Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Sep 2012 02:18

Peter ji,
stellarium is a good software, but you have to know how to use it right. How on earth are you comparing observations on same Julian day/time of the year but separated by >1000 years? Even if you just play around with the hourly times and months, you will see the precessional effect on the overall position of the visible binary w.r.t any fixed virtual "North" - if you stick to same Julian Day/month/hour.

Comparison for such cases have to be done with other types of invariants - like the highest point reached in the sky, or crossing the virtual north vertical plane, etc., as well as seasonally corrected - say equinox day observation etc.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Sep 2012 02:30

For doubts on dates earlier than 4000/8000, I think we had some discussion on interpretation of the "hound" and "varsha". This started off as a linguistic debate, but there also I think I pointed out the possible link to an astronomical clue - that fits in very nicely with the known patterns of change in Indian monsoon around 19 kybp and 15-16 kybp.

But what I failed to realize at the time, was that there was a language issue involved alright. This was about the fact that if such an even was indeed being remembered - there must have been a language by a people observing this in India around 19kybp that had identifiers for all the constellations/stars coded, and the minimal action/descriptive words needed to encode the phenomenon descriptively - which had subsequently been mapped into any interim language that was finally formed into RV Sanskrit. In a way there must have been a continuity in the language that allowed remembering and trasnmitting the info.

A very small group of us, including some linguists apart from myself, think that birth of languages that have led to the modern ones could have been as early as 34-35 kybp, and one really "heretic" I know thinks even a date earlier than 45-50 kybp might be a reality. Anyway let people do more work on this, as I have been forewarned by my linguist friends that this has to be a very slow chipping-away job at the best. The lobby currently in power is strongly dependent on the political utility of their theory to get grants, and hence students, and hence will stop at nothing to derail the process if they feel threatened.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 29 Sep 2012 02:51

RajeshA wrote:On Dwarka

Published on Feb 01, 2006
By Badrinaryan Badrinaryan
Chief Geologist of National Institute of Ocean Technology in 1999-2000
Gulf of Cambay: Cradle of Ancient Civilization

Terrific paper RajeshA - thanks very much!

What's surprising is the muted response to something as astonishing as this. 11 years have passed since this discovery and I don't see any follow-up excavations. Archaeologists should be drooling all over this and producing tons of papers. Hydrographic vessels like the recently inducted INS Makar could be used to get an in-depth look, using its UUVs and latest equipment.

This Beeb report says this discovery could re-write history http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm, except it hasnt happened yet.

Also, Badrinarayan is being conservative when he says the Southern Metropolis exists from 13000 BP, even though human settlement has been around this place since 31000 BP & pottery from 16000 BP. So, no hyperbole here.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 29 Sep 2012 03:12

One thing puzzles me, didn't Witzel say Indus script is not script at all? Now suddenly everyone is able to decipher Indus script and is no big deal, AIT gang too who usually are behind their guru Witzel now can read Indus script. When did AIT gang suddenly got enlightenment and became Indus script literates similar to Kalidas? And what made it Belong to Dravidian family?

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 29 Sep 2012 07:29

The occurrence of both short and long medial-vowel signs for ‘e’ and ‘o’ in the Indus text unequivocally indicates that the language underlying the Indus writing belongs to the Dravidian language family.

RajeshA ji, This is somewhat mystifying... The exact same authors in a publication one month prior to this one, reached the conclusion that the Indus civilization was multi-lingual and parent of both ANI and ASI language families. Even this latest paper contains enough references to 'Aryan' origins in Harappa, so the final conclusion seems inaccurately worded.

Possibly they meant to say that at least one of the languages underlying the Indus writing belonged to the Dravidian family ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Sep 2012 08:24

Arjun wrote:
The occurrence of both short and long medial-vowel signs for ‘e’ and ‘o’ in the Indus text unequivocally indicates that the language underlying the Indus writing belongs to the Dravidian language family.
RajeshA ji, This is somewhat mystifying... The exact same authors in a publication one month prior to this one, reached the conclusion that the Indus civilization was multi-lingual and parent of both ANI and ASI language families. Even this latest paper contains enough references to 'Aryan' origins in Harappa, so the final conclusion seems inaccurately worded.

Possibly they meant to say that at least one of the languages underlying the Indus writing belonged to the Dravidian family ?

The image below has on the left side the above authors version. In the middle is the Facebook IVC dictionary (Sue Sulllivan?). On the right is the longest IVC sign ever found. Would anyone like to have a go at decipherment?

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 29 Sep 2012 09:25

SaiK wrote:In my understanding, puran implies story, and I don't think vedas qualify for that.

The Rgveda "would" absolutely qualify to be relegated to the status of a Purana, if it is indeed what the AITers (and most OITers) claim. In other words, it "would be" the story of ancient tribes of India/Central Asia, their wanderings from West to East/East to West, their rivalries and battles, interspersed with accounts of daily life, sights and scenes, and practices of those times, odes to various gods, philosophical statements, and some unintelligible/odd musings of inebriated individuals thrown in for good measure.

So why not declare it a Purana ?

KL

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 29 Sep 2012 11:04

Anukramanis and Rshis: No History In Them

I. Purpose

This note concerns the various misleading claims and speculations regarding the historicity of “composers” and the “index of composers” of the Rgveda, which are being used by several authors to support their propositions regarding the Aryan Invasion Theory, Aryan Migration Theory, and Out-of-India Theory. The word “composer” covers various interpretations, such as the “person who spoke/saw/divined/heard the words under some sort of inspiration”.
The purpose of this note is to assert that such claims and speculations are entirely unsupported by the evidence available in the Rgveda itself as well as in authored historical works.

II. Background

From very ancient times, there has existed a desire to “personify” and “objectify” the sounds in the Rgveda. Such a tendency has existed right from the Atharva Veda down to the Puranas, the latter unabashedly giving “human-like” personalities to Rgvedic words in the form of gods, goddesses, sages, and earthly objects/creatures such as places, animals, rivers, etc.

