Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Jun 2012 21:09

Friends,

I have a book called "Nakshatra Veedhullo = In the streets of stars" by Sri Dr. Mahidhara Nalini Mohan (MNM). MNM did his masters in Physics from Osmania Univ and Phd from Moscow univ then did research in few western space observatories. He worked as Deputy Director in National Physical Laboratory, Delhi and participated in 18 racket experiments.

This is my free translation of that book per Ramanaji's advise. I hope this helps this discussion. I will try to post each section of that book (has 40 parts) as separate post. Once complete we can make it into a separate thread if needed.

Part 1: Ursula Minor or Laghu Rukshamu (Small Bear)

Scandinavian gods formed this universe like a huge ball and nailed (with diamond nails) the defeated demons on various places on that ball. They took a long spear and put it from one side of that ball, thru Earth to the other end of the universe.

Pole star is the last star in the tail of this Small Bear.

Not all stars in this Laghu Rukshamu are bright. They got prominence only due to the bright Dhruva star.

Phoenicians (1200-539 BC) [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia ] are the first ones to use Dhruva star for navigation. Greeks, who used the less accurate Big Bear (Saptarshi Mandala) for Navigation till then, got this knowledge from Phoenicians. They called it Cynosura (later got the meaning Centre of Attraction).

Arabs called this Small Bear as a hearse. They imagined the Big Bear to be the coffin and Dhruva to be the murderer!

Like Arabs, Egyptians too imagined the Dhruva start to be a bad-star (perhaps due to the fact they used to worship Tuba – the previous pole star, whose fame was taken away by Dhruva).

Chinese called Dhruva the king of heavens.

Bharatiyas have a story on Dhruva (Son of Uttana Pada & Suniti). This story is told in Bharatam, Bhagavatam and Matsya, Vishnu Puranas. Sri Mahavishnu gave the following boon to Dhruva

Vedahante Vyavasitam, Hrudirajanya balaka!
Yatragrahaarsha taaraanaam,jyotishaam chakramaahitam
Medhyaam gochakravatsthaasnu, parastaat kalpavaasinaam
Dharmogni: Kasyapa: sukro, munayoyeva naukasa:
Charanti dakshineekrutya, bhramantOyatsa taarakaa:
Shadvimsadvarsha saahasram, rakshitaavyaahatemdriya:

Modern history tells us that a Greek scientist called Hipparchus found about Earth’s precession of equinox and that it takes 26,000 years for one cycle to complete.

Bharatiyas made this astronomical observation long before Hiipparchus – perhaps at least before ~3000BC, when the star in universal pole changed from Mrugasiras to Kruttikas.

We have a story that Sri Krishna killed Narakasura (Drako) in Pragjyotishapura and gave the Kundalas (ear rings) to Aditi and then made Dhruva to be the pole star.

Upanishads say “Dhruvasya SthaanaadapasaraNam”. Apasaranam means movement. That means the pole start itself changes for every 1000 years.

A picture on precision of Equinox and various Indic stars. Please note Abhijit star. Some Veda mantras talk about this. IIRC the story I posted earlier talks about this star. If that is correct then the early vedic times can be at least before ~14,000 BC.

Also read the story of Yayaati (ancestor of MB family). If he was mentioned as Pole start (need to search) then we are going back to at least ~21,000 BC.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jun 2012 21:35

Please post these in a separate thread in GDF. Keep this for reference.
Reduces Admin work load.
Thanks, ramana

disha · Post by **disha** » 23 Jun 2012 21:58

SN_Rajan wrote:well, certainly, this aspect is not a one-sided . i see the foul language and ad hominem from our side in this thread itself.

Rajan'ji - why are you getting your dhotis in a twist if a lay person is giving back in the same drivel as they have been getting for last past 2 decades? n*Kamap*op Witzel and his underlings have used extremely distasteful process, language and methods to propogate a conjecture. His entire 5 decades of work at this stage stands to be discredited if the conjecture is invalid. Further with his uncivility n*Kamap*op is already discredited., he needs to publish a public apology in all forms of media to get back in the field.

If you still do not understand and to balance out need to do equal-equal you can call me whatever you want and equate me to Witzel. I am okay with that. If you note, Shri Anthony's ideas are dissected rather with humility and civility. You should ask why even if Shri Anthony is AIT proponent gets a better treatment compared to you know who.

SN_Rajan wrote: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.

While doing googling, please google for the following luminaries: Kazanas, Keynoyer, B. Lal.

these are just speculation unless accepted in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal.

Several of the URLs in the 45+ pages are discussions and dissected discussions from peer reviewed scientific journal. I asked you to look up ASI bulletins and publications, they do not publish anything other than their findings and the process of their findings. Further all the bulletins of ASI are peer reviewed (from within ASI) and they have excellent linguists, archeologists, paleo-botanists etc. If you just want data and how they are found without any spin, check out the ASI bulletings and publications first.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jun 2012 22:00

SN_Rajan wrote: i am interested in a reference from a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal only.

Who isn't?

