Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[vishvak]

is that book you are talking about. It starts with an assumption that by magic, a PIE exists

It's not "magic" - it follows from phonology and phonetics - the study of how sounds are articulated in the human tract and what phenomenon cause change in sounds.

Sound changes only appear to be "magic" if one starts reading the Fortson book without the pre-requisite which is a textbook on phonology and phonetics.

A sound change like PIE *ĝ > PIr dz sounds like magic. But if you read literature on Clinical Speech Therapy, you'll find that this is also a well recognized articulatory disorder - nothing but depalatalization or palatal fronting. See:

"Clinical Management of Articulatory and Phonologic Disorders", Weiss & Gordon-Brannan, pp 53

This book is on Google books.

Perhaps speech therapists are also hand in glove with the whole AIT thing

Is there any evidence that so-called PIE speakers followed such concepts as described per these books? Now there are no written records are there for adhering to the highest standards, so how come this is assumed when such assumptions are not extended to others? Is there a bias by default that PIE speakers did understand these concepts in all the details, pre-back-calculations but not Indians?

If I am not mistaken, it is for PIE theorists to prove the details after all reverse-calculations.

[Virendra]

Not horse remains, I'm curious about the Chariot remains... Chariots have all sort of metal bits and pieces, bolts and stuff like that, should be identifiable to present day experts on Central Asian charioteering 3,500-4,000 years ago - I can't imagine they were travelling on all-wood chariots...

I think Witzel was drunk when he spoke of Vedic Tanks rolling down through Northwestern Indian and scaring the IVC people out of their Wits!

Funny, he now denies that he ever supported AIT.

2] The main background of Rig Veda is subjects like cosmology (do not confuse cosmology with religion!); Witzel’s studies never highlight this aspect.
To create a voluminous text and start a revolution of intellectual work based on tough subjects like cosmology, imagination is not enough; we should study how the Vedic people were able to work at such a high intellectual plane which can't be seen anywhere else.

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisp ... spx?id=726

[Virendra]

From the rip down of Witzel by Bhagwan Singh at IIC Delhi :

...After a few worthless queries, the debate shrunk back to Michael Witzel, Kapila Vatsyayan, and Bhagwan Singh.
- The problem with you, Professor, is that you are not familiar with the content of Book IV even. Hymn 57 of Book IV gives a graphic depiction of advanced agriculture, with a plough almost similar to the one that was common in India up to the mid-twentieth century, drawn by a pair of bullocks and driven by a ploughman in service. And in one of the Rics, the poet talks of milking the earth as a cow, year after year. It testifies to advanced agricultural activities with sedentary population and belies the myth of nomadism, pastoralism, and barbarity...

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisp ... spx?id=715

Regards,
Virendra

[RajeshA]

A sound change like PIE *ĝ > PIr dz sounds like magic. But if you read literature on Clinical Speech Therapy, you'll find that this is also a well recognized articulatory disorder - nothing but depalatalization or palatal fronting. See:

"Clinical Management of Articulatory and Phonologic Disorders", Weiss & Gordon-Brannan, pp 53

This book is on Google books.

Perhaps speech therapists are also hand in glove with the whole AIT thing

Now that is really one hell of a theory -

3,500 years ago all Aryans developed speech disorders and started speaking PIE in different ways giving rise to various Indo-European languages!

Now it makes perfect sense!

Now if only all Aryans around the world can get our vocal chords clinically fixed, then we would at last be able to pronounce *eĝhom!

So any true Aryans up for it? The treatment costs only $23,000!

[Virendra]

3,500 years ago all Aryans developed speech disorders and started speaking PIE in different ways giving rise to various Indo-European languages!

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from a Sulekha Blog "Fabricating History – 2000 BC" by another Aryan-Sepoy DMR Sekhar.

Dear DMR Sekhar Sb,

Mala (38., Madiga (40.6), Chenchu (40.7), Bhil (42.9), Satnami (43.0), Kurumba (43.2), Kamsali (44.5), Vysya (46.2), Lodi (49.9), Naidu (50.1), Tharu (51.0), Velama (54.7), Srivastava (56.4), Meghwal (60.3), Vaish (62.6), Kashmir Pandit (70.6), Sindhi (73.7), Pathan (76.9).
What do we conclude? The present day/ living representatives of Ancient South Indians are Mala, Madiga, Chenchu and Bhils while the present day representatives of ANI are Pathans, Sindhi, Kashmir Pandit and Vaish.

Again that is a wrong conclusion! A very wrong conclusion! But you have quoted the data correctly.

When one speaks of "representative", one is making a political statement! It doesn't remain a simple scientific, matter-of-course statement!

Nobody today really represents any ancestral group, be it ANI or ASI. Why not?

Well for one thing nobody is really pure and identical with any ancestral group! Don't the Pushtun too have some ASI, be it just 20%? If they do not embrace that 20%, what should they do? Should each Pathan somehow purge that 20% of their DNA and get a replacement DNA? Well, technology has not advanced that far as yet! Or should the Pathan declare symbolically that 1/5 of him is undesired ASI and so he will cut off 20% of his body, let's say a leg? Would the Pathan do show consistency? Or should the Pathans throw out all other Pathans from among them, whose genetic profile does not adhere to some pure ANI thought up by some evolutionary geneticists?

