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 »

:D

From Arrian's "Indica" about 100 AD or so

Horsemen: Note that the "bit" is not bitten.
Their horsemen have two javelins, like lances, and a small shield smaller than the infantry's. The horses have no saddles, nor do they use Greek bits nor any like the Celtic bits, but round the end of the horses' mouths they have an untanned stitched rein fitted; in this they have fitted, on the inner side, bronze or iron spikes, but rather blunted; the rich people have ivory spikes; within the mouth of the horses is a bit, like a spit, to either end of which the reins are attached. Then when they tighten the reins this bit masters the horse, and the spikes, being attached thereto, prick the horse and compel it to obey the rein.
Incidentally. Megasthenes is probably referring to the Indian Rhino here
It is also said that there exists in India a one-horned
animal, called by the natives the Kartazon. It is of the size of a full-grown horse, and has
a crest, and yellow hair soft as wool. It is furnished with very good legs and is very fleet.
Its legs are jointless and formed like those of the elephant, and it has a tail like a swine's.
A horn sprouts out from between its eyebrows, and this is not straight, but carved into the
most natural wreaths, and is of a black colour.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22872 »

From Megasthene's Indica, link posted by shiv ji:
It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by races both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but all were evidently indigenous; and moreover that India neither received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a colony to any other nation.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22872 »

Historians usually depend on travel logs, records, dairies etc to get a true account of history of people of a region, strange that except for Rg Veda no one quotes from travel logs to see what these travelers saw and what ancient Indian thought about who they were before British/Islamic influence.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Post by Lalmohan »

most of the greek history of india was filtered by the victorians as being implausible (did not fit their theory)
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

By Cornelis Petrus Tiele
The Religion of the Iranian People (Part I)

Chapter VI Page 65
It goes without saying that the latria of fire and the worship of the drink of immortality as a divine existence, and the magical operations appertaining to it, did not originate first in the East Aryan period. Without having recourse to the maze of comparative mythology one may take it for demonstrated that both the forms of the cult date from anterior times. Even though not a few of the corresponding features which the mythologists flatter themselves to have discovered in all Aryan or Indo-Germanic fables,'" relating to the god of fire and the celestial potion, are not free from suspicion and objections, there remains a good deal which has been positively established and which shows that the roots of these concepts and customs lie deeper than in the Indo-Iranian stratum.
So the Agni Yajnas and the Soma Yajnas do not belong to Indo-Iranians but becomes European property.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Post by Lalmohan »

i wouldn't rule out linguistics altogether. i think they can contribute to filling in the wider picture. you also have to think about what happens when communities start to move out of an urban/safe haven and into new territories.

they might prosper, subdue the natives and impose their culture, or they might mingle and disperse or they may suffer hardship and be reduced to a basic level of survival. there are tribes in indonesia who can trace themselves back to royal clans who lost a war and were dispersed into the jungle, where they (over time) ended up living a hunter gatherer lifestyle. they still speak some variant of the old bahasa, but it has modified further over time

so over time, sanskrit speaking people - say in the steppes, merge with local people and form a new identity. in more recent times, the mongols on the persian front gradually started speaking turkic and their identity was submerged into turkish - or turcomongol
Out of India theory can accomodate all of these models
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22872 »

A side note:
All the time British claimed that it is them who unified India and extended the boundaries of present day India and that India all the time remain divided and hence Indians can never claim Indian landmass in particular to be this large, but if one reads Megasthenes or Arrian's account, they describe India to be very vast saying almost all of Asia or 1/3 rd the size of the world. It is just to say that British lied, India right from Vedic days was described as landmass that falls below of Himalayas and surrounded by oceans.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

In Avestan, there is a word druja which is used both for demons and enemy, and also mean 'lie', 'deception'. In Hindi we use 'drohi' as traitor. I wonder if they both come from Druhyus.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Vendidad Avesta

(Fargard 3)

7. O Maker of the material world, thou Holy one! Which is the first place where the Earth feels sorest grief? Ahura Mazda answered: 'It is the neck of Arezura[11], whereon the hosts of fiends rush forth from the burrow of the Druj[12]

10. O Maker of the material world, thou Holy one! Which is the fourth place where the Earth feels sorest grief? Ahura Mazda answered: 'It is the place wherein are most burrows of the creatures of Angra Mainyu[15].

14. Let no man alone by himself[19] carry a corpse[20]. If a man alone by himself carry a corpse, the Nasu[21] rushes upon him, to defile him, from the nose of the dead, from the eye, from the tongue, from the jaws, from the sexual organs, from the hinder parts. This Druj Nasu falls upon him, [stains him] even to the end of the nails, and he is unclean, thenceforth, for ever and ever.

22. O Maker of the material world, thou Holy one! Who is the third that rejoices the Earth with greatest joy? Ahura Mazda answered: 'It is he who fills up most burrows of the creatures of Angra Mainyu[31].

Footnotes:
[11] The neck of Arezura (Arezurahe griva) is "a mount at the gate of hell, whence the demons rush forth" (Bund. 12.8 Dadistan 33.5); it is also called "the head of Arezura" (Vd19.45), or 'the back of Arezura' (Bund. 12.2). Arezura was a fiend, son of Ahriman, who was killed by the first man, Gayomard (Menog-i Khrad 27.15). The mount named from him hes in the North (which is the seat of the demons): it seems to belong to the Alborz chain, like the Damavand (Bund. 12.8 ), where Azi Dahaka [Zohak] was bound (Vd1.18, notes).

[12]. Hell, the Druj being assimilated to a burrowing Khrafstra. See Vd7.24.

[15]. 'Where there are most Khrafstras' (noxious animals).

[19]. No ceremony in general can be performed by one man alone. Two Mobeds are wanted to perform the Vendidad service, two priests for the Barashnum, two persons for the Sag-did (Anquetil, II, 584 n.) It is never good that the faithful should be alone, as the fiend is always lurking about, ready to take advantage of any moment of inattention. If the faithful be alone, there is no one to make up for any negligence and to prevent mischief arising from it. Never is the danger greater than in the present case, when the fiend is close at hand, and in direct contact with the faithful.

[20]. A corpse from which the Nasu has not been expelled by the Sag-did ceremony (described Vd8.14-22).