And when you find one just name the "peers" so we know which club of peers is involved.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 23 Jun 2012 22:05

Murugan ji, thanks for the video links, they are fascinating finds however, they are not peer reviewed

, I will believe only when they are published by an American journal or English journal or a German one and each article has to have atleast 50 cited papers from guys from the west onlee who are TFTA onlee that makes me believe you else no point.

BTW regarding zero, take any random nonfiction book on science, you read the history of science, you will find no mention of Indian contribution, eveyrhing is done by Greek or Arap cousins onlee.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 23 Jun 2012 22:06

Here in this thread there were discussions about bards.

I had an aha moment. Prithviraj Raso was written by Chand BARDai. One Damayanti BARDai is one such living bard. There are BARDai Brahmins - i am not sure whether it refers to some geographical or Bard profession.

Many BARots, Gadhavi and Charans are still Bard and geneaologists/mythographers by profession. Mainly found in Rajasthan and Gujarat region. Also today, they can create small poems known as duha while on the move or extempore on give subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barot_(caste)

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 23 Jun 2012 22:08

venug wrote:Murugan ji, thanks for the video links, they are fascinating finds however, they are not peer reviewed , I will believe only when they are published by an American journal or English journal or a German one and each article has to have atleast 50 cited papers from guys from the west onlee who are TFTA onlee that makes me believe you else no point.

BTW regarding zero, take any random nonfiction book on science, you read the history of science, you will find no mention of Indian contribution, eveyrhing is done by Greek or Arap cousins onlee.

What about horse domestication, bronze artefacts and chariots with spokes sir-ji..

I have mentioned earlier, that vis-a-vis OIT now it is time to reclaim our positions on zero, numbers, calculus, astronomy, surgery, medicine systems and many other things.

disha · Post by **disha** » 23 Jun 2012 22:17

RajeshA wrote: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 think the bolded part should be a conscious affair. I had an interesting discussion with a gori @1 decade back. In short, the gori forcefully pointed out that because of europeans and the AIT we got the language and the culture and we made a mess of it by inventing the caste system on top of it. The last part I could not take it standing down, just asked back - will the gori be happy if her daughter marries a latino sanitary worker (at that time the gori's daughter was dating somebody higher up in a search startup that has enter the dictionary)., her looks were to be seen and the caste system was never mentioned ever again. It is a different issue that I paid a heavy price in my career after that., but I do not regret that incident a bit!

Hence it is perfectly okay nay dharmic to give back the likes of n*Kamap*op and their followers/ilk a dose of the same medicine.

PS: Apologies again for the personal rant. My last post on this kind of silly points. I have gone through lot of material that needs to be posted and will rather concentrate on that.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 23 Jun 2012 22:17

I believe without doubt that they belong to TFTA looking Artans only, the knight in shining armour too rides them they are aryans with sharp noses. My poojya guru Witzel too said that what more do you want?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Jun 2012 22:20

Murugan wrote: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

This is the single biggest evidence to show the falsehood of PIE and how IVC had independent culture and languages without outside inputs. This should be quoted to show how disconnected AIT are from the facts.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jun 2012 22:28

Folks we keep saying that AIT is dead.

But it isn't dead because it stays alive in so many different forms. When I search for the origins and dating of Zoroaster and Avestan, we come back full circle to the same points we have seen again and again....

If you try and approach this issue from the Iranian history angle rather than the Indian angle, you discover that the Iranians too are confused. Why are they confused? They are confused because they cannot explain what happened between 2000 BC and 1000 BC. Iranians know that in that period they had a language that was so soo similar to Rig Vedic Sanskrit that anyone in Iran, Afghanistan or India could understand the other guy. It was practically the same friggin language.

http://www.farvardyn.com/zoroaster.php

The language which these people spoke was the ancient tongue of which the language of the Vedic Hymns and that of the Gathic Chants of Zarathustra were both branches. The exceeding close resemblanse between the two has been noted by every student of Aryan philology. So close are these two languages that a mere phonetic change (or, to put it popularly, a slight mispronunciation) often suffices to translate a passage from the one into the other, keeping at the same time the sense absolutely intact. The differences are not greater than what are found between two 'dialects' of one original tongue.

In fact in the following page the question is - "Was the Mitanni "Old Iranian" really a different language at all?"
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/i ... t-evidence

Finally, a text by a Mitanni named Kikkuli about horses and horseracing written in Hittite contains technical terms such as aika-vartana “one turn/round.” The 20th-century discussion about these words has centered around the question of whether these are Indo-Iranian, before IIr. s became Iranian h (cf. OInd. suvar, OIr. *huwar “sun”), or simply Indic words, with aika “one”; cf. OInd. eka-, but OIran. *aiwa- (Pers. yak is from *ēk from *aiwaka-).

Why the confusion and doubt? The explanation lies in this passage from the same link:

Part of the problem is how to explain the presence of Indo-Aryans in this area at a time when the Indo-Aryan population of Central Asia was, presumably, well on its way into India.

You see, Iranians are as much dhimmis who look for the same gora burra saab "peer" reviews that you and I slobber and fight over. And the Iranians have been given the same story that you and I have been fed.