The point is that 20% ASI is just as much a part of the Pathan as the 76.9% ANI!

Similar is the case with Malas and Madigas from Andhra or Paraiyars from Tamil Nadu!

Can they in the name of pure Dravidianism purge their 40% ANI component? No they can't nor they should!

So this whole case of "representativeness" is skewed. It is like one would say, the right hand would speak for the whole body, while the left would be cut off!

If one has a little bit of ASI, one can speak for ASI, and if one has a little bit of ANI as well, one can speak for ANI too!

ANI and ASI are part of all of us in the Indian Subcontinent, and we would have to embrace both parts of it! Neither a Pathan nor a Mala can have more or exclusive representativeness in a cultural sense over either ANI or ASI, if they are to be considered as politico-cultural identities!

Both ANI and ASI have together created the Indian Civilization and that is what we can represent culturally!

Because Bhils are in North India the right term for ASI is Ancient Indians. The Ahari culture which is known for metallurgy from the period 3600 BC is in fact Bhil culture. Ahari is a sub group of Bhils around Udaipur. It is Bhils (also known as Meena) who mothered (Satyavati also known as Matsya Gandhi) Krishna Dwipayana (Ved Vyas), all the Kauravas and Pandavas! The same Bhils are known in South India as Villavars!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villavar
So where is the South/ North divide?

The North-South Divide may have existed thousands of years back as ANI and ASI entered India and marked out their territories. Those divides are however long gone!

Not only are ASI to be termed as Ancient Indians, but also ANI are Ancient Indians!

On the other hand the true representatives of ANI are in Pakistan and Afghanistan!! That is why Afghans have the highest R1a sub clads!! Which you miss to refer and which I quoted as, “The R1a1 frequency in Afghanistan South is (65.75/65.75) and in a social group in Central Uttar Pradesh is (39.7/39.7) as noted from
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop ... 259x10.doc .”

Historically speaking these identity categories are very very recent - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Afghans, Pakistanis, etc.! These are cultural categories which have distanced themselves from the main civilizational identity that ANI and ASI had created over a period of 40,000 years of cohabitation in the Indian Subcontinent!

True, in these regions the genetic markers for ANI are particularly strong, but historically and genetically speaking they too are Indians, and as a form of cultural identity they represent ANI neither more nor less than say a Mala from Andhra!

Genetically they are all mixed, both ANI AND ASI, and as such culturally they can identify themselves only with what the two components have built up as a civilization, that is should they choose to identify themselves over their ethnicity!

[Arjun]

A superficial calculation ignores all such factors and tries to fit dates as convenient. So while it sounds very scientific to be using rates of precession, positions of asterism, equinoxes etc. all this while totally brushing aside the nitty gritty of the evolution of Indian intercalation, the timekeeping system....

I could change some words in the above sentence and the sentiment would just as well apply for either comparative linguistics or philology !

We are all interested in the progress of true science though - in all its forms. I personally think archeo-astronomy has far more potential than either linguistics or philology for dating purposes, once it incorporates some refinements:

1. Ensure that the calendrical system used in the associated textual reference is known in its entirety (ie including typical details of intercalary month length, time of insertion, purnamanta / amanta)....Four calendrical systems were followed by the Vedics in sequence starting from the RV - need to ascertain complete details of each

2. Bring in some degree of rigor into the identification of textual references to asterisms that are judged to be true 'astronomical' references

3. Come up with a quantitative error range - which has been estimated by Hock to be a maximum of 2000 years but could be made much smaller based on system refinement

[RajeshA]

Tower of Babel

The narrative of the city of Babel is recorded in Genesis 11 1-9. Everyone on earth spoke the same language. (Genesis 11:1) As people migrated from the east, they settled in the land of Shinar. (Genesis 11:2) People there sought to make bricks and build a city and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for themselves, so that they not be scattered over the world. (Genesis 11:3–4) God came down to look at the city and tower, and remarked that as one people with one language, nothing that they sought would be out of their reach. (Genesis 11:5–6) God went down and confounded their speech, so that they could not understand each another, and scattered them over the face of the earth, and they stopped building the city. (Genesis 11:7–8) Thus the city was called Babel. (Genesis 11:9)

I mean even in the Tower of Babel it is written that people traveled from the East where they had spoken one tongue from Babylon they traveled in different directions with different languages!



And what is in the East from Babylon? The Sarastwati-Sindhu Civilization of course!

[Arjun]

3,500 years ago all Aryans developed speech disorders and started speaking PIE in different ways giving rise to various Indo-European languages!

This seems to be the best one yet from the linguist side. A keeper for sure !!

[member_20317]

The 5-700 year error affects the Buddha dating because that is actually the quantum of difference between the two competing claims but what do you do with such a 500-700 year 'error probability' when the other side is mentioning 'periods' instead of 'dates'

The net 'error probability' is a sum of individual 'error probabilities' caused by individual 'ambiguity factors'.

The system of intercalation was just one of those 'ambiguity factors' that resulted in 576 year error probability. If you read Hock's article, he mentions more such factors which add up to ~2000 year error probability.