[21]. The word Nasu has two meanings: it means either the corpse (nasai), or the corpse-demon (the Druj Nasu, that is to say the demon who takes possession of the dead body and makes his presence felt by the decomposition of the body and infection).

[31]. This joy answers the fourth grief or the earth (§ 10).

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

It seems the Zarathustrians were pretty much pissed off at 'Druj' - the Druhyus, and at 'Angra Mainyu' - the Angirases (priests of PUrus)..
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Post by Sanku »

^^^
neck of Arezura (Arezurahe griva)

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

greeva == neck for Sanskrit too.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22872 »

It seems the Zarathustrians were pretty much pissed off at 'Druj' - the Druhyus, and at 'Angra Mainyu' - the Angirases (priests of PUrus)..
But here:
22. O Maker of the material world, thou Holy one! Who is the third that rejoices the Earth with greatest joy? Ahura Mazda answered: 'It is he who fills up most burrows of the creatures of Angra Mainyu[31].
does it mean Zarathustrians are pissed off because creatures of Angra Mainyu are most joyous?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

Sanku wrote:^^^
neck of Arezura (Arezurahe griva)

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

greeva == neck for Sanskrit too.
haya-griva : horse headed avatar.

this is everyday sloka for our kids.

gynana nanda mayam ...
..hyagriva upasmahe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayagriva
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

venug wrote:does it mean Zarathustrians are pissed off because creatures of Angra Mainyu are most joyous?
Well all these Yasts act at two levels IMHO - the metaphysical and the anecdotal.

- burrows of the creatures of Angra Mainyu: holes where the people of Angirases live => PUru territory => Bharata

- fill the burrows of the creatures of Angra Mainyu: fill the holes => bury the PUrus

Anyway, I was just trying to flesh out the PUru-Anu Conflict where many things changed their role RV Asuras <=> Av. Daevas, etc.
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 »

If you look at the information available from standard sources, there was a vast area essentially speaking Sanskrit - or a language that was sufficiently close to Sanskrit that any Sanskrit speaker could understand it extending from Iran, to Turkmenistan to north India by 1500 BC.

But if you follow current "pir reviewed" AMT theories - by 1500 BC the Indo-European migrants had just arrived from the north and gone off to India and were "compiling" the Rig Veda there. According to this theory, if any language was being spoken in Iran in 1500 BC it could only have been "proto-Iranian" (whatever that might be). But they were speaking Sanskrit which was showing some signs of later development into the Iranian languages.

This is a very inconvenient problem for current historians and linguists. If Sanskrit was widely spread around those areas in 1500 BC then "proto-Indo-Iranian" has to be pushed back by about 300-500 years, placing the development of Sanskrit in India smack bang in the middle of the Harappan civilization. This is extraordinarily inconvenient. How come these "pastoral, horse worshipping people" have no mention of a thriving urban civilization that was trading with Iraq and Bactria by 2000 BC (as per archaeological evidence)?

The only options are to pre-date Sanskrit, or post date it to 1200 BC. Post dating it to 1200 BC is impossible. There are too many archaeological and linguistic records.

Predating Sanskrit to 2500 or 3000 BC is perfectly logical and fits everything. But it completely destroys the cosy story built up for languages acording to which "Proto-Indo-European"(PIE) was in Central Asia by around 2500 BC. It then split up into the European centum languages and the "Indo-Iranian" satem languages around 2000 BC. From 2000 BC the people migrated from central Asia taking chariots and horses reaching India by 1500 BC where Sanskrit came into being. The sister languages of Sanskrit were Avestan ("second millennium BC" - no proof) and "old Iranian" - about 1000 BC.

But as you can see by 1500 BC Sanskrit and languages just like Sanskrit existed all over Iran and north India. Does this mean that "proto-Indo Iranian" was actually pretty close to Sanskrit? But they are saying Proto-Indo Iranian was in central Asia.

Or did Proto-Indo Iranian develop in Iran/Afghanistan/India and then split up into sister languages? But that does not work because Zoroaster did not appear till 1200 BC according to these accounts so existing Avestan texts attributable to Zoroastrianism must have come at least 300 years after 1500 BC. Old Iranian is said to have come 1000 years later. That means Avestan and Old Iranian cannot be "sister languages" of Sanskrit as per linguistic theory.

The only explanation that fits is to pre date everything so Sanskrit itself moves back to 2000 BC or earlier. Avestan and Old Iranian may be sister languages of an "old sanskrit" that developed in India. But that kills ALL existing language migration theories. They want Proto-Indo Iranian to be in Central Asia and they want it to be about 2000 BC. That is just not working as an explanation. The existing scholars are thrashing about and getting angry like Witzel or coming up with totally inconsistent conclusions like Anthony. All these linguistic theories are definitely going to have to be trashed and re-thought out. And that means all conclusions reached about "centum" European languages will crash to the ground along with that.

Tough shit.
Last edited by shiv on 25 Jun 2012 19:54, edited 1 time in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

SaiK wrote:
Sanku wrote:^^^
neck of Arezura (Arezurahe griva)

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

greeva == neck for Sanskrit too.
haya-griva : horse headed avatar.

this is everyday sloka for our kids.

gynana nanda mayam ...
..hyagriva upasmahe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayagriva
Saik ji,

I had written earlier something on Hayagriva.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

For Reference: The Iranian Languages from the AIT PoV

Image
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 »

Hayagriva
Ancient Indians: Hayagriva

Ancient Egyptians as well as Gondsworshipped a horse-headed God.

Time of the Hayagriva Avataram:
While the Mahabharatam tells us that Hayagriva rescued the Vedas, that were being composed by Brahma., there is another legend that says that Hayagriva composed the Vedas and Matsya rescued them from Madhu Kaitabha. (Reference) It is fair to conclude that Hayagriva Avataram was at the time of the Veda Composition. Possibly the Atharva Veda , since we find the Mantras by Brahma in the Atharva Veda. The Hayagriva Upanishad is a part of the Atharva Veda. Click here for a Translation of the Hayagriva Upanishad, revealed to Narada by Brahma.