It can be argued that this practice originates in the desire of the Atharva Veda authors and followers to have their works recognized as equivalent to, or even more excellent than, the primeval sounds of the Rgveda (RV). One of the methods used for this purpose was to write Brahmanas and Upanishads in which the Rgveda is presented as incompetent and useless. In the Gopatha Brahmana of the Atharva Veda, for example, we find that the RV, Samaveda and Yajurveda themselves are given human-like personalities and presented as incompetent buffoons, with the Atharva Veda finally stepping in to “save the day”, as it were.

III. Origin and Content of Anukramanis

Such desires, driven by human ego, search for identity, craving for recognition and fame, etc., were also responsible for the tendency to attach human names to the Rks and Suktas of the RV. Thus arose the Anukramanis, which are essentially indices of the Suktas. The most well-known one, the Sarvanukramani of Katyayana, is also one of the latest, being generally accepted as belonging to the Puranic period.

There are basically three pieces of indexing in the Sarvanukramani regarding each Sukta: the “devata” (deity), the “chhandas” (meter), and the “rishi” (seer). The devatas and meters are obviously integral parts of the Suktas themselves. But the third category (“rishi”) contains “names” of supposed human composers, whose “family” names are however derived from words present in the RV. For example, the RV mentions words such as Vasishtha, Kashyapa, Vishvamitra, etc which are then used as names of ancient Rshis (who are then claimed as remote ancestors of the “composer” Rshis listed by Katyayana). Note that such use of names is quite idiosyncratic and ad hoc, for example “GRtsamada” (from Mandala 2) is made a proper noun and adopted as a name of a Rshi for the Sarvanukramani list, but “GhrtapRshTha” (from Mandala 1, and by the same standards as GRTsamada, a perfectly good candidate for describing a human person) is not adopted as a proper noun - we have to wait till the Bhagavata Purana where this word is taken from the RV and made the name of a prince! As a matter of fact, as already realized by Mimamsa, these words are not proper nouns in the Veda and their meaning is purely to be understood from analyzing their roots. For example: “Vasishtha” is derived from the root “vas” which means “to exist”.

IV. Anukramanis did not accompany the Veda: they were attached to it later

Although some modern authors claim that the “Anukramanis, and hence the Rshis listed in them, are as old as the Rgveda itself”, such a claim is hardly taken to be as a serious one.

It is now well known that the Rks of the RV have been re-arranged/re-compiled multiple times by the Vedic shakhas (by the way, the Samaveda itself is a rearranged set of RV Rks set to musical tunes). The concurrent development of the Anukramanis is essentially an effort in establishing the identity, and satisfying the desires for authenticity, of various Vedic schools as well as a “family system” based upon the classifications of “gotra” and “pravara”. It is quite possible that these schools and families were maintained to some degree AFTER they were established, but the claim that these families started with a human ancestor who was a “Vedic rishi” is completely fictitious.

Question: So what then are we to make of the names given by Katyayana?

Answer: these names are of two types:

1) Some may be actual names of individuals who may have contributed in some way during the concerted efforts to “finalize” the arrangement of the RV corpus as supervised by Shakalya and others. For example, the Mimamsakas assert that these names belong to certain persons who were especially skilled in the study/recitation of that particular section of the Veda, and hence these sections are associated with them (for example, the entire text of the RV available today is associated with Shakalya due to his efforts in consolidating the text). These individuals were organized into schools. The names of ancient “Rshis” (taken from RV words) were used as organizational “headings” or “titles” of these schools, and do not represent any real human ancestors (see Section V). For example, “Vaishvamitra Gathina”, if not entirely a fictitious name, denoted possibly a man affiliated with the Vishvamitra school and whose first name may have been Gathina. Others may be generous kings honored by attaching their name to a RV Sukta, e.g. “Pratardana Kashiraja”.

2) Some are entirely fictitious, e.g., Indra, Agastya, Manu Vaivasvata, etc are themselves listed as “composers” in the Anukramani. The very existence of a number of such fictitious “composer” names should call into question the authenticity of any of the names in the Anukramani in the first place, but this is almost irrelevant given so many other factors that already establish that the names in the Anukramani are not composers at all.

V. Internal References to Composers in the Rgveda turn out to be Absurd

It is often claimed that the “composers” refer to each other in the RV, thereby conjuring up an amusing picture of a rather collegial group of fellows who often promised their composer friends: “Hey, I will definitely mention you in my next composition”. Upon examination of these claims, it is found that every single such reference is absurd.

For instance, it is claimed that the composer Vasishtha refers to no less than three of his contemporaries in RV VII.18 (Parashara), VII.25 (Kutsa), and VII.33 (Agastya). Let us see who these “collegial composers” were.

Who indeed are Vasishtha and Agastya, supposedly the “ancestors” of two important groups of RV “composers”?

In VII.33, the composer is listed by Katyayana as “Vasishtha Maitravaruni” (i.e., Vasishtha of Mitra and Varuna). In the Sukta, Vasishtha is himself stated to be “the son of Mitra and Varuna” (Rk VII.33.11), whereas in the immediately next Rk (VII.33.12) he is stated to have been “born from Apsara”. Quite an achievement, to be the progeny of two gods and a celestial being (a Rgvedic ménage-a-trois, indeed)! Of course, we also notice that the subject of the composition, Vasishtha the son of Mitra and Varuna, is also absurdly listed as its composer (some sort of autobiographical "bare-it-all" session, perhaps?).

Nevertheless, we also find Agastya involved in the proceedings (VII.33.10), wherein he is stated to have “held Vasishtha and brought him over” (no doubt trying to separate him from his three dysfunctional parents, an ancient “child custody” case ?).

Agastya, we find, is quite a lusty fellow himself. In I.179 we find him flirting with Lopamudra and finally “doing the deed” with her. By the way, the “Rshi” of this Sukta is “Agastya Maitravaruni”, which means that Agastya is not only the composer of the Sukta but also Vasishtha’s brother from Mitra and Varuna!

Meanwhile, Vasishtha is apparently eager to meet one of his fathers, Varuna: he wonders in VII.86.2, “how can I be united with Varuna?”.