ManishH ji,
All evidence from different sciences clearly suggest a date that cannot be in any period after ‘x’ date. Now the ‘x’ is about :

1) 10 times larger than the ‘error probability’ suggested by AIT walas and accepted by Mr. Subhash Kak and Mr. Elst; and

2) 4 times larger than the ‘error probability’ claimed by Hock ji and yourself as the maxima.

You don’t leave me with much choice but I don’t get it. I think you need an ‘error probability’ of 4000 years (5500 BC minus 1500 BC) to even begin to make sense.


ManishH ji, your claims fly against the best and the latest understanding of Ocean rise, Khagoliya vigyan and Satellite imagery.

In fact I, subject to any better understanding that I may gather later, will accept your error margins. The whole ~2000 years of it. Now how do I reconcile the following set of data:

1) Dwarka time period, the quantum of Saraswati flow, the night sky patterns that do gel into an approximate pattern; with

2) The AIT dates/periods of 1000-1500 BC.

Surely you would feel like having answers to these questions too. The OIT crowd has taken a stand w.r.t. the AIT/AMT/PIE claims that Linguistics is not a science...yani-yada-yada. What is your stand w.r.t. the other crutches that OIT stands on ie. other than Genetics. You have been kind enough to tell us your views on genetics. Thank you for that much and while I disagree with you on genetics I would respect your judgement, so far it is applied to you and will not be wasting your time by reopening that line of arguements.

I agree you have read RV and all the scriptures. I also agree scriptures say things to the effect that people will find therein what they want to find ergo what one wants is the thing to be managed. I also agree that this applies to both OIT walas and to AIT walas. But surely it must bother you that new evidence coming up challenges your dates and periods. Surely the people studying these phenomena are not Internet Hindus.


Caveat – Bhai log I am an Internet Hindu so I don’t have much brains and hence I have agreed with dates proposed by ManishH ji. If you have any wits left with you, I alas know you would not agree with me and while that frustrates me I do agree I cannot impose my views on you.

[shiv]

The translation adam = "I" can be independently construed from surviving Avestan corpus where "I" = azə̄m. Sanskrit 'aham' corroborates it. With the comparative method, a wide variety of input is taken for due diligence. Sanskrit is just one of it.

In fact the three cognates illustrate one of the sound laws that govern PIE > Proto-IIr. The original PIE sound was a voiced palatal *eĝhom which became

1. dz in common iranian; turning to d in Old Persian (Behistun inscription), but z in Avestan
2. h in Sanskrit

Manishji this is complete nonsense. The same circular argument that is used for "proof". "*eĝhom" did not exist. It is not known to exist. It has been reconstructed from aham, adam and azə̄m and is now being offered as proof of how an insane word that tries to "average" the sound of da and ha and zə̄ and "prove" that all three words came from one source.

You said

The key is : none of them are original sounds. The human phonetic tract cannot turn an original fricative like Sanskrit 'aham' into a voiced dental of Old Persian like 'adam'. Neither can the reverse happen.

I have been comparing a dictionary of Old Persian and Avestan. The words are virtually the same and are very similar to Sanskrit. The three languages could be dialects of the same tongue spoken over a wide area. Any one of them could have been "earlier" or retained more of the original sounds. There is no proof that this is not the case. Yet the three have been used to cook up a proto word because linguists theories of spread of langauge demands that such things must be made up to fit the picture. And hey presto you are using that cooked up proto word as a "demonstration" of how "aham", azə̄m and adam can come from one common unpronounceable *eĝhom for which no proof exists. Manishji. This is faking things. I admit you did not fake this but you are propagating this silliness.

Remember you said:

The original PIE sound was a voiced palatal *eĝhom which became

Was? Became? For you PIE exists as a known language. But PIE never really existed in any known form. It is being pushed by "scholars" making statements like you have done.

Most of the attested Avestan texts are in Sanskrit. Old Persian is "attested" from Avestan and Sanskrit phonology.

What has been done with the Behistun inscriptions is to map out the proper names of people and places using known phonology to arrive at the phonetic values of the letters that make up the name. The rest of the letters have been guessed by using a method of "best guess" based on similarity with Sanskrit and Avestan

What is now touted as "Old Persian" is a best guess of what the letters (and therefore words) probably sounded like based on what is recalled of proper names (eg Darius, Druhyu and "Daryavaus"? ). That best guess may be right, but even if it is not its the best that is available until someone goes though the whole decipherment process again. As I stated about 50 pages ago, I am unable to find any evidence of anyone from modern times having cross checked and revalidated the decipherment once it was done. The same old references turn up again and again. Basically a third language (Old Persian) has been created out decoding an inscription using the templates provided by words of two known languages - Sanskrit and Avestan.

[Arjun]

God went down and confounded their speech, so that they could not understand each another, and scattered them over the face of the earth, and they stopped building the city. (Genesis 11:7–8)

Ha ! Linguistics and Biblical narratives - the pattern recurs. Another data point for what... I wonder ?

[RajeshA]

3,500 years ago all Aryans developed speech disorders and started speaking PIE in different ways giving rise to various Indo-European languages!