Place of the Hayagriva Avataram :
Sri Hayagriva temples appear to be located mostly only in South India and that too on the east coast, similar to the Narasimhaswamy Temples. There is one temple in Guwahati, Assam at Manikoota Parvat, which seems to be wo shipped as Narasimha, Hayagriva and as well as a Buddhist God by Buddhists. Further searching may reveal more temples in other places also. Given the ‘pralaya’ connection and other details that I have discussed previously, the historical location of the Hayagriva Avataram must have been in the south east coast of India. Also the ‘Daitya Hayagriva’ destroyed the ‘Avatar Hayagriva’ as given in the Devi Bhagavatam is said to be the son of kas’yapa prajApati.
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 »

Look at the map below folks. It shows all that we have been discussing (You can picturize india, which is unseen, off to the right in your mind)

Image

Let's see what was happening in 2000 BC

See Turkmenistan in the top-right. That had the BMAC civilization (Bactria) that was trading with Harappa/IVC in India by 2000 BC

Iraq and Syria were Mesopotamia in 2000 BC. They were trading with BMAC and Harappa

In 1500 BC Iran had the Sanskrit speaking, Vedic Mitanni cvilization that was exchanging letters and trading and Egyptian Pharaoh.

But look at the top left corner. Greece. What was happening there between 2000 BC and 1500 BC? Until 2000 BC Greece has the "Pre-Indo European" Minoans. The people who brought Greek language (Mycenaeans) are "assumed" to have come from the north between around 1900 BC. Where did the come from?

There is a map of migrations linked below but guess who was migrating?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mass_ ... 900BCE.svg

The Hittites. And guess what the Sanskrit speaking Mitanni kingdom of 1500 BC was? It was smack bang next to the Hittite kingdom. The Hittite Kingdom at its peak occupied the Mitanni areas.

Hittites migrating towards Turkey and Greece after 1900 BC. Greece got Greek after this period. Guess where it could have come from. India? Or central Asia? India is just as likely a possibility. IMO
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Review of Talageri's Book "Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence"

By Koenraad Elst

A great book about the Great Book
The new book by Shrikant Talageri, claiming to present “the final evidence” on the Indo-European Homeland question, goes a long way indeed in disproving the Aryan Invasion Theory and establishing India as the land of origin of the migrations that spread the Indo-European language family over half of the Eurasian continent, from Bengal to Portugal and from Lanka to Norway.

The kinship between the languages spoken by most Indians and by most Europeans, jointly known as the Indo-European (IE) language family, is usually explained through the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). The AIT holds that in the mid-second millennium BC, a group of immigrants brought the Indo-Aryan branch of IE from Russia through Central Asia into India and then imparted it to the natives. Alternatively, the Out-of-India Theory (OIT) holds that the common homeland of IE was in India, whence some groups emigrated to Central and West Asia and Europe, where their dialects mingled with local languages to become Greek, Slavic, Germanic, etc. Recent attempts to give a convincing formulation to the OIT and buttress it with evidence were still clumsy or fragmentary, but now, the OIT has come of age with Shrikant Talageri’s book: The Rigveda and the Avesta, the Final Evidence (Aditya Prakashan, Delhi).

In earlier books dated 1993 and 2000, Mumbai-based self-taught scholar Talageri (°1958) had already built a case for the following scenario. In the pre-Rigvedic age, a group of IE-speaking tribes populated the central and western Ganga plain and some of these migrated westward to the Saraswati basin in what is now Haryana and Rajasthan, and on to the Indus basin from Panjab to Afghanistan. By the time the earliest Vedic hymns were composed (tentatively dated to beyond 3000 BC), the westernmost tribes, known in Sanskrit sources as the Druhyus, were leaving the subcontinent, filling up Central Asia, thence to migrate to Anatolia, Xinjiang and Europe. The remaining peoples in the northwest, known as the Anavas, were mainly speakers of Iranian; while Indo-Aryan developed in central North India, whence it expanded westward into then-Iranian territory. Of the Indo-Aryan speakers, it is the Paurava tribe and within it the Bharata clan that produced the Rigveda. The friendly and hostile interactions between the Iranians and the Paurava Indo-Aryans form part of the historical background of the Rigveda and the Avesta. Among the conflicts, the main ones were the Battle of the Ten Kings, between the Bharata king Sudas and a confederacy of tribes in whose names we can still recognize Iranian ethnonyms; and the Varshagira Battle, to which both the younger part of the Rigveda and the earliest part of the Avesta refer. At the end of this confrontation, the Iranian centre moved to Afghanistan, those who remained in the subcontinent assimilated into Indo-Aryan.

In the present book, Talageri strengthens his thesis with a lot of new evidence, and refines it considerably. The master key for discerning historical expansions and migrations is the internal chronology of the Rg-Veda. Basing himself on two centuries of Western scholarship, from 19th-century German Veda scholar Oldenburg to present-day AIT champion Prof. Michael Witzel, Talageri compares the contents of the oldest layer, largely coinciding with books 6, 3 and 7; of the middle layer, books 2 and 4; and the youngest layer, comprising books 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10. Covering every verse and every instance of every category considered, and comparing the three periods, he finds a shifting focus in the names of animals, plants, rivers, landscape features, technology, ancestors, ethnic groups, and in personal name types and verse forms.

The result is of such clarity and consistency that most scholars who have been working in this field will feel envy and embarrassment at never having noticed the contours of the scenario before. It is this: the old layer was indubitably composed in the Yamuna/Sarawati region, which was to remain the centre of gravity of Vedic culture; the middle layer’s horizon expands westwards as far as the Indus; while the youngest parts are also familiar with Afghanistan. This is exactly the opposite of what the AIT predicts. In an invasionist scenario, the oldest layer would obviously be based in Afghanistan and be as yet unfamiliar with India’s interior, which would then only be settled in the younger period.

Another spectacular finding is that the early Avesta, involving Zarathustra, coincides in time with the youngest period of the Rigveda. The material and religious culture, along with the vocabulary and the name-types, allow us to link a number of datable extra-Indian connections to the youngest layer of the Rigveda. The remnants of Indo-Aryan vocabulary in the West-Asian Kassite (17th BC) and Mitanni (15th BC) culture, bequeathed by Indo-Aryan-speaking emigrant groups of at least several generations earlier, belong to the youngest period. This implies that the Rigveda must have been completed by ca. 2000 BC.