It hardly needs further belaboring to understand that Vasishtha, Agastya, Mitra, Varuna, etc, have no connection at all with “human composers”. They refer to unknown (perhaps cosmological) entities whose characteristics are described by the roots of these words deduced by the Sanskrit etymologists and grammarians. Refer the Nirukta for information on the roots of these words.

It follows that the “familes of composers” bearing their names do not refer to any kind of human ancestry or descendency, but are later conceptions that use the names found in the RV to denote organizational groupings. Furthermore, our conception of these words (such as Vasishtha and Agastya) is wrongly conditioned by the Puranas – we have grown up assuming that these are human personalities of some kind.

VI. Conclusion

The Anukramanis have nothing to do with human composers of the RV. The names in it are later inventions and many are entirely fictitious. Hence, any claims of historical dating that depend simply on a superficial comparison of the Anukramani lists of various Mandalas, without any knowledge of the RV contents, is entirely false and misleading. At best, they are bad jokes, and make the persons who propose such claims look silly.

Namaskar,

KL

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 29 Sep 2012 12:27

Dubey ji, thank you. That seems to be the well-known position held by those who consider themselves Vedic.

I have a question:

KLP Dubey wrote:From very ancient times, there has existed a desire to “personify” and “objectify” the sounds in the Rgveda. Such a tendency has existed right from the Atharva Veda down to the Puranas, the latter unabashedly giving “human-like” personalities to Rgvedic words in the form of gods, goddesses, sages, and earthly objects/creatures such as places, animals, rivers, etc.

It can be argued that this practice originates in the desire of the Atharva Veda authors and followers to have their works recognized as equivalent to, or even more excellent than, the primeval sounds of the Rgveda (RV).

Why is it that certain groups derogate the Atharva Veda in comparison to the other three? You say there are "authors" of the Atharva Veda? Does that mean they are not Veda in the same sense you would consider the other three?

peter · Post by **peter** » 29 Sep 2012 14:24

RajeshA wrote:peter ji,

delete your post with skymaps, and please take it to the GDF thread. Please do not spam here!

I do not know why you are calling my post spam. It is a reasonable post that counters the epoch of arundhati. I am sure you have had it deleted.

If so then I would like to protest with the administrators of this board that it is unfortunate that someone's post can be deleted even without telling them what is wrong with it.

Can someone please resurrect my post?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2012 14:43

peter ji,

This thread has as one of its purposes to show that Indian chronology goes back into such a remote past, that the alleged AIT in 1500 BCE could not have happened. Providing an early MBH date here does abide by this purpose, regardless of how far early it is from 1500 BCE. That is why one would see multiple suggestions for MBH dates here. I myself have posted Dr. Narahari Achar's proposal here. However this thread is not really to discuss which date is correct or not according to various criteria. For that one has "Archaeo-Astronomy and Dating of Indian Texts". I have repeatedly requested you to discuss the details of the dating there. You however have ignored these requests.

I don't know what happened to your post. I don't have moderator privileges here, nor did I speak to any moderator about it.

I am sorry that the post was deleted. I did not wish you to lose data. But in the future please avail of the thread in GDF. This thread however welcomes any input which helps strengthen the OIT/Indigenist case.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 29 Sep 2012 14:47

Peter ji, I saw your images, they were taking too long to load, in fact even after waiting for couple of minutes they don't load, may be they were huge. I doubt they will load even in GDF. That could be the reason the admins deleted them.

peter · Post by **peter** » 29 Sep 2012 17:18

venug wrote:Peter ji, I saw your images, they were taking too long to load, in fact even after waiting for couple of minutes they don't load, may be they were huge. I doubt they will load even in GDF. That could be the reason the admins deleted them.

I am very surprised that loading time was the issue since images were very small.

Admins could have turned the img to url rather easily.

Anyway I post the links here since Mbh date is central to AIT.

Field of View is from Hansi in Haryana looking North for Arundhati (alcor) and Vashista (Mizar). Two pictures for each date are shown. One is when Arundhati just becomes visible and the second when it is about to set on the same night.

Field of View. N is north.
a) Field of View from Hansi 4508 BC Oct 1 19:44:49

Same as a) but the star zoomed in. Star in the circle is Arundhati and the brighter one is Mizar. Arundhati and Mizar just became visible on October 1 4508 BC.
b)Arundhati Mizar rise 4508 BC Oct 1 19:43:58

Arundhati sets:
c) Arundhati Mizar set 4508 BC Oct 2 05:10:48

Arundhati rises on Oct 1 3067 BC
d)Arundhati Mizar rise 3067 BC Oct 1 19:22:24

Arundhati sets
e) Arundhati Mizar set 3067 BC Oct 2 05:44:32

Key point is that Arundhati shows no difference between the 4508 BC and 3067 BC date. It can not be used as a marker to date the war as some are claiming.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2012 18:07

peter ji,

you really don't get it! Do you? The only aspect of MBH date that is central to OIT is that it is early enough to falsify the AIT Theory. It doesn't matter which earlier date it is - whether it 5561 BCE or 3137 BCE. Which is the correct date is really an internal Indigenist camp discussion, and can be discussed in any of the various threads. A special thread was created to discuss Archaeo-astronomy for you and Nilesh Oak ji and any others who may be interested. Why don't you avail of the thread?

So please take you discussion there, including your previous post! I am sure Nilesh Oak ji would be willing to discuss the issue there!

Please stop spamming this thread!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Sep 2012 18:31

peter ji,
I did indicate but you refuse to be concerned. You cannot take same Julian day and hour separated by thousands of years for such slow-movement binaries and claim they look same. The orientation of the pair relative to virtual north changes over the years for the same Julian day/hour within the Julian year framework. Hence you have to take more positional invariants rather than "same time of Julian year" argument. I would request you to get more conversant with positional astronomy before you make such final claims about certain things being impossible.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2012 18:41

In Indian politics, AIT has had maximum effect in Tamil Nadu. AIT imposed a whole historical narrative based on false assumptions, and a whole stream of politics was started based on that.

Here is an effort by newslaundry.com to playfully explore it. This is the first part. The other parts would surely come up in due time.

peter · Post by **peter** » 29 Sep 2012 18:52

RajeshA wrote:peter ji,

you really don't get it! Do you? [..]