Okay many people may laugh at this, but this is no laughing matter. You just need to read a bit of Tower of Babel

The narrative of the city of Babel is recorded in Genesis 11 1-9. Everyone on earth spoke the same language. (Genesis 11:1) As people migrated from the east, they settled in the land of Shinar. (Genesis 11:2) People there sought to make bricks and build a city and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for themselves, so that they not be scattered over the world. (Genesis 11:3–4) God came down to look at the city and tower, and remarked that as one people with one language, nothing that they sought would be out of their reach. (Genesis 11:5–6) God went down and confounded their speech, so that they could not understand each another, and scattered them over the face of the earth, and they stopped building the city. (Genesis 11:7–8) Thus the city was called Babel. (Genesis 11:9)

So it was God who cursed us all Aryans and for this reason we all developed speech disorders and started speaking different Indo-European languages!

And now these PIE-Charlatans want to reconstruct the old PIE and do blasphemy against God, they want to bring back a language back to life, which God himself forbade!

[shiv]

Just wondering: have any substantial traces of chariot wheels or parts or their metal accoutrements been discovered on the supposed path that the Central Asians took towards India?

The trade routes were known to the Saraswathi Sindhu civilization as well as to the BMAC people. Artefacts from Harappa have been found in BMAC and Mesopotamia so we know stuff went from here to there. No horse chariot remains from 1500 BC have surfaced along the trade routes. Horse burials have been found in Swat (in Shitland) along with chariot models. This is part of the Gandhara grave culture (two horse burials are evidence for this entire "grave culture") but it predates the so called Aryan Invasion by 500 years. No horse burials have been found South and West of Swat suggesting that the grave burial culture of Central Asia may have extended up to Swat. Beyond that cock and bull stories have been concocted to say that horses were buried with kings in the Rig Veda. The fact that the Rig Veda is supposed to to have come after an invasion that occurred 500 years after horse graves is explained away as "memories" of steppes seen 500 years previously.

Talageri shows how the order of rivers mentioned in the Rig Veda actually moves from East to West and not from West to East as would be expected. Read this chapter and view with the image associated with the text
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch4.htm

Rivers in order of mention in the Rig veda

[ManishH]

You don’t leave me with much choice but I don’t get it. I think you need an ‘error probability’ of 4000 years (5500 BC minus 1500 BC) to even begin to make sense.

Please help me out by quoting the exact reference which says "5,500 BC". I have read Subhash Kak's paper which balks from giving a date but just says ...

... myths described in Vedas and Brahmanas deal with astronomical events of the 4th millenium BC and earlier.

Re: KB new moon of Māgha observation it says ...

... it refers to the mid fourth-millenium BCE as shown by Sengupta.

Now mid 4th millenium B.C. is 3,500 BC. Or so I gather from the muddled OIT claims. I'm not sure where the 5,500 BC claim is.

ManishH ji, your claims fly against the best and the latest understanding of Ocean rise, Khagoliya vigyan and Satellite imagery.

Nothing is flying nowhere - if you do not give exact references, just posting names of sciences, doesn't make your argument scientific.

1) Dwarka time period, the quantum of Saraswati flow, the night sky patterns that do gel into an approximate pattern; with

Has Dwaraka been found ? Please read the actual report on gulf of Cambay findings in this post. The most exciting find is a "wattle and daub" structure. No trace of a "city" has yet been found.

Saraswati is something that is a thorny affair - the khagol vigyani-s haven't agreed on the dates eg. one of the links to the papers was posted here

the other crutches that OIT stands on ie. other than Genetics.

The main thing against OIT is that - there is no trace of horses and chariotry in the archaeological record of India for the dates (5,500 BC/3,500 BC) claimed by OIT. If such a trace is found, please bury AIT.

Surely the people studying these phenomena are not Internet Hindus.

OIT is an expression of patriotism about the land of India, more than a purely religious expression. I know atheists who are enthused about it.

At another level, OIT is a strategy to defend against attempts at creating an artificial Aryan-Dravidian (sic) division in Indian society. It's a noble aim, but the strategy doesn't stand on any scientific evidence. That doesn't mean the strategy won't succeed.

PS: I don't see a need to be defensive about being called an "Internet Hindu". A theory should stand on facts, not the religious persuasion of the theorist.

[RajeshA]

A comment on genetics:

I think we should pay more attention to mtDNA mapping and look at matrilineage ancestry.



All non-African lines derive from L3! All Non-African lines also derive from the Indian Subcontinent!!!

Indians share U with Europeans and M with East Asians. Europeans and East Asians share to a small extent N and that too over India!

It does say that Indians (probably Ancestral North Indians, ANI) and Europeans had a common mother, and she was outside Africa! BTW, Indians and Europeans have different subclades of U.

MtDna haplogroups by populations @Wikipedia

I would say that during big migrations, women go along, if it is for a search for resources, after natural catastrophes, after invasions, due to slave trade, etc., however women would tend not to go along if the men decide to migrate out of reasons of expansion, like Chengiz Khan and his men did!

Now as per AIT, it cannot be that when the Central Asian Aryans "migrated" that they took their women along with them in BOTH directions - West towards Europe and South towards India, otherwise they would have had the same U hyplogroup subclades, but they don't!

