could find no trace of their brother, they asked the sage Vashishtha if he knew of Ila‘s whereabouts. Vashishtha used his mental powers to find out what had happened. He asked the princes to pray to Shiva and Parvati. That was the only way to make Ila a man once more.

The prayers pleased Shiva and Parvati and they found out what the princes wants. “But what you desire is quite impossible,” they told Ikshvaku and his brother. “Ila can never be made a man once again. At best, we will grant you the following boon. Ila will alternate between being a man for one month and a woman for one month.” The princes had to be content with this. As a woman, Ila continued to be known as Ila. But as a man, he came to known as Sudyumna and had three sons named Utkala, Gaya and Haritashva

CHANDRA AND BUDHA
“You forgot to tell us how Budha was born,” remarked the sages. “Nor did you tell us anything about Chandra‘s birth.” Lomaharshana filled in the blanks. The sage Atri was Brahma‘s son. Atri once performed very difficult tapasya. A tremendous amount of energy was released as a result of this meditation and the moon-god, Chandra or Soma, was born from this energy. Brahma appointed Chandra ruler over all stars, planets and herbs (oshadhi). Twenty-seven of Daksha‘s daughter were married to Chandra. These were the nakshatras (stars). Chandra performed a rajasuya yajna (royal sacrifice) and the ceremony was an outstanding success. Bt all this sucess.

But all this success and glory went to Chandra‘s head. The preceptor of the gods was the sage Brihaspati and Brihaspati‘s wife was Tara. Chandra‘s eyes fell upon Tara and he forcibly abducted her. On several occasions Brihaspati asked Chandra to return Tara, but the moon-god would not listen. A terrible war then raged between the gods and demons over Tara. The gods fought on Brihaspati‘s side and the demons aided Chandra. Shiva also fought on the side of the gods. As the war raged, Shiva let fly a terrible divine weapon named brahmashirsha at Chandra.

Chandra countered this with another terrible divine weapon named somastra. These two weapons of destruction threatened to burn up the entire universe. Brahma decided that it was time for him to intervene. “Stop this nonsense at once,” he told Chandra. “What you have done is most improper. Return Tara at once.” These words ashamed Chandra and he returned Tara. But Chandra and Tara had already had a handsome son named Budha. Budha became very skilled in the handling of elephants. In fact, the knowledge of tackling and handling elephants goes back to Budha. You already know that Budha married Ila and that they had a son named Pururava.

PURURAVA AND URVASHI
Pururava was a very strong king who ruled the earth well. He performed one hundred ashvamedha yajnas. The three goals of human life are dharma (righteousness), artha (wealth), and kama (that which is desired). These three goals wished to see which of them Pururava revered the most. They therefore adopted human forms and came to visit Pururava. Pururava treated them with utmost respect and gave them golden seats to sit on. He offered them all sorts of offerings. But in the process, Dharma received more of the offerings than Artha and Kama. This angered Artha and Kama. “You will be destroyed,” Artha cursed Pururava. “You will go mad over Urvashi,” Kama cursed Pururava But Dharma blessed Pururava. “You will live for long and you will never deviate from the righteous path,” he said. “Your descendants will rule for ever.”

Having thus cursed and blessed Pururava, Dharma, Artha, and Kama disappeared. On one particular occasion, Pururava was driving his chariot through a forest. He suddenly found that a demon named Keshi was abducting an apsara (dancer of heaven). This apsara was none other than Urvashi. Pururava defeated the demon and rescued Urvashi. He restored her to Indra, the king of the gods. Indra was deligthed at this act and Indra and Pururava became friends. The sage Bharata taught mankind how to sing and dance. To celebrate Urvashi‘s return, Indra asked Bharata to stage a performance. As artistes, Bharata chose three apsaras. They were Menaka, Urvashi and Rambha. Menaka and Rambha danced as they should. But Urvashiw as attracted by King Pururava and kept looking at him. The result was that Urvashi fell out of step. This angered Bharata and he cursed Urvashi that she would have to spend fifty-five years on earth. On earth, Urvashi married Pururava and they had eight sons named Ayu, Dridayau, Ashvayu, Dhanayu, Dhritamana, Vasu, Shuchividya and Shatayu.

YAYATI
In the lunar line there was a king named Nahusha and Nahusha‘s son was Yayati. Yayati had two wives, Sharmishtha and Devayani. Sharmishtha was the daughter of Vrishaparva, the king of the danavas (demons). And Devayani‘s father was Shukracharya, the preceptor of the demons. Devayani gave birth to Yadu and Turvasu and Sharmishtha gave birth to Druhya, Anu and Puru. Yayati ruled the world extremely well for many years. He performed many yajnas.

But eventually he grew old. The problem was that although Yayati grew old, he was not yet tired of sensual pleasures. He still desired to savour the joys that the world had to offer. Yayati told his five sons. “Because of Shukracharya‘s curse, an untimely old age has come upon me and I am not content with what I have savoured of life. I request one of you to give me his youth and accept my old age in return. When I have sated myself with worldly pleasures, I will take back my old age and return the youth.” Except for Puru, the other four sons flatly refused such an exchange. They had no desire to part with their valued youth. They were thereupon cursed by their father.