Well why don't you let Nilesh defend himself. We look silly to everyone when scholars are dissed openly in this thread.

peter · Post by **peter** » 29 Sep 2012 18:54

brihaspati wrote:peter ji,
I did indicate but you refuse to be concerned. You cannot take same Julian day and hour separated by thousands of years for such slow-movement binaries and claim they look same. The orientation of the pair relative to virtual north changes over the years for the same Julian day/hour within the Julian year framework. Hence you have to take more positional invariants rather than "same time of Julian year" argument. I would request you to get more conversant with positional astronomy before you make such final claims about certain things being impossible.

Stellarium changes the direction of the star based on where it rises on the horizon. In other words what you are describing is already built into the tool. Please give it a shot it is a free tool and convince yourself.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2012 18:55

peter ji,

Nilesh Oak ji has more than a few times offered that he is willing to enter into a friendly discussion with you. Why don't you take your discussion there where it belongs? He will "defend" himself there!

peter · Post by **peter** » 29 Sep 2012 18:57

KLP Dubey wrote:[..]The most well-known one, the Sarvanukramani of Katyayana, is also one of the latest, being generally accepted as belonging to the Puranic period.

[..]

KL

What concerns me is that we are claiming to be smarter than Katyayana. Who is the authority for this?

peter · Post by **peter** » 29 Sep 2012 18:58

RajeshA wrote:peter ji,

Nilesh Oak ji has more than a few times offered that he is willing to enter into a friendly discussion with you. Why don't you take your discussion there where it belongs? He will "defend" himself there!

Rajesh jee: Please let us not waste time. Let Nilesh jee come and clarify his stance.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 29 Sep 2012 19:04

peter wrote:
RajeshA wrote:peter ji,

you really don't get it! Do you? [..]
Well why don't you let Nilesh defend himself. We look silly to everyone when scholars are dissed openly in this thread.

"We"? Who are these "We"?

"scholars are dissed openly in this thread" - What do you mean by scholars? By dissed openly?

I am sure you would have fortitude to call anyone who passes off stories as history no less than a charlatan and not scholar of any repute at all, or otherwise it would be unwise for you to pass value judgements at all. Perhaps you wold have no issues when stories passed off as history and defective methods to reconstruct others' history are critiqued. Such a language does not suit a scholar to begin with.

To say that scholars are dissed itself is therefore not devoid of irony, considering the past history of how dozens of invasion theories have been passed off as history for hundreds of years, and now the theories have come undone everywhere shaming the so-called-scholars as no more than charlatans.

peter · Post by **peter** » 29 Sep 2012 19:10

An interesting but a bit sad exchange between Talageri and Kazanas.
I think Kazanas declares finally that Talageri does not know Vedic!

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indo ... e_2005.pdf

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indo ... rchive.pdf

peter · Post by **peter** » 29 Sep 2012 19:13

peter wrote:
RajeshA wrote:peter ji,

you really don't get it! Do you? [..]
Well why don't you let Nilesh defend himself. We look silly to everyone when scholars are dissed openly in this thread.

vishvak wrote: "We"? Who are these "We"?

"scholars are dissed openly in this thread" - What do you mean by scholars? By dissed openly?

[..]
To say that scholars are dissed itself is therefore not devoid of irony, considering the past history of how dozens of invasion theories have been passed off as history for hundreds of years, and now the theories have come undone everywhere shaming the so-called-scholars as no more than charlatans.

You did not understand. I was talking about Nilesh being a bit disparaging about his opposing camp of scholars which includes Achar etc.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2012 19:14

peter wrote:
RajeshA wrote:peter ji,

Nilesh Oak ji has more than a few times offered that he is willing to enter into a friendly discussion with you. Why don't you take your discussion there where it belongs? He will "defend" himself there!
Rajesh jee: Please let us not waste time. Let Nilesh jee come and clarify his stance.

No, I don't think Nilesh Oak ji would take you up here, simply because he has no interest like you to derail the thread. Secondly I have requested him not to indulge you here. This thread, I'm sorry, is not your playing ground, where you can bring extraneous issues as and how it pleases you!

You're welcome to "challenge" him in the GDF thread!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2012 19:18

peter wrote:You did not understand. I was talking about Nilesh being a bit disparaging about his opposing camp of scholars which includes Achar etc.

I have read Nilesh Oak ji's book, and I did not see any disparaging remarks. He has been most polite to them personally.

Secondly even if he did it, he did so in his book and not on this thread. So you can write your own paper on his work.

Thirdly even if he did take any position of Dr. Narahar Achar's work in this thread, it was only on prodding by others.

Fourthly whatever was said by him was prior to before it was made clear that this discussion should be held elsewhere.

peter · Post by **peter** » 29 Sep 2012 19:21

peter wrote:
RajeshA wrote:peter ji,

Nilesh Oak ji has more than a few times offered that he is willing to enter into a friendly discussion with you. Why don't you take your discussion there where it belongs? He will "defend" himself there!
Rajesh jee: Please let us not waste time. Let Nilesh jee come and clarify his stance.

RajeshA wrote:No, I don't think Nilesh Oak ji would take you up here, simply because he has no interest like you to derail the thread. Secondly I have requested him not to indulge you here. This thread, I'm sorry, is not your playing ground, where you can bring extraneous issues as and how it pleases you!

You're welcome to "challenge" him in the GDF thread!

Look I know you believe Nilesh is right. That is your choice. But that does not mean all of us need to agree with you or Nilesh. To say I am derailing this thread somehow indicates you are the censor for this thread. Infact soon I am intending to post the dating of Vedas that many scientists have done. So please stay tuned. Archaeo-astronomy is an important field for the anti AIT camp.

If you stifle debate it serves no purpose.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 29 Sep 2012 19:27

Perhaps a clear message to present your understanding on a thread created already, or to avoid passing value judgements about others, have served no purpose. It is also difficult to see how a polite conversation is suddenly passed off as "dissing" etc. which perhaps is not useful in any scholarly discourse.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2012 19:59

peter wrote:Look I know you believe Nilesh is right. That is your choice. But that does not mean all of us need to agree with you or Nilesh. To say I am derailing this thread somehow indicates you are the censor for this thread. Infact soon I am intending to post the dating of Vedas that many scientists have done. So please stay tuned. Archaeo-astronomy is an important field for the anti AIT camp.