Secondly since both have U it would mean that when the initial Out-of-Africa migrations took place, women also migrated. It was a migration with women, and the group split up and went in different directions! One group came to Europe and one group went to India. That means all the R1 that Europeans and Indians share also went along in both directions!

So India must have had R1 from the beginning itself where it may have specialized further! So there is no reason to discount an "Out-of-India" scenario!

[Arjun]

If I may make a suggestion. While ManishHji has both entertained us (speech defect argument) and enlightened us with his detailed responses and insight into topics as varied as labiovelars, glottochonology, retroflexes, depalatalization and the like - I would like to point out that there is some danger of this thread being derailed by selective answering & deep micro (nano?)-level arguments that seem to stray light-years from the big-picture issues. We are all aware of some of the big-picture issues that are relevant to the OIT/ AIT debate - I know for a fact that Shivji, RajeshAji, myself and many others have raised these issues relevant to the field of linguistics and philology (cornerstones of AIT). Not sure whether willingness or competence is the issue here - but these questions have been ignored, while we get detailed responses on data-points several layers below.

We seem to be getting into a rut something like this:

AIT: Argument 1 --> Counter-argument1 --> Counter-counter argument1 --> Counter-counter-counter argument 1....
OIT: Argument 2 --> Counter-argument2 --> Counter-counter argument2 --> Counter-counter-counter argument 2....

Frankly, it is easy for both sides to extend the chain indefinitely for any given argument and counter-response above. But the larger question - what are the rules of the 'science' that would allow for acceptance of say Argument 1 for AIT but not Argument 2 for OIT? Or Counter-argument 1 for AIT, but not Counter-argument 2 for OIT?... These are macro questions that have been raised repeatedly - for which there has been no response.

The world of natural sciences has progressed largely on account of the bedrock of Indo-Hellenic infusion of logic and mathematics into what used to be a 'philosophy'-oriented field in the West. I do think the social sciences need a similar Indic Panini-an makeover - would be a tough job given the depths the West has taken it so far, but its our job to try.

This has been an excellent thread so far - but it may be worthwhile to introduce some amount of thread moderation only to ensure that there is a macro-track that keeps the big picture in mind, while we have all these micro-discussions going into deeep-dive mode.

Possibly one way of doing this is for someone to take the trouble of summarizing the status of arguments once every few days? Any thoughts?

[ManishH]

Talageri shows how the order of rivers mentioned in the Rig Veda actually moves from East to West and not from West to East as would be expected. Read this chapter and view with the image associated with the text
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch4.htm

Rivers in order of mention in the Rig veda

Even a cursory look reveals contradictions in this diagram...

1. Sh. Talageri calls maṇḍala VI the oldest based on genealogical lists. Going by genealogy, the entire maṇḍala VI belongs to Bharadvāja kula. The sūkta VI.45 where Ganga is mentioned is ascribed to Samyu Bharadvāja, who is the son of Bharadvāja Bārhaspatya, descended from Bṛhaspati who is the son of Aṅgiras. Now since the ancestor ṛṣi Aṅgiras has composed other mantras in maṇḍala I itself, so how come maṇḍala VI is the earliest ? For reference, here is the genealogical data from Sh. Talageri's book :

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch2.htm

The pro-domo placement of maṇḍala VI as the oldest is totally-self contradictory with Talageri's own basis - the genealogical tree. So placing Ganga in the "EARLY PERIOD" is totally incorrect.

2. There is no mention of 'yamuna' in maṇḍala VI.

I'm not sure how many mistakes are there.

[member_20317]

Yes ManishH ji, I know we both have read the exact same lines and understood the exact same things from the link you have provided. I think Murugan ji too has provide those links.

I being of the OIT crowd uptil now, wanted to try out a change in my stance in an academic sense. In the later part of my post I had made it clear. (You can discount the caveat, you see both sides can now suspect my intentions. So that was my way of preemptive pay back)

It was in this light that I did what I did. I simply applied the higher of the two figures to claims made by Nilesh ji regarding Mahabharat. If Mahabharat is dated around 5500 BC by him based on what he claims is evidence then surely he would place the Rig Veda even earlier, which is not good for AMT/PIE claims. Of course he has no proof for doing that. I mean I agree absense of evidence (which is what it is when Rig Veda is not mentioning Mahabharat) cannot be a case for Rig Veda being earlier then Mahabharat.

See we disagree on Genetics and Linguistics and while uptil now I believed in claims made by Nilesh ji, I noticed that I have not examined it in a critical fashion. You see I want to see if AMT can be there even without PIE. I would like to understand how best to make Nilesh ji understand that the error in his assumptions eg. regarding what is written in the scriptures and how he has been using the wrong sort of softwares etc.

Since you have read quite a few scriptures formally, and Nilesh ji is using scriptures, I was kind of hoping that you could provide some lead. You see we either need to have something more then 2000 years or reinterpretation of scriptures.

In peace.

[RajeshA]

The main thing against OIT is that - there is no trace of horses and chariotry in the archaeological record of India for the dates (5,500 BC/3,500 BC) claimed by OIT. If such a trace is found, please bury AIT.

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence!

If AIT-Nazis can prove the above statement wrong, then they are entitled to see evidence of horse bones from 5,500 BCE!