As for Puru, he said, “Please accept my youth and be happy. It is my duty to serve and I will gladly take upon me your old age.” For a thousand years Yayati savoured the pleasures of the world with Puru‘s youth. A thousand years were not than enough to satisfy Yayati. He accepted his old age and returned Puru‘s youth. He blessed Puru for his obedience and announced to the word that Puru was his only true son. Puru inherited the kingdom after Yayati. His descendants were known as the Pauravas. It was in this line that King Bharata was born. It is after Bharata that the land we live in is known as Bharatavarsha.

The sages interrupted Lomaharshana. “You are going too fast.” They said. “What is this curse of Shukracharya‘s that Yayati referred to? You have forgotten to tell us about that.” “I will,” replied Lomaharshana. “But first, let me tell you about Kacha and Devayani.”

SHARMISHTHA AND DEVAYANI
Sharmishtha was the daughter of Vrishaparva, the king of the danavas. Sharmishtha and Devayani were great friends, until Indra played some mischief. The two friends had gone to bathe in a pond and had left their clothes on the bank. Indra adopted the form of a breeze and mixed up the clothes. When Sharmishtha donned her clothes after having had her bath, she put on Devayani‘s clothes by mistake. Devayani said, “How dare you wear my clothes ? My father is your father‘s teacher and you are my inferior in every respect. You have no business to put on my clothes.” “I am not your inferior.” Replied Sharmishatha. “It is you who are my inferior. My father is the king and your father thrives on my father‘s generoisty.” The two friends started to quarrel. Sharmishtha flung Devayani into a well and left her there, taking her to be dead.

At that time, King Yayati came to the forest on a hunt. He was thirsty and looked for some water. When he found the well, he discovered Devayani inside it. He rescued Devayani. Yayati also fell in love with her, so that the two got married. Shukracharya got to know about all this and was furious at the treatment that Sharmishtha had meted out to his daughter. He threatened to leave the demons. Vrishaparva did his best to persuade Shukracharya not to leave them, but Shukracharya insisted that he would stay only if Devayani was pacified. Vrishaparva promised to give Devayani whatever it was that she wished for. “Sharmishtha has insulted me,” said Devayani. “She has called me her inferior. My mind will be set at rest only if Sharmishtha serves as a servant. Vrishaparva agree to this conditon and Sharistha became Devayani‘s servant, together with one thousand other demon women.

After Yayati and Devayani got married, Shukracharya told Yayati, “Sharmisha is Devayani‘s servant and you are married to Devayani. Under no circumstances marry Sharmishtha, otherwise I am going to curse. In due course, Devayani gave birth to Yadu and Turvasu. Sharmishtha had secretly married Yayati and she too gave birth to Druhya, Anu and Puru. “How came you to have sons? Asked Devayani. “Who is your husband? “My husband is a brahmana,” replied Sharmishtha. “I do not know his name.” But when Devayani asked Druhya, Anu and Puru about their father, the truth came out. They told her that they were King Yayati‘s sons. “You have insulted me,” Devayani told Yayati. “Will remain your wife no longer. You have married my servant.”

Shukracharya was also furious. Yayati had gone against his wishes and had married Sharmishtha. Shukracharya cursed Yayati that old age would set upon the king, although he was still in the prime of youth. “Please do not curse me,” said Yayati. “I am married to your daughter. I wish to live with her as her husband. Do you wish your son-in-law to be an old servant?” “My curse cannot be lifted,” replied Shukracharya. “But I will try and mitigate the effects. I grant you the power that you can pass on this old age to whomsoever you wish.” It was this old age that Puru accepted.

Image
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by vishvak »

It is not stopped at that.
From wiki
In recent years, he has explored the links between old Indian, Eurasian and other mythologies (1990,[45] 2001-2010,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] resulting in a new scheme of historical comparative mythology[54] that covers most of Eurasia and the Americas
..
the first of several annual International Conferences on Dowry and Bride-Burning in India (1995 sqq.
..
At the Beijing conference he founded the International Association for Comparative Mythology
So now in novel field of 'comparative mythology', native americans are to hear the same AIT drivel. As also, there is hardly anyone from India in the Comparative Mythology whatever stuff.

It is very inhuman and not secular at all to ignore human rights of native americans in the past, present and future.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

JwalaMukhi wrote:That does not mean we reciprocate his kind of civility.
JwalaMukhi ji,

When they use words like Hindu fundamentalist, chauvinists, nationalists, etc. for Indian scholars who try to do their work and break this academic oppression going on for around two centuries now, they are basically trying to destroy their reputation as scholars to be taken seriously without making the effort to respond to their arguments. It is a tactic which has worked for them.

As far as I am concerned, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

I say "Nazis" because just like Nazis they too think that the origin of Indo-Europeans aka Aryans lie not in India but somewhere in Central Asia. So they are basically following the same theory. Also both Nazis and AIT-Nazis have appropriated Indian linguistic and cultural goods for their own civilizations. Thirdly there is then the issue of Witzel's ethnicity - Germany, which was Nazi country, and his attitudes are similar.