If you stifle debate it serves no purpose.

peter ji,

The issue is not whether I feel Nilesh Oak ji is right or not. I have posted here the opinions of several scholars who have had very different views of the dating of MBH. I do agree that the dating of MBH is important for the Indigenist camp, and so is the field of Archaeo-astronomy.

However this thread is meant for debates between AIT and non-AIT, not not for camp wars between two non-AIT camps. In the first type of debates we are exploring and learning about AIT arguments, so AIT views need to be discussed. However some wars between non-AIT camps does not bring the discussion forwards. The differences within the Indigenist camps should be discussed elsewhere.

I hope you can appreciate the difference!

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 29 Sep 2012 20:15

RajeshA wrote:However this thread is meant for debates between AIT and non-AIT, not not for camp wars between two non-AIT camps. In the first type of debates we are exploring and learning about AIT arguments, so AIT views need to be discussed. However some wars between non-AIT camps does not bring the discussion forwards. The differences within the Indigenist camps should be discussed elsewhere.

I like this articulation of the difference in scope between the two threads.

Peter ji, AIT vs Anti-AIT or OIT argument is within scope for this thread. Anti-AIT Position 1 vs Anti-AIT Position 2 is OT here, but is within scope of the other thread.

RajeshA ji has earned the right to set the terms of discussion here based on his starting of this thread and steering it most admirably. Please adhere to this formulation - else breapers may landup to enforce.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Sep 2012 20:43

Staying doggedly on my quest. Let me list AIT dates so everyone knows where AIT comes up against difficult to explain conundrums. I will stick to the "Indo-Iranian" (IIr) branch of "Indo European languages" (IE)

The currently "accepted" story that appears everywhere is as follows. Branching off from the mythical PIE the Indo Iranian branck first show up in Syria as the Mitanni texts of 1500 BC which mention the Vedic deities "Mitra-Varuna-Indra-Nasatya" - some of there were "devas" which reviled in Zoroastrianism.

Then came (according to AIT mythology) Avestan of Zoroaster 1200 BC

Aftwr Avestan came Vedic sanskrit as the Vedas were composed incorporating those "Indo_Iranian" Gods Mitra-Varuna-Indra-Nasatya" in a Vedic language that had "retroflexes" like Tamil "zh" which were caused by Dravidian language speakers learning the imported Indo European language and then quickly composing all those Vedas along with the rules that ensure that sound changes did not occur, Panini was not born yet. These Vedas sang of a mythical Saraswati river that could have been the Afghan "Haraxwati"

All this went on till about 500 BC when the last of the "Vedic texts" were being composed.

Panini was born in 600 BC or so and he wrote rules of grammar that created Classical Sanskrit. Panini mentions the Mahabharata. Panini mentions some "nuns". No one knows whether they were Buddhist or Jain nuns

Buddha was born in 500 AD. Mahabharata is known in Buddhist times.

The Mahabharata is dated as having been written after about 800 BC but before 300 BC. The Mahabharata for some reason mentions the Saraswati as a great river. No chance of Afghanistan this time.

Basically, in the AIT view all the Vedas and the Mahabharata are compressed into the 1200 BC to 600 BC time period, with Mahabharata following the Vedas. There is complete stonewalling/silence on the Saraswati river. The arguments made for this dating fundamentally rests on "horse and wheel terminology" and sound change and the assumption that PIE stated from Central Asia in 2500 to 2000 BC.

Other than Witzel and a couple of others India and Indian history do not even appear on the radar of AIT Nazis. Their quest is only about European languages including American English/Spanish. Unfortunately for them, ONLY Greek has some history going back to about 1200 BC. Everything else including Latin barely touch the BC period. So these people find anything prior to 1500 BC incredible.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 29 Sep 2012 21:46

Y'day my Googlewala email account was compromised and it sent out phishing email to numerous contacts of mine. My apologies if you received one, those of you who are on my email list.

The positive, funny, interesting and delighting (to me) aspect of this phishing scam was, a horde of people are buying my books -both paperback and Kindle

(phishing email went out with my signature which lists links for my book) since yesterday.

The emails went to some who are very dear to me but I have not talked to them for years. I received one such letter (an accomplished Sales person from Canada, who also interviewed me for my job and for 3 hours+ in airport hotel asked me about my hobbies.. no matter how much I tried to steer the subject towards my main goal).

Here is that letter (email)...The discussion of Alcor/Mizar he refers to occurred in 1997.

Hello Nilesh,
Hopefully your life is going well. Well, well... you are now (soon to be) a famous author. I downloaded your book onto my Kindle this morning, but have only had a chance to give it a cursory glance. Seeing the subject matter reminded me of our discussion during your job interview for Polymerland, about the positions of Alcor and Mizar in the big dipper and how they had changed over time. Who knew you would carry that spark of interest through to writing a book. Now I understand why you were interested. Just to bring you up to date... I retired in June 2010 and have been enjoying it immensely. Helga and I are empty nesters as of March this year (I’ve been raising children for 40 years)... it seemed very strange at first, but it is now life as usual.
Sherwood

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 29 Sep 2012 22:08

Carl wrote: Dubey ji, thank you. That seems to be the well-known position held by those who consider themselves Vedic.

I have a question:
Why is it that certain groups derogate the Atharva Veda in comparison to the other three? You say there are "authors" of the Atharva Veda? Does that mean they are not Veda in the same sense you would consider the other three?

This is a great question - Carl ji.

Dubey ji, I also enjoyed your PoV on Anukramanika. It did allow me to understand it better (I did not know for a long time that Rigveda had anukramanika!). My knowledge increased many fold (due to your short post) and (but) I must admit that It did not affect my position on the work of Talageri. I know you will have more to say.. but my point was.. this is exactly what I had suspected.. i.e. you sharing your knowledge of Rigveda (from Mimansa PoV or othewise) would enrich knowldge of forum members, without really affecting my view of Talageri work. Don't get me wrong. I am willing to change my views - 180 degree- if a compellling evidence presents itself.