Another emigrant group is the one whose settlement has been dug up in Sintashta, on the eastern slopes of the Ural mountains in Russia. This is where the oldest horse-drawn chariots have been found, dated to ca. 2000 BC. The burials show a number of ritual features which Witzel has connected to the Rigveda in a bid to buttress his thesis that the Sintashta people were proto-Indo-Aryans on the way to India. But of each of these features, including the fabled horse sacrifice, Talageri shows that they are typical of the late period of the Rigveda, unattested in the older periods. So, more likely, the Sintashta people were part of a succession of small westward emigrations (small by India’s demographic standards but highly noticeable in the thinly-populated countries of settlement) around the end of the period of Rigvedic composition. This time seems to coincide with the end of the urban Harappan period, probably due to desiccation, when north-western India became less capable of supporting its dense population.

An Indo-Aryan presence in Russia was noticed by the ancient Greeks (e.g. the Sindoi in the Crimea) and remains visible in dozens of loanwords in the Uralic languages. The latter too have often been presented as testimony of the Indo-Aryans’ stay among the Uralic peoples while on their way to India. But from the unidirectional pattern of borrowing, with not a single Uralic loan in Indo-Aryan, Talageri shows that this is impossible. On the contrary, the pattern fits the opposite scenario: the Indo-Aryan loans in Uralic, like those in Mitanni-Hurrian and in Kassite, were the gift of emigrant groups from the Indo-Aryan heartland, which was India. Here, Talageri has made up for his lack of knowledge of the Uralic languages with a penetrating logical analysis of the relevant findings of other, AIT-bound scholars. Indeed, logic is where this non-specialist outshines all the specialists and manages to use their own data in support of conclusions opposite to the ones they profess.

Talageri argues that spoked-wheel chariots are not simply in evidence “in the Rigveda”, as the Orientalists have known since the 19th century, but are specifically typical of its youngest period. The older parts know of carts, generally with four full wheels, but the chariots with two spoked wheels are a later development. The archaeological record is pretty silent on their first appearance, for none have been dug up from reputedly Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian settlements in the Andronovo culture (Kazakhstan), the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex or India. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially in the case of largely wooden constructions in a hot and humid climate like India’s. From the late-Rigvedic testimony reasonably dated to the late 3rd millennium BC, it may be deduced that they were first produced on a sizable scale in India, whence groups of specialist craftsmen-warriors and other emigrants took them to western lands.

Talageri’s reconstruction of Vedic and Indo-European history is exclusively based on primary data and on findings by scholars working within the AIT framework. He never relies on the theses of other AIT sceptics. The latter’s findings on astro-chronology, archaeology and linguistics are generally compatible with his scenario extracted from the literary data, but they are independent witnesses, not part of Talageri’s evidence basis. Thus, in the book’s introduction the reader will notice traces of an ego clash between the author and Greek OIT scholar Nicholas Kazanas (whose collected papers on this subject are about to be published by Aditya Prakashan as well). While I hope at the personal level that they make up and become friends again, at the polemical level this quarrel is a fortunate thing. In contrast with the AIT school, a network of mutual support where we see R.S. Sharma and Romila Thapar relying on the “evidence” of Michael Witzel’s well-refuted assertion that the post-Vedic literature describes an Aryan invasion, the OIT school consists of isolated individuals who have no other support than from the data themselves.

It will be held against Talageri that he gets too personal in his argumentative jousting with Prof. Witzel, whose rebuttal of his own second book he now rebuts in turn. The objection that he is only paying Witzel back in the latter’s own coin could be a fair excuse in the playground but not on a scholarly forum. The allegations of academic malpractice even carry over to his rebuttal of a linguistic argument by the mild-mannered Prof. H.H. Hock, for which I can find no excuse at all. These breaches of form, along with eccentricities regarding referencing and emphasis, and along with “bank clerk” Talageri’s lack of academic status, are the flaws sure to be exploited against him by those who prefer not to address the formidable challenge posed by his cast-iron argumentation. On the other hand, the quality of Talageri’s work is such that this time, at least some established academics are bound to acknowledge its importance.

The book’s final chapter is a refreshing antidote of sanity against all the hot-headed political abuse that has disfigured the Aryan homeland debate in the last few decades. In Talageri’s opinion, nothing in particular follows from ancient history for contemporary ethnic and caste groups in India. Thus, today’s Yadava “caste”, actually a conglomerate of several cattle-raising castes, is not the physical progeny of the Vedic tribe of the same name. Brahmin clans like Bharadwaj or Bhargava who continue the names of Vedic seers may genuinely comprise the latter among their ancestry but have visibly been mixed with the local population of whichever Indian region where they settled.

Once the OIT gains acceptance, quite possibly some European roots-seekers might start identifying with the Druhyus as their linguistic ancestors and feel honour-bound to adopt the latter’s ancient bias against the Anavas and Pauravas, now turning it against the modern Iranians and Indians. But in fact, languages like Greek and Germanic comprise a very large substrate of pre-IE native vocabulary, and it is from those pre-IE natives that modern Europeans have inherited most of their genetic make-up, rather than from the IE-speaking “Druhyu” immigrants who largely managed to impart their language through a process of elite recruitment. (Why exactly the IE-speakers from the east were accepted as an elite by the European natives, remains to be understood.) The white Europeans are largely the linguistic but only minimally the physical progeny of the brown Aryans.

For most OIT authors, this rejection of the abuse of history for identity politics, which has already done so much harm to India (as in Tamil anti-Brahmin and “anti-Aryan” separatism), will be a matter of course. But they may not applaud Talageri’s related rejection of a very widespread Hindu bias regarding the Rigveda, viz. the belief that its battles are part of a struggle between good and evil, with the Vedic kings representing the good side. In fact, the Vedic king Sudas who won the Battle of the Ten Kings was a Paurava imperialist invading Anava territory, and the ten kings were legitimately defending their own territory against him. Sudas may have been the hero of the Rigveda’s 7th book, “but”, so Talageri warns, “he is not the hero of this book”.