So just like they don't mind destroying the reputations of Indigenist Indians, I too don't mind destroying the reputation of AIT wallahs in similar way. So, I don't really mind reciprocating Witzels & Co. with similar civility. Whether you do so or not, is your wish.

I consider OIT view the underdog view, and as an underdog, I am willing to bite him all over his legs and everywhere else, and use every trick in the box.

So if we are Hindu fundamentalists, then they are AIT-Nazis. And I want AIT-Nazi to stick to them, to the AIT linguists, PIE bakers, horse bone wavers, and Co. I want the word to stick to them so strongly, that no matter what they do, they cannot wash it away. Let they and all those involved in their pet subjects suffer the ignominy from the rest of the academic society and general populace for their crimes they have committed over two centuries.
Last edited by RajeshA on 23 Jun 2012 20:12, edited 2 times in total.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Murugan »

Ravi_g,

There is no evidence E in PIE as far as numbers are concerned. till late 400 AD they used M, I, X etc to denote numbers. Now they are MIXin E in PI to feel good.

Indians by that time invented the value of PI

wiki says
In India around 600 BC, the Shulba Sutras (Sanskrit texts that are rich in mathematical contents) treat π as (9785/5568)2 ≈ 3.088.[27] In 150 BC, or perhaps earlier, Indian sources treat π as ≈ 3.1622.[28]
E is insignificant. Whenever you read PIE, think about scam
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_22872 »

No one's life gets affected "Nothing goes of anyone's father". In engineering, such errors could cause disaster.
Shiv ji, thanks for your explanation, I see the point of cumulative effect of rounding off error causing divergence of solution in CFD all the time. I can understand and coorelate to my own experience.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_22872 »

Murugan ji, when they are claiming the composition of Rg Veda itself as their work, what is to say about the later work? the later works are done because of Aryan migration effect who brought with them the knowledge, 'the brains' behind Vedic mathematics. We savages are good at nothing, may be serve the gora Sahibs standing in attention and sing peans about Witzel types else get branded extreme nationalists.
Last edited by member_22872 on 23 Jun 2012 20:19, edited 1 time in total.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by JwalaMukhi »

RajeshA wrote: So just like they don't mind destroying the reputations of Indigenist Indians, I too don't mind destroying the reputation of AIT wallahs in similar way. So, I don't really mind reciprocating Witzels & Co. with similar civility. Whether you do so or not, is your wish.

I consider OIT view the underdog view, and as an underdog, I am willing to bite him all over his legs and everywhere else, and use every trick in the box.

So if we are Hindu fundamentalists, then they are AIT-Nazis. And I want AIT-Nazi to stick to them, to the AIT linguists, PIE bakers, horse bone wavers, and Co. I want the word to stick to them so strongly, that no matter what they do, they cannot wash it away. Let they and all those involved in their pet subjects suffer the ignominy from the rest of the academic society and general populace for their crimes they have committed over two centuries.
RajeshAji,
First of all your starting of this thread was superb. Please accepts my pranams.
Sorry for not wording the sentence correctly in a hurry and that could mean I was opposing your characterization of AIT-Nazis. It was not meant to be that. It was mostly meant to convey that "witzel" is persona non-grata nonsense that was alluded to. In fact, I would go further and say you are being very generous in characterizing him "AIT-Nazi". Sorry for the confusion.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

JwalaMukhi ji,

no need for sorry. Even in misunderstanding, it allowed me the opportunity to give Witzel & Co. the medal - "AIT-Nazi of the Year Award".
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

ImageImage
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

It seems that while Puru was closer to his father, in fact making a sacrifice of his youth for him, in exchange for his father's old age (whatever that means), Druhya could have been closer to his mother's side, and thus closer to Danavas power base.

Perhaps that is why Druhyus and Danavas came to be considered as "synonymous"!
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Murugan »

venug wrote:Murugan ji, when they are claiming the composition of Rg Veda itself as their work, what is to say about the later work? the later works are done because of Aryan migration effect who brought with them the knowledge, 'the brains' behind Vedic mathematics. We savages are good at nothing, may be serve the gora Sahibs standing in attention and sing peans about Witzel types else get branded extreme nationalists.
Venug pl also see the Hancock video. All the E things are put to rest.

Also see this video, may ignore alien thing but other things are fascinating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeDMSXOh ... re=related

And this video
Technologies of Ancient Indians. The first european toilet came at least 2000 years after Harappan. Being gutter inspector, why wont they like to identify everything with E to feel very good about themselves. In the process insulting others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqIfmvdK ... re=related
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Murugan »

Zero Reached Europe in 13th Century.

Zero was called work of Devil by Roman Catholic Church

without 0 i could not be writing this post. It is all work of 1 and 0 in computers everybody knows.

But people who advocated use of zero in europe were Burnt Alive. Look at the BBC video in my last post. Nazism was prevailing in 13th century also in Europe.
Locked