I also wonder..if existing and relevant GDF thread can be used (preferred option) or new thread created (not preferred option) to discuss this at length. Since this discussion, extremely valuable and education, will quickly turn OT here.

Thank you Dubey Ji.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 29 Sep 2012 22:26

Nilesh Oak wrote:Dubey ji, I also enjoyed your PoV on Anukramanika. It did allow me to understand it better (I did not know for a long time that Rigveda had anukramanika!). My knowledge increased many fold (due to your short post) and (but) I must admit that It did not affect my position on the work of Talageri. I know you will have more to say.. but my point was.. this is exactly what I had suspected.. i.e. you sharing your knowledge of Rigveda (from Mimansa PoV or othewise) would enrich knowldge of forum members, without really affecting my view of Talageri work. Don't get me wrong. I am willing to change my views - 180 degree- if a compellling evidence presents itself.

Dear Nilesh Oak,

Please do not misrepresent my position. For some reason, you and a couple of others keep hounding me about the "Mimamsa PoV".

I have just mentioned the Mimamsa position in passing in a couple of locations in the post.

Let me be clear again: the assertions made on the matters of "no history can be reliably deduced from the Veda" stand completely on their own strength without any support required from "Mimamsa". This is why the longest section in the entire post is related to actual examination of the claims regarding "composer references" in the Veda. They are found to be absurd claims.

If you think Talageri's claims about order of Mandalas are correct (when it is a blindingly obvious fact that the order of Rks and Suktas have been rearranged and transposed in various ways, multiple times over the ages), this is starting to look really sad (it would be funny, except for the solemn nature of the topic). On top of that, Talageri has very little knowledge of Sanskrit, let alone Vedic words, so he is not reliably able to gauge the context of these words.

Namaskar,

KL

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Sep 2012 22:28

Basically the Aryan invasion Theory suggests that everything happened rapidly in India after 1200 BC. Shortly before 1200 BC India had no agriculture, a pastoral society, and unknown language possible some form of proto-Dravidian), no horses and no chariots. Suddenly by 1200 BC horses, chariots and and a language arrived in India and quickly spread 2500 km from Afghanistan to Bihar/Bengal. Panini in 600 AD was sitting in Gandhara codifying grammar. By the time Panini's grandchild was an adult, a 100 years later, Buddha was born 2000 km east and in the 600 years since Indo-European langauges arrived, all of North India were speaking the language over and area of 3 million square km with no language other than Indo-European. Compare that with the utter failure of Persian, to penetrate India over 1000 years after the Mughal invasions leaving hundreds of other languages nearly untouched. And Indo European languages took 2500 years to spread across Europe.

And so, between 1200 BC and 600 AD, all the people learned Indo-Aryan and gave it that characteristic retroflex sound that exists in the Vedas,. Then they composed all the Vedic literature and the Mahabharata. All done in 600 years.

It is also really odd that Panini, the father of Clasical Sanskrit Grammar lived smack bang in the middle of the Avestan empire 600 years after Avestan became established in Afghanistan, supporting Zoroastrian Asuras against Vedic Devas. So Panini sat in Zoroastrian land before Cyrus the Great (Kurus) controlled Gandhara at a time when fundoo Zoroastrians (the Medians) controlled Persia. And Panini was happily writing about the grammar of the Sanskrit Vedas, creating a new language - Classical Sanskrit, sitting smack bang in the middle of Median ruled fundoo Avestan speaking Zoroastrian land. Do you believe this?

Problem is western linguists and archaeologists who push AIT as a minor side issue in the grand story of IE in Europe don't know this detail and they don't care. Witzel knows and he fudges and gets angry with dissent

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 29 Sep 2012 22:38

Carl wrote:Why is it that certain groups derogate the Atharva Veda in comparison to the other three? You say there are "authors" of the Atharva Veda? Does that mean they are not Veda in the same sense you would consider the other three?

Have you looked at the contents of the Atharvaveda ? It is mainly a "manual of handy mantras for all stages of life", used for various purposes such as curing diseases (e.g, leprosy, dysentery, etc), conducting warfare, overcoming your enemies through black magic, etc. Then there are philosophical speculations, as well as some borrowed text from the RV. The brahmanas and upanishads of the Atharvaveda are targeted at somehow insinuating it into the established Vedic Yajna which is truly based upon Rk, Saman, and Yajus, and into the philosophical speculations of the old Upanishads of the RV/SV/YV. It is a "me too" type of document that tries to imitate the RV in style.

Just because a text has "Veda" in its title doesn't make it automatically one. Many other "Vedas" have since sprung up such as Ayurveda, Dhanurveda etc.

Rather than making judgements on "positions of people who consider themselves Vedic", please realize this is a simple matter of actually being familiar with Vedic words. There are too many people in circulation who are just randomly picking up words from here and there in the RV and using it for their own purposes. Only a careful examination of the words can lead to a reliable understanding. This is plain common sense, not some difficult-to-understand principle.

KL

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 29 Sep 2012 23:54

KLP Dubey wrote: Please do not misrepresent my position. For some reason, you and a couple of others keep hounding me about the "Mimamsa PoV".
I have just mentioned the Mimamsa position in passing in a couple of locations in the post.

I did refer to 'mimansa position of yours' but that is only because you have referred to it frequently in your posts. I have no intention of pushing you into some 'specific' nyaya school.

Also, when I said, "I learnt so much from your post", I meant with all sincerity.

I find 'Mimansa' position (somewhere Vinoba mentions.. in totally unrelated contexts.. in his talk on Gita, that Mimbasak, if asked, describes Indra as simply.....first nagari letter 'e' followed by nagari letter 'D' and half nagari letter 'r'.) This may not be mimasa position, but whatever position it is, I find it exceedingly beautiful for its own PoV and appreciate the logic of it.

I have done much longer elaboration of this viewpoint (not necessarily Mimamsa, but maybe based on it) elsewhere as it relates to vedic (Rigvedic or Atharvavedic) chants.. but that is too much OT.