To sum up, the Rigveda is not a God-given text exclusively dealing with cosmic stuff, where all names and data are merely symbolic pointers to some Great Beyond. No, they refer to real people and historical events, and nothing human is alien to this ancientmost collection of hymns. But this only increases the merits of the Rishis, the composers who praised the gods in their hymns. Obviously, without their testimony, Talageri’s reconstruction of early Indian and IE history would have been impossible. We might never have been able to locate the IE homeland. All the Orientalists, including Michael Witzel and the present writer, owe a debt of gratitude to Angiras, Vishvamitra, Vasistha and the other Vedic seers, and to their contemporary scion, Shrikant Talageri.
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 »

In the history of Greece, the "Late helladic" period (1500 BC onwards) is described as follows in Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Hel ... iodization
The Late Helladic is the time when Mycenaean Greece flourished, under new influences from Minoan Crete and the Cyclades. It may be associated with the arrival of Indo-European speakers as overlords; Greek technical terms for pottery are not Indo-European, consistent with a continuity of potters and their techniques from earlier times.[2] Those who made LH pottery sometimes inscribed their work with a syllabic script, Linear B, which has been deciphered as Greek. LH is divided into I, II, and III; of which I and II overlap Late Minoan ware and III overtakes it. LH III is further subdivided into IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC. The table below provides the approximate dates of the Late Helladic phases (LH) on the Greek Mainland.
The Mycenaeans were conquerors who imposed Indo-European on Greece. They came as invaders from the Balkans. But they in turn were earlier displaced by the Hittites in the so called "bronze age migrations"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Bro ... e_invasion
Hittite invasion

For reasons unknown, the Hittites moved into Khattian Central Anatolia (Central Turkey), conquering the Hattians and later adopting their culture and name.[5] This invasion by the Hittites displaced other peoples living in Anatolia, who in turn displaced the Middle Helladic Greek-speaking peoples to the west. This enforced exodus from Northwestern Anatolia created a wave of refugees who invaded what is now southern Greece and destroyed the Early Helladic civilization.[3][6][7]
The late Helladic that brought the Indo-European Greek language to Greece was after this. If Late Helladic was in 1500 BC, Sanskrit already was in Mitanni at that time.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Review of Talageri's Book "Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence"

By Virendra Parekh
Executive Editor, Corporate India

“An unknown Indian has taken on proponents of the Aryan invasion/migration theory, demolished their case, and established that northern India is the original home of the Aryans and the Indo-European family of languages. The importance of this remarkable achievement cannot be exaggerated. In course of time, it can compel the revision of the history not only of Indian but also world civilization.”

That was Girilal Jain in his masterful review of Shrikant G. Talageri's ‘Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism,’ published in 1993. Since then, Talageri, a not-so-unknown Indian now, has come up with two more works. His ‘The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’ (2000) established that Vedic Aryans were inhabitants of the area to the east of Punjab, traditionally known as Aryavarta; that the region of Saptasindhu formed the western periphery of their activities and that the Aryans migrated from the east to the west within India and beyond it. For this, he relied solely on a detailed analysis of the Rigveda.

His latest book, “The Rigveda and the Avesta: the Final Evidence,” seeks to prove conclusively beyond all reasonable doubt that India was the original homeland of the Indo-European family of languages, that the Rigvedic people were settled in areas around and to the east of the Sarasvati river in at least the third millennium BCE if not earlier, that the proto-Iranians who later became Zoroastrians were settled in the areas to the west of the Vedic Aryans, and that both started expanding westward around that period.

As the name of the book suggests, Talageri collects, collates and compares a massive amount of evidence from the Rigveda and the Avesta and also marshals undisputed recorded facts from Mesopotamian history about the Mitanni and the Kassites to support his conclusions. He relies on non-controversial data such as names of people, animals and places, and on the provenance and numerical frequency of their occurrences, rather than subjective interpretations of esoteric texts.

We teach our children even today as settled facts that nomadic Aryans invaded/migrated to India around 1500 BCE, destroyed the Indus Valley culture and began what is known as the Vedic Age, and produced Rigveda around 1200 BCE. However, this is only a theory, and an extremely weak one at that.

That there is not a shred of evidence for it in either the ancient literature or archaeology, that it is based on nothing more solid than some striking similarities among the Indo-European languages, that there is an overwhelming body of solid evidence against it, and that even the linguistic data supporting it can be better explained by an alternative opposite theory, has not daunted its proponents who are deeply entrenched in the academia, media and, worst of all, in politics.

Originally cooked up by 19th century European scholars to serve the interests of India’s colonial masters, the theory has now been appropriated by current political ideologies whose sole purpose is to keep India weak, divided and confused. It is used to deepen and exploit regional, linguistic and racial cleavages in Indian society, deny nativity and originality to Hindu civilization, and justify later invasions: if Aryans came from outside, how can the Hindus cavil at Muslim or European invaders?

This is not the first time that the Aryan Invasion Theory has been disproved. It has been demolished several times over in the past. Talageri’s specialty is that he uses only objective, non-controversial and verifiable data from ancient texts to support his conclusions.

Talageri’s point of departure is the internal chronology of the Rigveda. The Rigveda, the oldest book in the world and the most primary source of knowledge about ancient India, consists of 1028 hymns divided in ten Books, or Mandalas. The composition of these hymns, their collation and compilation in the present form, must have been a gradual process stretching over a vast geographical expanse, spanning several centuries if not millennia, and involving generations of seers, kings and other actors.

The Rigveda itself provides strong and massive internal evidence that all of it was not composed at the same time. There is general agreement among scholars that Books II to VII, known as family books, are older, whereas Books I, VIII, IX and X came later. The family books are composed either entirely (as in the case of Book VI) or almost entirely (as in Books III and VII) by seers of a single family; or entirely (as in Books IV and II) by the members of a single family with a few hymns composed by a family related to them; and they use simple meters.

But among the family books, Book V is regarded as the latest. Descendants of composers of other family books are composers of hymns in this Book; and although it belongs to the Atri family, it has composers from as many as six families. In meters, it uses mainly four-line Anushtup in preference to the three-line Gayatri which is more prominent in older family books; the five-line Pankti meter makes its appearance here. These characteristics become stronger in later Books. Book I, VIII, IX and X, for instance, each has hymns composed by seers from many families, and uses not only the five-line Pankti, but also the six-line Mahapankti and the seven-line Sakvari. And personalities and events of the earlier Books are referred to as belonging to the distant past and so on.