There was a mummy language that started in Europe. It came down to you as "Indo-Iranian" in 2000 BC. You kept the Iranian part, and the Indian part was created in India by 1500 BC.

But if two different languages, sister languages "Old Indic/Rig Vedic Sanskrit" and Old iranian were two languages that split off after 2000 BC and were separate languages by 1500 BC what the fuk were exactly the same languages doing in Iran AND India in 1500 BC? A new explanation has to be cooked up for this:

For this the Iran link above says:

one possible explanation for the Indo-Aryan presence may be that they had been “imported” (invited or captured) from Central Asia as experts in horse matters.

But Anthonyji says, for the same problem

A good guess is that the Mitanni king-
dom was founded by Old Indic-speaking mercenaries, perhaps charioteers,
who regularly recited the kinds of hymns and prayers that were collected
at about the same time far to the east by the compilers of the Rig Veda.
Hired by a Hurrian king about 1500 BCE, they usurped his throne and
founded a dynasty,

My oh my. the Iranians say that the language which sounds like Sanskrit was "indo-Iranian mommy language" imported form Central Asia. Anthony says it was Sanskrit imported from india. Either way Sanskrit was well established in India by 1500 BC. It was not as though all those "waves of migrants" were still on there way there just about "splitting off" from "Indo Iranian" and creating Sanskrit.

There is a very simple way of reconciling the idea that Sanskrit was a well established language by 1500 BC spoken all over North India and Iran and possibly even Bactria(Turkmenistan). That is by keeping your mind open to the possibility that Sanskrit really did develop in northwest India around the Indus and Saraswati rivers perhaps as early as 3000 BC as a proto language and then spread west so that it was widely spoken(as Rig Vedic Sanskrit dialects) all over Iran by 1500 BC. By the time Zoroaster was born, that language, (as Avestan) had already spread to Bactria (Turkmenistan) and was already within striking range of Greece.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 23 Jun 2012 22:35

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.

One more time quoting your post venug.

Your post bring about another point that we have no connection with them

WE ARE NOT ARROGANT. We do not use foul language in public forums unless spoken at first and never be disrespectful to a person who is doing his work sincerely be him/her an accountant or thela wala. They can also contribute. Even squirrels have contributed to story of ramayan and their work was acknolwedged by Lord Ram.

I had a strong objection to a statement that 'every indian is a historian' or something like that and a halfwitz try to tick off our people.

Btw, if such halfwits are reading this, would like to tell them that every indian has a potential to be a historian, an ayurvedic doctor, a geneologist or linguist and a yogi...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Jun 2012 22:35

Murugan wrote:
I have mentioned earlier, that vis-a-vis OIT now it is time to reclaim our positions on zero, numbers, calculus, astronomy, surgery, medicine systems and many other things.

This process has already been started by Dr Kaushal Vepa more than 10 years ago. We had met and planned this moment when the need to reclaim will be required.

http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/

http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/2010/09/o ... onomy.html

http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/2012/06/l ... hindu.html

http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/2012/04/a ... y-but.html

PROLOGUE, THE PARABLE OF THE LOST COIN
CHAPTER I THE CELESTIAL SPHERE - INTRODUCTION TO CALENDRICAL ASTRONOMY
CHAPTER II THE NAKṢATRA SYSTEM –THE VEDIC LUNAR MANSIONS (MANZIL)
CHAPTER III A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF INDIAN ASTRONOMY
CHAPTER IV JAINA ASTRONOMY AND THE SIDDHĀNTIC ERA
CHAPTER V THE KERALA ASTRONOMERS
CHAPTER VI THE INDIAN NATIONAL CALENDAR (INC)
CHAPTER VII ARCHEO-ASTRONOMY AND ASTRO-CHRONOLOGY
CHAPTER VIII THE ASTRONOMY OF THE ANCIENTS
CHAPTER IX THE REALITY OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSMISSION
CHAPTER X A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON CALENDARS OF THE WORLD
CHAPTER XI SELECTED SAVANTS
CHAPTER XII EPILOGUE

Please go through the books and please contribute

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 23 Jun 2012 22:44

Acharya-ji, Thank you.

I knew about this.

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 23 Jun 2012 23:45

RajeshA wrote: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"!

The itihaas=history connection is very enticing and a slippery slope and leads indology. Please do read the article from Balu that Arun posted and Edmuch Leach's paper. It is one thing to look at a hard scientific fact and say -> ah that must be why falaana-purana has falaani-story. But to do the opposite is impossible - a one way hash function.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 24 Jun 2012 00:06

Shiv Ji,

Thank you again for Anthony's book. It is very interesting, readable, balanced and mature - but it does cover a huge a syllabus

it does support the current scholarship view: no large scale invasion except the normal/evolution/historical people and language migration/movements with some/minimal violence, etc, correlating with linguistics and archeological evidence, and does concur with Witzel's paper:

Witzel says in his paper regarding timing of Vedic, Iranian and Indo-European:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewi ... VS-7-3.pdf

§12. Vedic, Iranian and Indo-European

It is undeniable and has indeed hardly been denied even by most stalwart advocates of the autochthonous theory, that Vedic Sanskrit is closely related to Old Iranian and the other IE languages.79 However, this relationship is explained in a manner markedly differing from
the standard IE theories, that is by an emigration westwards of the Iranians and the other Indo-Europeans from the Panjab (see below).