My point about Talageri was.. while I am incompetent to know the accuracy of Talageri interpretation from Rigveda into English (his book) .. .and that is why I was curious to know of your critique of his work/translation/interpretation......once in English domain (language of his book). what I read/am reading is consistent. Again, that is not to say, there may not be contradictions or even falsifying evidence against his thesis. In this latter case, I mentioned that my knowledge of Rigveda is so rudimentary that I feel like all I am doing is absorbing whatever he is writing (or your comments) and feel that I am soaking it, but am not in a position of criticizing it.

On the other hand, I have not come across (with my limited knowledge and/or based on your comments on Anukramanika) anything yet that makes me throw his thesis (not the book) away. That was my point.

My understanding of Mimamsa (not yours) position is that 'it is meaningless to talk about origin/creator of Rigveda" (not unlike anthropomorphic principle employed in Cosmogany)

Now other schools (Sankhya? and may be others) say similar (but not identical) thing., "It is impossible to figure out who are creators/orignators ...because Rigveda is so old.. beyond memory of known humanity.. or something of that effect", is it not?

Anyhu, my point was to appreciate your work.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 30 Sep 2012 00:51

The Idea of the Elephant in Cultures of Pre-15th Century Americas

But prehistoric Mayan artists were making sculptures of them within their religious sites. The Olmec & Maya, among others, were worshipping the idea of the elephant, although the elephant was not supposed to have been in America. How did the Americans, working with their prehistoric tools, discover and come to know anything about these giant beasts? Sculptures of elephant heads and bodies are present in Middle America from Olmec & Mayan times.We have had evidence in academia of this image since at least 1924, when G. Elliot Smith published his book Elephants and Ethnologists: Asiatic Origins of the Maya Ruins. The book is about the symbolism of the Elephant in America. At the time it was published, the book was made fun of, ignored or dismissed.

Given the evidence from both the Old World (South and Southeast Asia primarily) and the Americas it is evident that there was regular and sustained transoceanic trade between these tropical cultures long before Columbus (Sorenson and Johannessen 2009). The sculptural evidence of the images of the elephant being present in the Olmec (1400 B.C.E. – 400 B.C.E.) and Mayan (2000 B.C.E. – 1500 C.E.) cultures, long before European contact with these peoples, also strengthen this position. The presence of bas-reliefs of numerous plants of American origin in the temples of Southern Indian Hoysala Dynasty (950 C.E. - 1268 C.E.) further bolsters the evidence of regular and sustained interaction between the hemispheres. It is important to note that we are here discussing the images and concepts of the elephant and not elephants themselves being present.

POSSIBLE GANESHA The most improbable of the sculpted elephant images were found in Mexico and Honduras dating from the Olmec culture in the Huasteca region of Mexico in Pre-Colombian times. The oldest known elephant head sculpture is on a kneeling human body from this Olmec archaeological horizon in San Luis Potosi area,Mexico. The Huastecan culture from there, speak a Mayan Language. This image was located – without a title in the Olmec section of the National Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Mexico City. (Figure 2)

Another small human figurine with an elephant head has been found in the Mayan World Music Museum, three or four kilometers north of Antigua, Guatemala. Although, the elephant-headed God has a somewhat shorter nose - trunk - which indicates that the sculptor had never seen an actual elephant and had only a model of Ganesha from which to sculpt an “impossible” form of a “human” shaped god. (Figure 6)

We have, in fact, discovered many phallus sculptures in and around Chichen Itza, Labna, and Uxmal, as well as many other Mayan sites. Some have been moved to museums while others remain in situ in the ruins. So, I asked at the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City whether they had a record of finding a large phallus (a Shiva representative, possibly) in the sculptures of Mexico. They had found one large sculptured phallus in the Huasteca dating back to the early Olmecs; they have it at the Museum in the Olmec/Maya Room, and it was on display in 2005. I must refrain from intricate discussion out of deference to the discoverer, who is writing a report on it. This region is, after all, the Huastecan region where both the Ganesha-like and the phallus sculptures were found. If the source of the ideas of the elephants is Hindu in origin, then a matching religious yoni would have surrounded the giant Huastecan phallus, as it usually does in India.

We believe there was likely contact between the Huastecans and the Hindu in India, since there are about 50 species of plants from America that had been taken to India before 1,500 C.E. (Sorenson and Johannessen, 2009). The contact may have occurred many timeswith India in the distant past between the two regions long before Columbus and Cortez arrived.

DIFFUSION OF OTHER CROPS Aside from corn, the other crops from pre-Columbian America that are shown in India in these temples back to the 5th century are: sweet potato, lagenaria gourd, ceiba, peanut, beans, squash, chili pepper, sunflower, annonas or custard apple, among others. In the case of maize the names are strikingly similar across the Atlantic in the Amazon Valley and across the Pacific to South China and Vietnam. (Maps) The western Indian terms for Maize (maka or makka or makai) and for peanut (mani) are the same as those used in the lower Amazon Basin among the Arawak, Tupi or Guarani tribes in the distant past. Also, the transfer of the chicken from its Southeast Asian origin to America, even the black-boned, black–meated chicken (BB-BMC), is called a Karnatak by Hindus in India and the Arawaks of the lower Amazon according to George Carter. In Belize, the archaeological site Caracol, in the Maya Mountains, we have found a record of archaeological chicken bones at a site that has been dated earlier than 650 C.E. (Teeter 2004, 182). This is obviously further indication of contact with Southeast Asia. In both Asia and America the chicken is used in highly similar medicinal curing rituals. Historically, in general, the traditional Amerinds kept chickens and even their eggs, and use them ritually instead of eating them, but the Maya currently may sell both products to the Ladinos. (Ladinos are South and Central Americans of European stock, and they rarely use chickens for rituals as the Maya do.) “On both sides of the oceans the BB-BMC is thought to absorb any and all evils and hexes that might have been cast on the house, family persons, tools, or ships.” (Johannessen, 1981 and 1982) The Hindu and Southeast Asian sailors naturally would have taken the BB-BMC on sailing trips to calm the “spirits,” and travel safely. Spanish or Portuguese sailors had their own totems and icons, rooted in Catholicism. Someone bringing a “magical” chicken aboard a Manila galleon would be risking his life. The New World similarities in the names from the region of Karnataka Pradesh, India are of interest because Karnataka Pradesh has the ports close to the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic route to Brazil or the Antilles and Central America. This would make it very easy and logical for the exchange of names. Perhaps this is enough background; let us return to the search for the idea of the elephant.