In ‘The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis,’ Talageri has analysed the internal evidence in great detail and established the detailed chronological order of all ten Books as follows: Books VI, III and VII are the oldest (Early Books), followed by Books II and IV (Middle Books) and then come Books V, I, VIII, IX and X (Late Books) in that order.

However, his argument in the present book is not dependent on this detailed chronology. The generally accepted division by scholars of the ten Books into Old Books (II, III, IV, VI, VII), and Late Books (I, V, VIII, IX and X) is enough to support his argument.

That argument can be simply stated. Rigveda and Avesta have a lot in common—names of people, animals, meters, geography. However, the Early Books of Rigveda have very little in common with Avesta, while the Middle Books have a little more. But it is the Late Books of Rigveda that have a lot in common with Avesta, pointing to a period of contemporary development.

Take just one example. The Early Books have few Iranian names: two related kings (Abhyavartin Cayamana, Kavi Cayamana), one priest (Kavasa) and four tribes (Prthu/Parthava, Parsu/Parsava, Paktha and Bhalanas). All these names occur only in three hymns; none of these names of persons or tribes finds any reference in the Middle or Late Books. The three hymns pertain to the historical battles in the Early period and these names refer to enemy Iranians then located in the eastern and central Punjab. Besides, there is a hymn which mentions a sage Usana and his father Kavi Bhargava who played a very important role in the later mythology built on Indo-Iranian conflicts. All these names have equivalents in the Avesta.

In the Middle Books, we find names of four sages, which are not mentioned at all in the Early Books, but find numerous mentions in the Middle and the Late Books and are referred to in Avesta as well. They are: Turviti, Gotama, Trita and Krsanu; in the Avesta they are called Taurvaeti, Gaotama, Thrita and Keresani. All these personalities are Vedic and pre-Zoroastrian. Taurvaeti in the Avesta is an early figure, the father or the ancestor of Fracya (Yast 13.115). Thrita is specifically mentioned in Yasna 9.10 as an ancient personality belonging to a period far earlier to Pourushaspa, the father of Zarathustra.

But the main case rests on dozens of names and name-elements common to the Rigveda and the Avesta. These Vedic name elements like asva, ayana, rta, rna, atithi, brhad, ratha, syava, sura, and names such as Yama, Krishna, Aptya, Vrsni, Varaha, Vivasvat, Atharvan, Kashyapa have their equivalents in the earliest parts of the Avesta, but they are found exclusively in the Late Books and hymns of the Rigveda, and in later Vedic and Sanskrit texts.

To sum up, the Early and Middle Books have only 8 hymns containing these name-elements common to Avesta, and all eight of these hymns are identified as late or interpolated by ancient text Aitareya Brahmana or by western scholars like Oldenberg. On the other hand, the Late Books have no fewer than 386 hymns containing such name-elements.

Apart from names and name-elements, there is the evidence of the development and use of meters used in various hymns of the different Books. The earliest hymns in the Avesta, the Gathas, composed by Zarathustra, use the six-line Mahapankti meter, which is used only in the Late Books of the Rigveda. On this parameter also, the evidence points to the same conclusion: the common development of the joint Indo-Iranian culture represented by these two sacred books took place in the period of Late Books of Rigveda. The Early and the Middle Books of Rigveda belong to a period which is older than the period of the development of this joint culture.

The next question is: in which area were the Early and the Middle Books composed? Where were the Vedic Aryans living in the period before the development of this joint Indo-Iranian culture?

The geographical evidence of Rigveda is very clear and unambiguous. It shows that the Vedic Aryans, in the period of the Early and the Middle books, were inhabitants of interior parts of India, to the east of river Sarasvati and were only just expanding into and becoming acquainted with areas further west.

The geographical horizon of the Rigveda extends from (at least) western Uttar Pradesh in the east to eastern and southern Afghanistan in the West. Let us divide it in three regions: the eastern region comprising the Sarasvati and areas to its east, mainly modern Haryana and western UP; the western region comprising the Indus and areas to its west, mainly the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan, Afghanistan and contiguous areas of southern Central Asia; and the central region comprising Saptasindhu or Punjab between the Sarasvati and Indus.

The eastern region is clearly known to the whole of the Rigveda. Copious references to the rivers such as Sarasvati, Drshadvati, Hariyupiya, Yavyavati, Ashmanvati, Yamuna, Ganga, places such as Ilayaspada, Kikata, and animals such as elephant, buffalo, peacock and spotted deer are scattered all over the Rigveda, but particularly in the Early books.

In sharp contrast, the western region is totally unknown to the Early Books, only very newly familiar to the Middle Books, but quite familiar to the Late Books. The western places (except a solitary reference to Gandharva in a late hymn), animals, lakes and mountains are totally unknown to the Early as well as the Middle Books, and exactly three rivers are mentioned in Book IV, which represents the western-most thrust of the Vedic Aryans in the Middle period.

The late books, on the other hand, are strewn with references to rivers such as Sindhu, Amitabha, Rasa, Svetya, Kubha, Krumu, Gomati, Sarayu and Susoma; places such as Gandhari, mountains such as Arjikya and Mujawat, lakes such as Saryanavat, and animals such as Bactrian camel, Afghan horse, mountain sheep, mountain goat and boar.

Most interesting are the references to the central region—the Saptasindhu or Punjab between Indus and Sarasvati. Very significantly, the Nadi Sukta lists the rivers from the east to the west. Book VI, the oldest book, does not know any of the five rivers of Punjab. The second oldest book, Book III, mentions only the two easternmost rivers—Vipas (Beas) and Sutudri (Sutlej). The third oldest book, Book VII, mentions Parushni (Ravi), the third river from the east, with reference to the Battle of Ten Kings in which the non-Vedic enemies figure as western people of the fourth river Asikni (Chenab). Even the phrase Saptasindhu first appears in the Middle Books.

Significantly, Iranian texts also confirm the movement of the Anu-s (an Aryan clan that later became Iranians) from the east to the west. The first chapter of Vendidad lists 16 holy lands rendered unfit for man by Angra Manyu, the evil spirit of Zend Avesta. The first of these is Airyano Vaejo, bitterly cold and full of snow. If there is doubt that this refers to Kashmir, the designation of one more land as Hapta Hindu, that is Sapta-Sindhu (Punjab), should remove it.