Vedic Sanskrit is indeed so closely related to Old Iranian that both often look more like two dialects than two separate languages (e.g. tam mitram yajåmahe : təm miθrəm yazamaide 'we worship Mitra'). Any Avestan speaker staying for a few weeks in the Panjab would have
been able to speak Vedic well and --with some more difficulty - vice versa. However, that does not necessitate at all that the Old Iranian dialects were introduced to into Iran from the east, from India, as the autochthonist would have it. As will be seen below (§ 12 sqq.), there are a number of features of Old Iranian (such as lack of typical South Asian substrate words, § 13 sqq.) which actually exclude an Indian origin. Such data have not been discussed yet by the autochthonists.

From Anthony's book: page 454 Chapter I6

Pastoral economies spread across Iran and into Baluchistan, where clay images of riders on horseback appeared at Pirak about 1700 BCE. Chariot corps appeared across the Near East as a new military technology. An Old Indic-speaking group of chariot warriors took control of a Hurrian-speaking kingdom in north Syria about 1500 BCE. Their oaths referred to deites (Indra, Varuna, Mithra, and the Nasatyas) and concepts (r'ta) that were the central deities and concepts in the Rig Veda, and the language they spoke was a dialect of the Old Indic Sanskrit of the Rig Veda. 39 The Mitanni dynasts came from the same ethnolinguistic population as the more famous Old Indic-speakers who simultaneously pushed eastward into the Punjab, where, according to many Vedic scholars, the Rig Veda was compiled about 1500-1300 BCE.

from Anthony's book: page 465 Chapter I7

For Indo-European archaeology, the errors of the past cannot be repeated as easily today. When the nineteenth-century fantasy of the Aryans began there were no material remains, no archaeological findings, to constrain the imagination. The Aryans of Madison Grant were concocted from spare linguistic evidence (and even that was twisted to his purpose), a large dose of racism, a cover of ideals derived from the Classical literature of Greece and Rome, and the grim zero-sum politics of social Darwinism. Archaeology really played no role. The scattered archaeological discoveries of the first half of the twentieth century could still be forced into this previously established imaginary mold. But that is not so easy today. A convincing narrative about the speakers of Proto-Indo-European must today be pegged to a vast array of archaeological facts, and it must remain un-contradicted by the facts that stand outside the chosen narrative path.

so, what am i missing?

ukumar · Post by **ukumar** » 24 Jun 2012 00:10

shiv wrote:
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.

Shivji, Crisp explanation of the methodlogy used by Lingusts. I had same view when posting my 1st post in the thread. Correct methodology would be to look at the archeological and genetics evidence and then super impose the linguistic model to create a complete picture.

So if there was archeological/genetics evidence showing the spread of people/culture from Kurgan->Andronavo->BMAC/Syria/Iran/India, they could then use linguistic model to show how languages split and spread due to technical advantage provided by horse/chariots

But we see opposite methodology. They use linguistic model to interpret Archeological finds and make artificial connection. In process they highlight the things that line up with linguistic model and gloss over anything which does not. They claim that their IE dispersal hypothesis is the "best explanation" of the competing hypothesis. But that is very subjective (and circular) because it is they who decide which evidence are to be considered.

They ignore genetics evidence because they don't show any positive proof to match their theory. And Genetics use “best explained” linguistic model to interpret the evidence.

They can ignore the difficulties with their theory like how did India suddenly became IA by 1500BC when Rig Veda were “compiled” in spite of archeological continuity with Harappa? Gujarat was continuously populated from 3000BC to historic time and even the Tribal Bhils in the area speak IA language. Why Vedic people settled on and glorified Sarasvati river in 1500BC when native people abandoned it? How did they miss out on urban civilization of BMAC, Indus and even Ghaggar-Hakara which they call their home?

They can make assumption that Kurgan spoke PIE and Andronovo spoke Proto Indo-Iranian without any evidence. At the same time they can insist on domesticated horse to grant that IA where in India during Harappa time. So how does one decide that absence of Horse is important but the other evidences are not?

Sarasvati river is classic example. They ignore it by saying that Samudra could mean lake so the river does not have to flow to the ocean or that earlier mighty river was in Afghanistan.
Anybody who reads the evidence as is could easily recognize that large portion of the Harappan have to be speaking IA languages since the area is IA speaking in historic times and there is no discontinuity to assert otherwise before 1500BC. Then one has to go figure out a way to explain the Rig Veda with archeological evidence. It is obvious that Harappa (and for that matter PGW culture) doesn’t reflect world described in Rig Veda completely. There are there are several possibilities to explain it

1. Rig Veda is composed before Harappa.
2. Vedic poets represent minority view and they were in area at the same time but their life style was different from urban Harappa.