Anyway, AIT-Nazis have not yet proved that Horses were not domesticated before 5,500 BCE, nor have they proved that there was no trade between Indian Subcontinent and regions where horses could be found, e.g. Arabia! Rather all evidence indicates the contrary!

There are also no bones of Julius Caesar lying around either! It is said he was cremated. So did he or did he not exist? Or for that matter there are thousands of things that astrophysicists, evolutionary biologists and historians posit, which have not been found but for which they have good reasons to assume.

The point is for Indigenists there is huge amounts of textual evidence which does not mention any migrations into India and which shows Indian antiquity! Then there is evidence from archaeoastronomy, genetics, geology, archaeology, etc. all showing continuity and antiquity of the Indian Civilization. For AIT-Nazis, there is zero evidence of any kind, except their own made up PIE in the sky!

So AIT-Nazis need to prove a lot before they can demand any Horse-proof from Indians!

[ManishH]

It was in this light that I did what I did. I simply applied the higher of the two figures to claims made by Nilesh ji regarding Mahabharat. If Mahabharat is dated around 5500 BC by him

This is just what I meant by the muddle in the OIT dating scene - another savvy OIT source dates the Mahābhārata war to 3137 BC.

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

There seems to be a gap of ~2,300 years between various OIT sources. So what does that tell me about the "science" used in the astronomical dating methods for an event which was 18 odd days ?

In the frenzy to ascribe antiquity to these events, the OIT enthusiast will push any date - no matter how contradictory. So long as it goes before the Indus valley civilization.

Sure there are astronomical observations in Mahābhārata - but all these contradictory OIT dates indicate the dating methods are arbitrary and totally unscientific - even if using apparently scientific terms in their pronouncements.

You see I want to see if AMT can be there even without PIE

BTW, the existence of a proto-language like PIE (even if you disagree with mainstream about the shape of this creature), doesn't indicate the homeland, India or otherwise. Therefore, linguistics on it's own never specifies the homeland - you can search any linguistic textbook.

The crucial pointer is the archaeological record - all evidence for horse domestication (Botai), development of chariotry (Sintashta-Arkaim) points to eurasian steppes. Unless that is overturned by new evidence, nothing will change in academic view of this issue.

[shiv]

The crucial pointer is the archaeological record - all evidence for horse domestication (Botai), development of chariotry (Sintashta-Arkaim) points to eurasian steppes. Unless that is overturned by new evidence, nothing will change in academic view of this issue.

Manish you've got to be kidding. Because if you go by attested evidence, of Indo European languages, Sanskrit comes a distant third (or fourth) - with Sanskrit being attested in text only after 1000 AD.

Mitanni is the earliest, Avestan is next. I think Tocharian comes sometime around then. Sanskrit is last.

You say "nothing will change in academic view of this issue." That is because the Academics are liars. There is no proof that Sanskrit dates from 1200 BC. heymay say pre iron age. The idea that it dates from 1200 BC is totally fabricated. By the very liguitst who want to hold on to that date. But that fabrication happens to fit what the fakers want.

I note that liar linguists who hold academic positions are very strict about what is "attested". Attestation exists for the Mitanni texts. I am not sure if similar attestation exists for Avestan. The Zorastrians themselves dated Zoroaster to 300 BC or some such date but the "academics" pushed that date back to 1200 BC. That may be fake but that means Avestan can only be "attested" to the time of the Behistun inscription. Sanskrit is the joker here. No attestation in texts till 1100 AD. If written Sanskrit prior to 1100 AD is not found, then Sanskrit as a language cannot be proven to exist earlier than that date. If any academic has a modicum of honesty he should say that Sanskrit is not as old as has been made out to be. That would be more credible and acceptable as "science" than the horse manure that you choose to throw at us along with the AIT liars. We can all atop pretending to be more honest than the next guy. Hack thoo is the word for the dishonesty being displayed here.

Your linguists are liars to date Sanskrit to 1200 BC. There is no proof to support that date. OIT supporters may be liars to support an earlier date but this is an argument between two sets of unscientific liars who both want to lie for their own reasons. There is no reason to think that the AIT Nazis and their chamchas are lying any less than others. Which one turns out to be correct remains to be seen, but there is absolutely no justification to pretend that the academics are sitting on anything more firm than their own pompous asses.

[RajeshA]

This is just what I meant by the muddle in the OIT dating scene - another savvy OIT source dates the Mahābhārata war to 3137 BC.

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

There seems to be a gap of ~2,300 years between various OIT sources. So what does that tell me about the "science" used in the astronomical dating methods for an event which was 18 odd days ?

In the frenzy to ascribe antiquity to these events, the OIT enthusiast will push any date - no matter how contradictory. So long as it goes before the Indus valley civilization.

Sure there are astronomical observations in Mahābhārata - but all these contradictory OIT dates indicate the dating methods are arbitrary and totally unscientific - even if using apparently scientific terms in their pronouncements.

This is just what I mean by the muddle in the AIT Urheimat-Search scene

One savvy AIT source places Aryans in Baltic-Pontic(-Caspian) region, another still move savvy places it in Anatolia, the savviest place it in Central Europe-Balkans, the ultra-savyy place it in Pontic-Caspian region and the hyper-savvy do it in Armenia!!! And when they can't find anything there, they take a spaceship Prometheus and go look for Aryans 39 light years away in space!!!