As Girilal Jain had observed, “if it can be established that the movement of the users of the Indo-European speech in India in ancient times was from the east to the west and not vice-versa, the invasion/migration theory, as it has been propounded, cannot stand.”

After establishing precisely that on the basis of Rigveda and Avesta, Talageri proceeds to present some more evidence from ancient Mesopotamia that could help us determine a lower limit for the Vedic Age. Once we see that the movement of Aryans has been from the east to the west within India and outside it, even the familiar facts acquire an altogether different significance.

The Mitanni, who ruled northern Iraq and Syria around the 15th century BCE, spoke Hurrite, a non-Indo-European language unrelated to Vedic Sanskrit. But their kings and other members of the ruling class bore names which were corrupted versions of Vedic names: Mittaratti (Mitratithi), Dewatti (Devatithi), Subandu (Subandhu), Indarota (Indrota), Biriamasda (Priyamedha), to mention a few. In a treaty with Hittites, they invoked Vedic gods Mitra, Varuna, Indra and Nasatyas (Asvins). A Mitanni manual on training of chariot horses by Kikkuli has words like aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (panch, five), satta (sapta, seven) na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, turn round in the horse race). Another one has words like Babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita , grey), pinkara (pingala, red) and so on. Many centuries must have elapsed between the entry of their Vedic ancestors into West Asia and this loss of language with just a super-stratum of Vedic words.

The Kassite conquerors of Mesopotamia (c. 1677 BCE) had a Sun god Surias, perhaps also Marut and may be even Bhaga (bugas), as also a personal name Abirattas (Abhiratha).

What is notable is that the ancestral Vedic names used by the Mitanni kings, and the one known Kassite name, all belong to the names which are common to the Avesta and the Late Books of Rigveda. So the ancestors of the Mitanni and Kassites must have migrated from northwestern India in the period of the Late Books. This places Late Books of Rigveda in the late third millennium BCE at the latest. The Middle and the Early books of Rigveda must have been composed much earlier. Please note that this is the lower limit for the date of Rigveda. There is nothing here that precludes a reasonably earlier date.

This makes the Rigvedic Age contemporaneous with the Indus Valley culture. Far from being the destroyers of Harappa and Mohenjodaro, Vedic Aryans turn out to be the architects of those great cities. This is what Girilal Jain meant when he said that in course of time Talageri’s research can compel the revision of the history not only of Indian, but also world civilization.

Talageri’s book makes fascinating reading for those who are familiar with and interested in the subject. That, looked at from the opposite end, is also the biggest limitation of the book. This book is meant for scholars and serious students. It is not fit for lay readers; it cannot be read just for fun. One has to know a great deal about the subject before one can appreciate the monumental feat of scholarship the author has accomplished. But one thing can be said with certainty - even those who do not agree with Talageri’s conclusion will not find it easy to disprove his data and logic and come up with an alternative explanation.
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 »

RajeshA wrote:The Mitanni, who ruled northern Iraq and Syria around the 15th century BCE, spoke Hurrite, a non-Indo-European language unrelated to Vedic Sanskrit. But their kings and other members of the ruling class bore names which were corrupted versions of Vedic names: Mittaratti (Mitratithi), Dewatti (Devatithi), Subandu (Subandhu), Indarota (Indrota), Biriamasda (Priyamedha), to mention a few. In a treaty with Hittites, they invoked Vedic gods Mitra, Varuna, Indra and Nasatyas (Asvins). A Mitanni manual on training of chariot horses by Kikkuli has words like aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (panch, five), satta (sapta, seven) na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, turn round in the horse race). Another one has words like Babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita , grey), pinkara (pingala, red) and so on. Many centuries must have elapsed between the entry of their Vedic ancestors into West Asia and this loss of language with just a super-stratum of Vedic words.

The Kassite conquerors of Mesopotamia (c. 1677 BCE) had a Sun god Surias, perhaps also Marut and may be even Bhaga (bugas), as also a personal name Abirattas (Abhiratha).

What is notable is that the ancestral Vedic names used by the Mitanni kings, and the one known Kassite name, all belong to the names which are common to the Avesta and the Late Books of Rigveda. So the ancestors of the Mitanni and Kassites must have migrated from northwestern India in the period of the Late Books. This places Late Books of Rigveda in the late third millennium BCE at the latest. The Middle and the Early books of Rigveda must have been composed much earlier. Please note that this is the lower limit for the date of Rigveda. There is nothing here that precludes a reasonably earlier date.
These kingdoms in Syria had Sanskrit in 1600 BC. But Greece did not have Greek until after 1500 BC.

Damascus (Syria) to Amritsar (Punjab) distance= 3600 km
Damascus (Syria) to Athens, Greece = 1200 km
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22872 »

The Mitanni, who ruled northern Iraq and Syria around the 15th century BCE, spoke Hurrite, a non-Indo-European language unrelated to Vedic Sanskrit.
But shiv garu, from above, it appears Mittani were speaking Hurrite, not Sanskrit? is there something I am missing? are they one and the same?
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

shiv saar,

The Mitannis were in the area from April 16, 1457 BC when the Battle of Megidido was fought between the Egyptian forces under the command of Pharaoh Thutmose III and among others 330 Mitanni princes under the command of Canaanite ruler Kadesh.

Now who knows since when the Mitannis were really in the area, possibly 1600 BCE. Kassites too conquered Mesopotamia in 1677 BCE.

At least the Mitannis had an 'Indo-Aryan' language, some Prakrit used in India or some derivation of Sanskrit. Over time it probably degenerated and Hurrian came to be used more.

So the Mittanis were speaking 'from Sanskrit branched out Indian languages' in 17-16 century BCE but Indo-Aryans reached India only after 1500 BCE!!!

And the names used by Mitannis and Kassites are found only in the Late Rigvedic Mandalas, so their migration happened even after the late mandalas were composed.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

venug wrote:
The Mitanni, who ruled northern Iraq and Syria around the 15th century BCE, spoke Hurrite, a non-Indo-European language unrelated to Vedic Sanskrit.
But shiv garu, from above, it appears Mittani were speaking Hurrite, not Sanskrit? is there something I am missing? are they one and the same?
The Mitanni Empire was one in which 'Indo-Aryan' language knowing Mitannis were ruling over non-Indo-European language speaking Hurrians and formed the Elite.