The elephant was not considered to be the model of these giant sculptures because that elephant would have illustrated contact with South Asia (or Africa), and the Spaniards would not have wanted ever to accept this pre-Columbian contact across the oceans. They desired the glory, monetary value, and religious power of discovery of the Americas for themselves. Elephants, to the anthropologists studying in these highly religious countries, could not have been used in the construction of an ethnology that would have had to admit contact at that time in academic history, either. The Church held great power over what was published or even proposed to be studied. The general public is not as firmly indoctrinated as academics are (who tend to be in charge of even the modern tour groups). In our experience, the random tourist identifies the facial shapes as elephantoid instead of being similar to the macaws of the academicians. I know this; I asked them nothing more than, “What does this image look like?” They would invariably respond, “Elephants” when they see the disfigured Huasteca gomcola. Ganesha? The “Long-nosed God” is more easily accepted as the homologue representing the elephant than some of the social scientists claim.

The actual transfer may not have come from the farthest cultural existence, but the odds are very high that the ideas were exchanged with intermediaries along the routes of the sailors to and from their home ports. We should stimulate research by students, and citizens in general, that will expand our horizons of knowledge and provide the fun of discovery to more people. We may then spread credit to the tropical sailors of the ancient world, Africa as well as Asia, who traveled, discovered, traded, and even missionized the entire tropical world long before the Europeans began to colonize. One can argue that sailors carried many and all kinds of traits for the ultimate civilizing of the world’s peoples, starting as long ago as 50,000 years. If this sounds crazy, remember that we have proven that Homo sapiens traveled to Australia from Indonesia and New Guinea before that. They knew the art of sailing, early. Humans on the water between islands in the ocean are not normally able to paddle across the open sea between the islands because, according to maritime experts such as Prof. Ed Doran and Dr. Mike Doran, the currents are too strong in many locations. There is hard evidence for contact over 7,000 years in South America by sailors who had had contact with Southeast Asia(Maha Bharat ) and had been parasitized by the whipworm and two species of hookworm. They left their disease in Peru where it was found in the dated Peruvian mummies. This discovery included the eggs and their tiny worm-bodies in the intestines in Peruvian mummies and coprolites of the more general population of the Furtada Caves in interior Brazil, dated at 5350 B.C.E. It is likely that the Ascaris round worm was present at 8,000 years ago at the Furtada Caves. (Sorenson and Johannessen 2009). Sailors traveled to these locations very early, apparently, the parasites cannot swim or travel by other animals and they were not present in North America at the time of contact with the Spaniards. They were and are still in South American people who live in close contact with the soil because an integral part of the life cycle of the worm is in the warm, moist soil. In those same soils the whipworm and the Ascaris sp. parasites infected those ancient Brazilians 7 – 8,000 years ago.

OIT is the only or most likely explanation for the appearance of elephants(symbolically) in American continent.
The dates are much past than what has been "traditionally" associated with vedic age.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2012 01:32

krisna wrote:OIT is the only or most likely explanation for the appearance of elephants(symbolically) in American continent.
The dates are much past than what has been "traditionally" associated with vedic age.

I had earlier posted on the elephant connection between India and the Mayans.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 30 Sep 2012 01:40

Nilesh Oak wrote:On the other hand, I have not come across (with my limited knowledge and/or based on your comments on Anukramanika) anything yet that makes me throw his thesis (not the book) away. That was my point.

My understanding of Mimamsa (not yours) position is that 'it is meaningless to talk about origin/creator of Rigveda" (not unlike anthropomorphic principle employed in Cosmogany)

Again, you are not coming back to me on the substance of my assertions.

Already, I have told you and others it is not necessary to accept any "eternal Veda" principle for this discussion.

Secondly and similarly, it is not even necessary to accept the point that "there is no history in the Veda". Simply realizing that "there is no way to reliably deduce history from the Veda" would be more than enough.

Thirdly, the lack of history in the Veda immediately cancels AIT claims, which fundamentally are based upon the idea that the RV is the oldest of the "Indo-Aryan" historical texts and later texts are not useful to them. You will find very few living AITers conversant with the Puranas, Upanishads, and even Brahmanas.

As for Talageri - I do not have anything against him, he is not special. His claims are simply wrong, period. This also applies to others that are tying to find history in the Veda. To summarize:

1) The notion that the names attached to the Suktas have always been a part and parcel of the RV as it was transmitted through generations, is simply false.

2) On top of that, the notion that the Mandalas have always had the same set of Suktas in them, is also false. If they had been rearranged slightly differently, the conclusions would be different. Whatever we can say about the chronology simply stops at the point where the Mandalas were rearranged. According to the AIT folks, they can even go back somewhat further in time (by discerning which of the Mandalas have more "archaic" language).

3) The actual contexts of the "references" to composer names are also found to be totally absurd if considered in historical terms.

4) Many more obvious things invalidate these odd claims of "human composers". For instance, if the composer names came down to us all the way from the Vedic period, they would be Vedic Sanskrit words themselves. In that case, why are the names not accented in the Anukramani manuscripts ? Forget Katyayana, even the names in the older Anuvakanukramani of Shaunaka are not accented. Note the names listed in the Anukramanis are in the nominative case, and hence need to be accented. I have NEVER seen anybody who argues for a word being of Vedic origin but not able to tell the accent. Talageri seems to be blissfully unaware of such things.

All in all, any reasonable person would conclude that the historical nature/connection of these works is so flimsy that nobody in their right senses should use it to bolster any historical claims, be it AIT, OIT, or whatever. This has nothing to do with Mimamsa or philosophy.

It is of course a different matter that the AIT literature has (due to 150+ years of efforts) a lot more quackery on bolstering historical claims using the Veda. I just do not want the OIT literature to catch up to that voluminous quackery anytime soon, but it seems several authors are bent upon it.

KL