I think it is combination of the two. Fundamental assumption AMT/AIT folks make is that Rig Veda represents whole IA population in India and that it also represents the first account of IA in India. Both are not necessarily true.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 24 Jun 2012 00:20

dears:

few clarifications on my humble views: i do not subscribe to the 'invasion' theories. nor for any kind of 'racist' theories. but, i do feel that with the
current/latest scholarship, the people/language movement seems reasonable - mainly as i see IVC and RV as one after another.

also, as i said before, i am ready to accept that all of us came from Africa, and from monkey's before that.

and, i don't think any of this AIT/AMT, etc, will ever divide/weaken us. and, i don't think that we need to have any kind of insecurity whatsoever, or that we need to prove anything to anybody. it is just history - as in - done with it 3500 years back.

in fact, i believe that in our 5000 years of recorded history, we are more united and strong today than anytime in the past, and that's not because we were extremists of any kind, but because we are open intellectually.

beyond that, as a normal god-fearing hindu, i also do not subscribe to any kind of 'extreme' views: ours, their, anybody's - it is not our dharma, our satya...

now, my own 2 cent rhetoric: so, what next for OIT Extremes. That we all 100 cr hindus are 'Swayambhu' of hindustan and direct descendants of, let's say, Sun God, and rest of the world only came from Africa and Monkeys ?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Jun 2012 00:24

SN_Rajan wrote:dears:

few clarifications on my humble views: i do not subscribe to the 'invasion' theories. nor for any kind of 'racist' theories. but, i do feel that with the
current/latest scholarship, the people/language movement seems reasonable - mainly as i see IVC and RV as one after another.

also, as i said before, i am ready to accept all of us came from Africa, and from monkey's before that.

This is what every body says and then subscribe to AIT/AMT. This has been going on for 50 years now.

ukumar · Post by **ukumar** » 24 Jun 2012 00:42

SN_Rajan wrote:so, what am i missing?

Everything

Seriously, Can you start with your model of how India was populated? The fundamental disagreement being discussed is the date when IA people were India (Indirectly a date of Rig Veda composition). People have spent countless hours over last 15 years in Internet scholarship

and formed the opinions. This book is the great collection of the different arguments in the subject. I suggest you read the Archaeologists views first.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54128303/Brya ... Cotroversy

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Jun 2012 00:52

another new theory of the ancients

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-574 ... ry-claims/

Stonehenge a monument to unity, new theory claims

By Stephanie Pappas
(AP Photo)
(LiveScience) The mysterious structure of Stonehenge may have been built as a symbol of peace and unity, according to a new theory by British researchers.

During the monument's construction around 3000 B.C. to 2500 B.C., Britain's Neolithic people were becoming increasingly unified, said study leader Mike Parker Pearson of the University of Sheffield.

"There was a growing islandwide culture -- the same styles of houses, pottery and other material forms were used from Orkney to the south coast," Parker Pearson said in a statement, referring to the Orkney Islands of northern Scotland. "This was very different to the regionalism of previous centuries."

By definition, Stonehenge would have required cooperation, Parker Pearson added.

"Stonehenge itself was a massive undertaking, requiring the labor of thousands to move stones from as far away as west Wales, shaping them and erecting them. Just the work itself, requiring everything literally to pull together, would have been an act of unification," he said. [Photos: A Walk Through Stonehenge]

The new theory, detailed in a new book by Parker Pearson, "Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery" (Simon & Schuster, 2012), is one of many hypotheses about the mysterious monument. Theories range from completely far-fetched (space aliens or the wizard Merlin built it!) to far more evidence-based (the monument may have been an astronomical calendar, a burial site, or both).

The Culture of Stonehenge

Along with fellow researchers on the Stonehenge riverside Project, Parker Pearson worked to put Stonehenge in context, studying not just the monument but also the culture that created it.

What they found was evidence of a civilization transitioning from regionalism to a more integrated culture. Nevertheless, Britain's Stone Age people were isolated from the rest of Europe and didn't interact with anyone across the English Channel, Parker Pearson said.

"Stonehenge appears to have been the last gasp of this Stone Age culture, which was isolated from Europe and from the new technologies of metal tools and the wheel," Parker Pearson said.

Stonehenge's site may have been chosen because it was already significant to Stone-Age Britons, the researchers suggest. The natural land undulations at the site seem to form a line between the place where the sun rises on the summer solstice and where it sets in midwinter, they found. Neolithic people may have seen this as more than a coincidence, Parker Pearson said.

"This might explain why there are eight monuments in the Stonehenge area with solstitial alignments, a number unmatched anywhere else," he said. "Perhaps they saw this place as the center of the world."

Theories and mystery

These days, Stonehenge is nothing if not the center of speculation and mystery. The monument has inspired its fair share of myths, including that the wizard Merlin transported the stones from Ireland and that UFOs use the circle as a landing site.

Archaeologists have built some theories on firmer ground. Stonehenge's astronomical alignments suggest that it may have been a place for sun worship, or an ancient calendar. A nearby ancient settlement, Durrington Walls, shows evidence of more pork consumption during the midwinter, suggesting that perhaps ancient people made pilgrimages to Stonehenge for the winter solstice, Parker Pearson and his colleagues have found.