Even though they too used to speak Hurrian, it seems for official purposes like agreements with neighboring countries like Egypt they used to the 'Indo-Aryan' language. Also for documentation of chariot manuals they also used the 'Indo-Aryan' language.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

An attempt at merging Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization with the Vedic Civilization.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Post by Lalmohan »

i dont think its a simple case of AIT is superceded by OIT. i think the reality is that multiple civilisational centres came up almost simultaneously in a number of locations, however the accumulating evidence suggests that OIT related factors have played a significant role in the spread of civilisation from the subcontinent out towards the rest of eurasia, via multiple channels/routes and that the origins of many cultures and civilisations can be traced to these indian roots
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

We need to list out all possible AIT supporting event-statements/claims/facts that needs to proved or disproved. If we can't disprove, then put a timeline to that event. if the timelines are disputed, and can't be proved, then AIT could stand in parallel, meaning there exists a chance that the origin of Aryan still part of then Bharat.. meaning, if Iran is the origin (for argument sake), then it should have bharatvasis presence there, perhaps holidaying or having a vedic jamboree.
--
PS: apologies rajesh, for not having read your hayagriv's post.
Last edited by SaiK on 25 Jun 2012 23:00, edited 1 time in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

If one wishes to have another taste of the ramblings of the AIT-Nazi - Witz-Hell, here is another one: a review of Talageri's earlier book: 'Rigveda: A Historical Analysis'.

And they call this guy a scholar, whose only expertise seems to be to denigrate others having contrary views using ever new ways and vocabulary. He has no logic to use, only his constant pointers to the "Incestuous Council of Pir" and pir-reviews.

Witz-Hell, have you found mare's milk yet or not?
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Lalmohan ji,

Genetically the Europeans may be different, but they all speak Indo-European languages and have mythologies related with Indic mythology. They don't have any memories from before that. When the Swedes or Germans look for their origins, before the Judeo-Christians converted them, they look to the Edda, but if the Edda itself is a gift of the Vedic/Indic people, then what past do they have left?

Either
  1. we were ethnically once together (mostly) which does not seem probable, or
  2. some non-Indic Aryans passed their civilizational and genetic memes to both, or
  3. Indics civilized the Europeans giving them vac, language and religion by building their elites.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

if vedas specify ethnic differences in the text, that would show two cultures existed then. if one looks at skin pigmentation, it says 20k years for complete change, and hence my axiom is we have ethnic different population existed then[4K-12K years ago].

living together is probable based on indic's non-invasionist mindset..thus establishes a basis for diffusion theory. cultural exchanges, trading, and learning.

the problem is to establish who was the seeker, and who was the provider, at what times? let us assume geographic boundaries did not exists then.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »

RajeshA wrote:Lalmohan ji,

Genetically the Europeans may be different, but they all speak Indo-European languages and have mythologies related with Indic mythology. They don't have any memories from before that. When the Swedes or Germans look for their origins, before the Judeo-Christians converted them, they look to the Edda, but if the Edda itself is a gift of the Vedic/Indic people, then what past do they have left?
This discovery was made only in the 1700s and they coined the term IE
This IE language completely disconnects them from the history of Christianity and Church.
They could create their own memory of antiquity and look into the roots of their language.

Modern Europe was made from these identities.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

You see they link up to India and call us as grand pas for providing them the language.. is all fine. But that does not prove AIT at all.. it is totally tangential and orthogonal to even think about putting it on the table.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

A people could change their faith system, but it wouldn't be so easy to get rid of the language. So the Europeans are now stuck with languages that have Indic roots.

So their choices are limited to the absurdity of Christianity, ignominy of being civilized by the brown man from India or they can opt for the Hyborian Age and thank Robert E. Edward for it.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

changing faith some 1000 years ago means something!, even in christianity where one would get ostracized and condemned.. forget about abdul land... where one would be sacked and pelted with stones.

at those ages, they are not faith fools... then, they dont exist
krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5881
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

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

Post by krisna »

Found this about Shri Talageri--
from here
His is an extremely well-written and well-researched book that anyone who is at all interested in India's history would find fascinating. The author later went on to write a second book, Rigveda: A Historical Analysis, which so powerfully reinforced his thesis that Harvard University wrote to him and offered him a "fully-paid scholarship" if he would agree henceforth to be "flexible" in his views :(( :(( (p.vi, Preface to the First Reprint) as it seems he was making some invasionist very uncomfortable there. Happily for us the author, as an honorable man, refused, preferring truth over pelf and prestige.
Have ordered books of his with others mentioned here.
Hope to spend some time poring over their works.
Aaryan
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 00:01

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

Post by Aaryan »

X posting from another thread just for getting more eye ball and some responce..
Dear all,
Sometimes I feel that we all are honest, thoughtful , so patriotic just because all we do is sit in a comfortable office/home , do some surfing and then share that information or comment on that info. I don’t say its bad.. but can we do more? I personally find few posts and most of the persons who post them as persons of morals, ethics and super intelligence.. Can we make sure the information and its analysis that’s done here reaches to many more… Can we act as an strategic think tank.. Can we do something and make things happen rather than just watch them and comment on them… CAN WE BE THE VOICE WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORED ESILY..I have few things in mind.. will post them according to the feedback I get…
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

? :roll:
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:
The Mitanni, who ruled northern Iraq and Syria around the 15th century BCE, spoke Hurrite, a non-Indo-European language unrelated to Vedic Sanskrit.
But shiv garu, from above, it appears Mittani were speaking Hurrite, not Sanskrit? is there something I am missing? are they one and the same?
The only reason anyone has any idea what the hell the Hurrians spoke was that the Hurrian kingdom was occupied by the so called "Mitanni kings" around 1500. One Mitanni king exchanged several letters with an Egyptian Pharaoh - written in cuneiform letters on tablets. This has later been deciphered and shown to be basically Sanskrit or a dialect closely related to Sanskrit.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

from the myths...

On the OIT trail, towards china went bhogar siddhar from tamil land [supposedly 3500BCE/cant' verify this though].
he often teleported/flew himself to china per myth.. he is the father of alchemy, and siddha medicine.

similarly bhodi dharama took kalari phyat (lord parasuram creation) from kerala to china, what they call tai chi, kung fu now. [OIT]
Locked