All these places seem to be all over the place! So what does that tell me about the "science" used by the AIT-Nazis to look for the origin of the Aryans?

In the frenzy to somehow escape Indian Subcontinent and the Hindoos, the AIT-Nazi would push any place except India - no matter how absurd! So long as it is outside India!

Sure there are horses in the Steppes - but all these contradictory AIT Urheimats indicate the search methods are arbitrary and totally unscientific - even if using apparently scientific terms in their pronouncements.

[member_20317]

Re. ManishH Post subject: Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to TruthPosted: 23 Aug 2012 18:37

Well you may not be right on this count ManishH ji.

You see, across the divide, both the OIT and AMT people agree that the time period over which these scriptures were composed is very long. Could be that some guy did not know of just could not reconcile the outlier observation/inference.

Nilesh ji could be looking at an older part of Mahabharat or he could be actually reading something that is a recollection or some earlier event that is mentioned in later day Sanskrit. While other scholars could be looking at an entirely different set of data. 'Remembering old times' wala arguement is used by AMT proponents, I am afraid cannot be denied to OIT walas. After all MBH was Jaya with 8800 verses. What was the nature of Jaya. Did it carry the fight as the central idea. Which of the 100000 verses is to be counted in those 8800?

And besides I mean you have to agree OIT walas do not quite 'anoint' their respective dates as being conclusive.

Also regarding the Archeology being central to AMT well I would accept Archeology in a court of law and in academic circles it can be accepted. But I need to construct the scenario. Archeology is good for giving dates for what it found. Says nothing of what I can likely find next and little of whether the instant evidence is from the earlier period or the later period of the same strata. You see everything gets consumed by time unless some special effort is made to preserve something. And special efforts lead to their own set of problems. If I can make a special effort to bury something 'x' ft. under I can as well chose to bury it '2x' ft. underground. or not bury it at all instead just left it for some sky burial.

ManishH ji I was looking for something like a reinterpretation of data that someone from OIT group has used.

[SaiK]

]
!

The red dots pretty much nails it! </PERIOD.

[shiv]

The Rig Veda is said to be dated before the Iron Age because it does not mention iron. Either those composers of the RV are lying or the academics are liars. You see, the Rig Veda does not mention cities. So the RV must date before the first cities were built.

The Rig Veda mentions domesticated horses, and chariots, but not cities. What is the archaeological time lag between the first domesticated horses and the earliest cities?

[Nilesh Oak]

We seem to be getting into a rut something like this:
AIT: Argument 1 --> Counter-argument1 --> Counter-counter argument1 --> Counter-counter-counter argument 1....
OIT: Argument 2 --> Counter-argument2 --> Counter-counter argument2 --> Counter-counter-counter argument 2....

Thanks Arjun ji for recognizing the problem.... all these arugments/counter arugments while keeping the original question open...and letting one walk away without being held responsible for making 'casual and careless remarks' which are never backed. Some forum members have successfully took the discussion to varoius tangents, and in all obejectivity, I commend them for their, intentional or otherwise, successful plan.

I will summarize thread on Archeo-astronomy, beginning with 'Ribhus= Cloud,. I will limit the scope as it relates to OIT and Method of science.

Many of the forum members think of some of these 'back and forth' as good 'net practice'. There is truth in it. One must also remember, that net practice is only prelude to the real game. One can not ever be in net practice. One does not have to play the game on terms defined by one who helped you pratice in the net.

Growing up in Mumbai, we used to talk (talk more than play) all subtlities of cricket- off spin, leg spin, googlee, fielding strategy.. while an ordinary woker would walk by, ask to play few shots and would hit every single delivery from us - the experts- for six. This is because he did not give a hoot to our leg spin/off spin gymnastics.

The morale - why pick dogmatic crowd (AIT, PIE, chariot, horse) to convince them otherwise. It is tough, not because there is any merit to their position, but it is tough because their position is to point limitations of other's approach, and convince population at large that this the proof of correctness of their own position.

This is not a new game.

[RajeshA]

ravi_g ji,

the thing is Ptolemy suggested a Geocentric Model for our Earth's movement, then Copernicus suggested the Heliocentric Model, and then there were others in between having their own fantasies!

So what does that tell me about the "science" used by the Western "scientists"? It's all so pfanni!

[RajeshA]

Nilesh Oak ji,

contrary to what you think, AIT stands today on its single leg of dominance in rhetoric! There is no science in it! And since it is all about rhetoric, it is good to have net practice as well!

But it is good that we build our Truth on a solid foundation of research!

[RajeshA]

The Rig Veda is said to be dated before the Iron Age because it does not mention iron. Either those composers of the RV are lying or the academics are liars. You see, the Rig Veda does not mention cities. So the RV must date before the first cities were built.

The Rig Veda mentions domesticated horses, and chariots, but not cities. What is the archaeological time lag between the first domesticated horses and the earliest cities?

That is the whole issue, saar ji!

The AIT-folks like to mix up terminology! What they have is evidence for the latest date by which horse was domesticated. It says nothing about the earliest date!