Stonehenge may have also been a burial ground, or a place of healing. Tombs and burials surround the site, and some skeletons found nearby hail from distant lands. For example, archaeologists reported in 2010 that they'd found the skeleton of a teenage boy wearing an amber necklace near Stonehenge. The boy died around 1550 B.C. An analysis of his teeth suggest he came from the Mediterranean. It's possible that ill or wounded people traveled to Stonehenge in search of healing, some archaeologists believe.

Other researchers have focused on the sounds of Stonehenge. The place seems to have "lecture-hall" acoustics, according to research released in May. One archaeologist even suggests that the setup of the stones was inspired by an acoustical effect in which two sounds from different sources seem to cancel each other out.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 24 Jun 2012 00:57

I think it is combination of the two. Fundamental assumption AMT/AIT folks make is that Rig Veda represents whole IA population in India and that it also represents the first account of IA in India. Both are not necessarily true.

Kumar ji, when western indologists wanted to know about 'their' roots and about 'their ancestors', they only knew that 'their aryan ancestors' invaded India and gave Indians the Rg Veda made famous by Max Muller's translations. They didn't even have archeological data to go with. The only thing they can 're-connect' with Rg Veda and language of 'their' aryan ancestors was Sanskrit. So they study Rg Veda as the only representational artifact of Indus civilization, and also William Jones also started by that time the comparative linguistics which gave them back 'their' identity, history and language - PIE. I am sure we actually have other artifacts which can be studied which are more mainstream representation of a aam Indus people but I feel the waters are being muddled intentionally by raking up horse, chariot and PIE because they don't think they are studying Indian history, but they think they are studying their history, they are trying to find their roots. All these hypothesis is about finding their history, so why should they worry about knowing how a common a Indus Indian lived? for them Rg Veda provides a data point, so even in this day and age, racism didn't go away, they are there, AIT/AMT are here to stay.

Connecting PIE basing it on 1500-1200BC dating on Rg Veda so that it fits with horse evidence found, the comparative mythology studies, slow usurping of Vedic Mathematics all point to the fact that they are reinventing their past not India's.

I have a bad feeling that in the end Indians are going to robbed off their history and once again will be left bhooka and nanga after stealing our past. It' is like India's total recall.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Jun 2012 01:06

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!

The bugger stooped so low that he went to Paki newspaper Dawn to popularise his "opinion"on Hinduism. This was his and Islamist way to show their solidarity to insult Snatan Dharm.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 24 Jun 2012 01:12

Jhujar ji, please don't say that

, you are being watched, you will be reported to the International PIE and Witzel brotherhood in arms.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Jun 2012 01:15

Any person insulting Witsel will also be boycotted and banished from the world of academy

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 24 Jun 2012 01:29

Acharya wrote:another new theory of the ancients

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-574 ... ry-claims/

Stonehenge a monument to unity, new theory claims

"This might explain why there are eight monuments in the Stonehenge area with solstitial alignments, a number unmatched anywhere else," he said. "Perhaps they saw this place as the center of the world."

Stonehenge may have also been a burial ground, or a place of healing. Tombs and burials surround the site, and some skeletons found nearby hail from distant lands. For example, archaeologists reported in 2010 that they'd found the skeleton of a teenage boy wearing an amber necklace near Stonehenge. The boy died around 1550 B.C. An analysis of his teeth suggest he came from the Mediterranean. It's possible that ill or wounded people traveled to Stonehenge in search of healing, some archaeologists believe.
.

Is there any evidence to connect evidence(s) quoted in the above article with the inferences in bold?

ukumar · Post by **ukumar** » 24 Jun 2012 01:31

venug wrote:

Connecting PIE basing it on 1500-1200BC dating on Rg Veda so that it fits with horse evidence found, the comparative mythology studies, slow usurping of Vedic Mathematics all point to the fact that they are reinventing their past not India's.

I have a bad feeling that in the end Indians are going to robbed off their history and once again will be left bhooka and nanga after stealing our past. It' is like India's total recall.

Venug Ji, Please remember that this is not just our history. Indo-European is spoken in most of the Eurasia. There is also genetic evidence to suggest that the language was spread by group of males in prehistory. So everybody's history is connected. Just like we want to understand our ancient history, they like it to. People like Anthony, Asko Parpola, Bryant etc are honest scholars (Witzel and gang are the bad apples) and they are interpreting the history the way they think happened.

I do think they are wrong when accepting 1500BC date for IA in India. But I don't think they are tyring to usurp our history

. IE history is a giant ship and it takes time to turn. I am hopeful that ancient genetics data would remove lot of guess work out the the peopling of Eurasia and picture would become clear. We are all interested in truth, whatever it is.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 24 Jun 2012 01:41

SN_Rajan wrote:dears:

few clarifications on my humble views: i do not subscribe to the 'invasion' theories. nor for any kind of 'racist' theories. but, i do feel that with the
current/latest scholarship, the people/language movement seems reasonable - mainly as i see IVC and RV as one after another.

Rajan ji, please do share your reasoning, we all learn every day by sharing.

and, i don't think any of this AIT/AMT, etc, will ever divide/weaken us. and, i don't think that we need to have any kind of insecurity whatsoever, or that we need to prove anything to anybody. it is just history - as in - done with it 3500 years back.

I am very sure through your googling you also know about the Dravidian and dalit movements? and that AIT/AMT are oft repeated themes to show how North Indian Aryan drove 'black' Dravidians? insecurities are being encouraged and are created which otherwise wouldn't have existed. Common man can easily can get agitated when told that one group of people subjugated the other. Study of Indian history is for us, us Indians to take back our past, to give our progeny the magnificence of what India is, if anything to prove, it is that.

in fact, i believe that in our 5000 years of recorded history, we are more united and strong today than anytime in the past, and that's not because we were extremists of any kind, but because we are open intellectually.

complacency is a killer, clinging to wrong theories is a killer, not knowing our history is a killer of our civilization.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Jun 2012 01:56

Witzel gang now trying to manufature AIT into American Indian Theory !
AIT= Aryan Indian Truth cant be allowed to use for serving ANT=Aryan Nazi Therkology of old boys.
Weirdos of Witzel Wendy Wankidextrous World Working Willingly Wording , Weaving Worst West Wested Wankipedia With Wornout Wanking Chariots, Wont Wake Up or Give Up Wonkpotic Wankittude Without Wankicide in PIE World With Repeated mutual Wankup.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 24 Jun 2012 01:58

ukumar wrote:
Venug Ji, Please remember that this is not just our history. Indo-European is spoken in most of the Eurasia. There is also genetic evidence to suggest that the language was spread by group of males in prehistory. So everybody's history is connected. Just like we want to understand our ancient history, they like it to. People like Anthony, Asko Parpola, Bryant etc are honest scholars (Witzel and gang are the bad apples) and they are interpreting the history the way they think happened.

kumar ji, I agree they have the right to study their history. But they don't need Rg Veda to study theirs. They don't need Sulabha sutras to reinterpret what they didn't know as something they knew all along (case in point is zero). They don't need to retrofit IE to bring in PIE to show antiquity of IE above Sanskrit. There is no need to any of this. It is not even like Europe is bereft of what you pointed out other artifacts other than Rg Veda.

If you go through the romantic period of late 1800s, you will see a pattern among Germans, you can see how people like Schlegel, you will see how they got enamored by Indian classics, how they so badly wanted the glory of Kalidasa's compositions, Max Muller, William Jones, Adaolf Hitler, Witzel all alike got interested in Indian history because you think they so badly wanted to know Indian history? 1800s also saw the beginning of AIT. So they need AIT to study European history because people are connected like you said?

I do think they are wrong when accepting 1500BC date for IA in India. But I don't think they are tyring to usurp our history . IE history is a giant ship and it takes time to turn. I am hopeful that ancient genetics data would remove lot of guess work out the the peopling of Eurasia and picture would become clear. We are all interested in truth, whatever it is.

May be I sound bit dramatic, but I do see the pattern, only time will tell, hope I am wrong, but I have my doubts, why else do they need to show Aryans invaded India? why else do they need PIE? why else every nonfiction science book which talks about history of science, begins with Greek and Arabian inventions of zero? Even genetic studies on R1a are muddled, I fail to see why I sound dramatic and sound CT theorist.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jun 2012 02:33

see.. if we think the westerners got many things from arabian cutlure (example numerals etc..), then it becomes easy for us. All that we need to do is prove that arabic culture took a lot from ours. then by timeline and culture/knowledge transfers theory of associativity provides the answers automagically.

i am not concerned at this AIT IAT etc.. what i am concerned is how much of data we are researching on ourselves, and establishing a history line. now, once it grows and becomes a big enough so that it draws academic interest, then nothing can stop it!.. strong baselines are important to look for corrections (err.. near factual representations).

theory btw, is always a theory.. and imho, theory itself can't get into history, but only thing it can is the facts that it represents and the timeline when AIT itself was created could be part of history. Now, facts must be questioned and answered.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 24 Jun 2012 02:38

SN_Rajan wrote: That we all 100 cr hindus are 'Swayambhu' of hindustan and direct descendants of, let's say, Sun God, and rest of the world only came from Africa and Monkeys ?

Perfecto! This statement has lot of truth in it. Maybe, it was inadvertently stumbled upon. All matter composed of heavy elements in the periodic table are stellar matter when stars die. After multiple supernovae phenomena, sun a representation of stellar composition is perfect thing to relate to. It is actual revered as "surya the diety" and origins are claimed to "surya". Only hindus have trumpeted that the world began billions of years ago and worship surya.

As you eloquently put, while for the rest of the world is struggling to get away from how can world be older than 4500 years. They are actually progressing that world could be little bit older than 4500 years with possibility of african origin. Kudos to them, we may have to nudge them gently so one day they may grasp the time scale involved with "Sun God".