[ManishH]

shiv: I suspect you just wanted to yell the word liar several times Ignoring all the rhetoric in the post, and addressing just your factual claims, almost every claim in your post is wrong ...

That may be fake but that means Avestan can only be "attested" to the time of the Behistun inscription.

The Behistun inscription is in Old Persian (West Iran), not Avestan (East Iran).

Sanskrit is the joker here. No attestation in texts till 1100 AD. If written Sanskrit prior to 1100 AD is not found, then Sanskrit as a language cannot be proven to exist earlier than that date.

Nope. The earliest attestation for Sanskrit is in 150 AD - King Rudradāman's inscriptions.

No linguist uses dates of attestation for the age of language. Otherwise Aśoka's Magadhi edicts predate Rudradāman's Sanskrit epigraphs by 400 years. When languages belonging to the same family are compared, it's the phonetics of the languages that gives the clue to it's relative position in the family tree.

So you have all your facts wrong, but still want to call a body of academics liars. That's what amazes me.

[nakul]

Nope. The earliest attestation for Sanskrit is in 150 AD - King Rudradāman's inscriptions.

I am no expert here. But this is getting ridiculous. Does the composition of the Bhagawad Gita 3200 BC was not in Sanskrit, or do we need an attestation for that?

[member_20317]

The Rig Veda is said to be dated before the Iron Age because it does not mention iron. Either those composers of the RV are lying or the academics are liars. You see, the Rig Veda does not mention cities. So the RV must date before the first cities were built.

The Rig Veda mentions domesticated horses, and chariots, but not cities. What is the archaeological time lag between the first domesticated horses and the earliest cities?

That is the whole issue, saar ji!

The AIT-folks like to mix up terminology! What they have is evidence for the latest date by which horse was domesticated. It says nothing about the earliest date!

Nah nah nah RajeshA ji, Archeology gives you Evidence of existence. And thats it.

Beyond that there are two things we need clarification on. The earliest and the latest are based on the assumption that what is found in one strata must belong to it or OTOH if a different conclusion is looking plausible than what recourse is taken to other disciplines.

The periods are often educated and calibrated guess works. But guess works nonetheless. The dating process relies on dates supplied by earlier accepted theorists.

That is why I have given up on direct evidence based scenario building and instead taken to working on circumstantial evidence.

[member_20317]

No linguist uses dates of attestation for the age of language. Otherwise Aśoka's Magadhi edicts predate Rudradāman's Sanskrit epigraphs by 400 years. When languages belonging to the same family are compared, it's the phonetics of the languages that gives the clue to it's relative position in the family tree.

So you have all your facts wrong, but still want to call a body of academics liars. That's what amazes me.

I thought linguists needed Sanskrit to predate other languages because it was used to decipher other languages. It looked like a majboori.

[JE Menon]

Not horse remains, I'm curious about the Chariot remains... Chariots have all sort of metal bits and pieces, bolts and stuff like that, should be identifiable to present day experts on Central Asian charioteering 3,500-4,000 years ago - I can't imagine they were travelling on all-wood chariots...

Would they be much different from remains of say, bullock carts?

No idea. I guess they would be rather different in that they were made to travel faster and for a different purpose. But now that you mentioned it, any bullock cart remains dug up?

[shiv]

No linguist uses dates of attestation for the age of language.

Nonsense. Stop lying. The fake made up language "Proto Indo-Iranian" is attested to the Mitanni period. The presence of laryngeals in PIE is "attested" by the decipherment of the Hittite texts. Academics who cook up fake stuff to fit their theories are liars. I said it again. Like horse evidence, repeating things often enough and loudly enough actually works.

Old Iranian is "attested" with the Behistun inscriptions. Sanskrit cannot be proven to be older than its first attestation. We are talking facts and proof. Horses have not been proven to have been domesticated before the central Asia horse grave dates. No one is allowed to say that domesticated horses existed before those dates .

Facts are used selectively by academics, and you too as I can see.

[RajeshA]

Nope. The earliest attestation for Sanskrit is in 150 AD - King Rudradāman's inscriptions.

I am no expert here. But this is getting ridiculous. Does the composition of the Bhagawad Gita 3200 BC was not in Sanskrit, or do we need an attestation for that?

You see, this can't be true. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard has not certified this date!

P.S. Neither has Nilesh Oak ji!

[ManishH]

No linguist uses dates of attestation for the age of language.

Nonsense. Stop lying. The fake made up language "Proto Indo-Iranian" is attested to the Mitanni period. The presence of laryngeals in PIE is "attested" by the decipherment of the Hittite texts.

You are again wrong It's not the date of attestation that makes Hittite old. It's the phonetics of Hittite. Neither is the date of attestation of the Mitanni treaty make it older than Sanskrit, it's the phonetics of the Mitanni IA words.

[nakul]

I am no expert here. But this is getting ridiculous. Does the composition of the Bhagawad Gita 3200 BC was not in Sanskrit, or do we need an attestation for that?

You see, this can't be true. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard has not certified this date!

P.S. Neither has Nilesh Oak ji!

If you want the right answer, ask the right question. What is the date for the composition of the ManuSmriti??

[RajeshA]

If you want the right answer, ask the right question. What is the date for the composition of the ManuSmriti??

If we are lucky, somebody may enlighten us!