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 24 Jun 2012 02:43

From one of the Pioneer article from 20 August 2007, quoting without link:

This inclination for ignoring advances in and priority of discovery by non-European mathematicians persisted until even very recent times. For example there is no mention of the work of the Kerala School in Edwards' text on the history of the calculus nor in articles on the history of infinite series by historians of mathematics such as Abeles and Fiegenbaum. A possible reason for such puzzling standards in scholarship may have been the rising Eurocentrism that accompanied European colonisation. With this phenomenon, the assumption of White superiority became dominant over a wide range of activities, including the writing of the history of mathematics.
The rise of nationalism in 19th century Europe and the consequent search for the roots of European civilisation, led to an obsession with Greece and the myth of Greek culture as the cradle of all knowledge and values and Europe becoming heir to Greek learning and values.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 24 Jun 2012 05:19

RamaY wrote:http://www.deccanherald.com/content/361 ... agiri.html

we can see that Bellary had a continuous human civilization from 500,000 years ago.

RamaY garu
Let us not engage in flights of fancy.

From Wikipedia

Humans (known taxonomically as Homo sapiens,[3][4] Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man")[5] are the only living species in the Homo genus. Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.[6]

Regards

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jun 2012 05:26

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edakkal_Caves
Mr. Varier said “The discovery of the symbols are akin to that of the Harappan civilisation having predominantly Dravidian culture and testimony to the fact that cultural diffusion could take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edakk ... arving.jpg
first I thought it could be a horse face.. then, naah!

http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/28/stories ... 830300.htm
Archaeologists have been campaigning for world heritage status for Edakkal Cave which is believed to be nearly 7,000 years old.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 24 Jun 2012 05:30

Looks like there is already a fight between late archaeologist Marija Gimbutas and now alive Colin Renfrew. Renfrew hypothesis wins for now as he can write more papers than the unfortunate Gimbutas.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jun 2012 05:48

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifa ... ation.html There have been fluctuations of course, but nothing like the changes that engulfed the world from 18,000 to 11,000 years ago. During the Ice Age, most of the freshwater was locked in the Himalayan glaciers. This had to end before nature could create condition so that species like the Tonle Sap 'floating rice' could blossom forth.

So, once all those water went to ocean for 1000s of years, it finally dried out Saraswati.

connection is logical here.

Of these the Sarasvati was the greatest- as the Rigveda describes, and as science now confirms. It was flowing in all its majesty from 8000 B.C. to 4,000 B.C. It began to decline about 3500 B.C. and dried up completely in the 2200 B.C. to 1900 B.C period.

holly grains:

Considering that agriculture had been mastered in Southeast Asia-in Thailand and the Mekong region-no later than 10,000 B.C. or 12,000 years ago, the Sarasvati dates give a reasonable approximation for the Vedic period. It means that in the post Ice Age period, it took some 2000 years for agriculture to make its way from its place of origin to the Sarasvati river area. This is probably an underestimate.

This scenario is receiving increasing scientific support. River delta cultivation of rice is known both in India and further east in Asia. This means the skills needed for growing food grain were already in place 10,000 years ago, even as newer crops like wheat and barley came to be cultivated later. Genetic analysis has shown that Indian livestock-the humped bull and the water buffalo-are of East Asian origin. Indian and Southeast Asian human populations also are genetically close.

BULLS EYE:

We may note here that the claim that Indians, especially the upper castes, carry European genes is unfounded. The M17 genetic marker, which is supposed to be a 'Caucasian' trait, occurs with the highest frequency and diversity in India. This means that among M17 carriers, the Indian population is the oldest.

summary:

The proponents of the now discredited Aryan invasion have got both the origin and the direction of movement wrong. It is different, however, with Southeast Asian markers: their frequency in both South Indian and North Indian populations is surprisingly high. This shows extensive gene exchange between Indians and Southeast Asians.

So, on the basis of ecology, agriculture, livestock, and human populations, we may safely conclude that the seeds for the growth of agriculture and animal husbandry needed to sustain the Vedic civilization existed by 10,000 B.C.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 24 Jun 2012 05:51

Murugan wrote: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.

Hindu numerals were introduced to Europe by Leonardo of Pisa, Count of Fibonocci, or popularly known as Fibonocci, c. 1200 CE.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 24 Jun 2012 05:59

venug wrote:BTW regarding zero, take any random nonfiction book on science, you read the history of science, you will find no mention of Indian contribution, eveyrhing is done by Greek or Arap cousins onlee.

Venug garu, that is changing. You see now-a-days almost everywhere India being given the credit for place value system which obviously cannot exist without zero.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jun 2012 06:04

That brings in the interesting shunya!

in Tamil/Malloo colloquial they use cypher., but actually pujyam is what teacher would say. But shunya was known as pujyam in earlier sanskrit. so, there could be lineage of transfer from

pujyam->shunyam->cipher->zero.

meaning:

the migration path is from pujyam to zero.

When people began trading, zero is important for credit/debit. Hail indics for zero.

--

btw, another term for shunyam in tamil/malloo speak means "evil".