Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Jun 2012 09:39

shiv wrote:
ramana wrote:Rahul Mehta?
Politician. Leader. Kshatriya.

Concentration, one track mindness,Stubborness of Kshtryia is inherrent in him. Like Arjun , he sees the eye of the political bird only.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Jun 2012 09:59

Why did Spanish (and Portuguese) pretty much replace other languages in South America despite making little genetic changes in the population?

If you believe Jared Diamond, more than 95% of the native South American population succumbed to various causes, mostly to epidemics of Old World diseases to which they had no built-up immunity.

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population ... n_overview

The scope of the epidemics over the years was tremendous, killing millions of people—possibly in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas—and creating one of "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe",[28] which had killed up to one-third of the people in Europe and Asia between 1347 and 1351. The Black Death occurred to a European population which also had not been exposed and had little or no resistance to a new disease.

One of the most devastating diseases was smallpox, but other deadly diseases included typhus, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis, mumps, yellow fever, and pertussis (whooping cough), which were chronic in Eurasia. The indigenous Americas also had a number of endemic diseases, such as tuberculosis and perhaps including an unusually virulent type of syphilis, which soon became rampant when brought back to the Old World. (This transfer of disease between the Old and New Worlds was part of the phenomenon known as the "Columbian Exchange"). The diseases brought to the New World proved to be exceptionally deadly to the Native Americans.

The epidemics had very different effects in different regions of the Americas. The most vulnerable groups were those with a relatively small population and few built-up immunities. Many island-based groups were annihilated. The Caribs and Arawaks of the Caribbean nearly ceased to exist, as did the Beothuks of Newfoundland. While disease ranged swiftly through the densely populated empires of Mesoamerica, the more scattered populations of North America saw a slower spread.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Jun 2012 10:12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_co ... the_Empire

The long term effects of the arrival of the Spanish on the population of South America were simply catastrophic. While this is the case for every group of Native-Americans that encountered Europeans from the fifteenth century onwards, the Incan population suffered a dramatic and quick decline following contact. It is estimated that parts of the empire, notably the Central Andes, suffered a population decline ratio of 58:1 during the years of 1520–1571....

Another significant effect on the people in South America was the spread of Christianity. As Pizarro and the Spanish subdued the continent and brought it under their control, they forcefully converted many to Christianity, claiming to have educated them in the ways of the "one true religion." With the destruction of the local populations along with the capitulation of the Inca Empire, the Spanish missionary work after colonization began was able to continue unimpeded. It took just a generation for the entire continent to be under Christian influence. {and with religion, comes language}.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jun 2012 11:48

Could one of the world's ancient cities be lost forever?

Mohenjodaro site being destroyed through poor maintenance

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2012 15:00

A_Gupta wrote:
Why did Spanish (and Portuguese) pretty much replace other languages in South America despite making little genetic changes in the population?
If you believe Jared Diamond, more than 95% of the native South American population succumbed to various causes, mostly to epidemics of Old World diseases to which they had no built-up immunity.

Valid point. I have read Jared Diamond's book (I have a copy), but I missed the point that the current populations in South America are 90% of European descent . South America did for Europe what Mahomet failed to achieve. The population was nearly wiped out and replaced. That is a good way of spreading language all right. So my assumption above was wrong.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jun 2012 15:37

i don't think its 90%. in chile and argentina maybe true. across the andean region and into central america it is more like 20-30%. in brazil its probably around 40%. the most mixing seems to have taken place in mexico and central america (called mestizo race). however in all countries, the descendants of europeans are at the apex of society and spanish/portuguese and catholicism are the dominant factors

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Jun 2012 15:47

Lalmohan ji,

In Peru, Ecuador, it may be true that the replacement is not around 90%, but in Chile and Argentina, it may well be. I have seen Chileans and Argentinians, and they don't look like native, but European. And as one with an avid interest in the fairer sex, I would notice such things.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jun 2012 15:52

rajeshji, i think we are agreeing only

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 27 Jun 2012 16:00

From Jared Diamond's way of looking at things, none of the examples he quotes were non-violent way of conquering of people. They were violent and one/or/and all of the three things (guns, germs, steel) aided in such take overs. But if one has to consider Diamond's paradigm in AIT's case, if anything, IVC was an urban settlement, at the minimum steel was being used even by Indians by that time (1200BC) or they had access to Bronze, so none of the three agents could have been responsible for subversion of local language (wonder what that might be) by Aryan language (Sanskrit).

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 27 Jun 2012 16:21

The biggest problem is that most of the Indus valley sites were lost to Pakistan and thereby remained under Chachi's influence.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jun 2012 16:32

venug, i think he means "steel" figuratively, not literally - same for "guns", germs are germs

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 27 Jun 2012 16:37

LalMohan ji, I took that way. I connected the usage of steel with steel in literal sense, guns with industrial revolution. Buts thanks for correcting.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jun 2012 16:38

guns = warfare/war capability
germs = germs
steel = technology

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 27 Jun 2012 16:40

got it all messed up, so I have to read it again then, it has been a while since I read it I must confess.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jun 2012 16:51

pretty simple fundas
1. agriculture was first driver of tech and settlement due to creation of surplus
2. hunter gatherers do not evolve since their needs are met by finding food in new areas
3. agriculture evolved in the 'fertile crescent' in mesopotamia and spread along a longitudinal axis (i think it simultaneously came up in other river basins at a similar lattitude also)
4. regions that are lattitudinally aligned can evolve faster than those that are longitudinally aligned
5. the spread of germs follows the pattern of human settlement and animal domestication - immunity builds in parallel to civilisational growth
6. those that are willing to use "guns" dominate those that don't
7. those that develop "steel" and put it to use evolve faster than those that don't (steel == any technology)

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 27 Jun 2012 17:08

IVC certainly is not 2. The existence of agriculture, trade with other settlements and with advanced irrigation and water management says that it had all the markings of a great civilization. Not sure about it's war making capabilities. If it were in deed a Vedic civilization, it is possible that it's war machinery was limited to defense, but I have no idea.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2012 17:29

Is there a language map of Sanskrit then vs. now? Why do we think spoken Sanskrit is near zero now? Any influence or aspects in any of the hypothesis mentioned here in the thread applies?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 Jun 2012 17:36

I believe their was not few months old study of geology that said that in South America Europeans did not replace the local population because they died of disease, but because male members were simply killed. The Mitochondrial DNA is non EUropean but the male y chomosome carries European signature. Unless the disease killed only the males, it is simply a case of (fill in the blanks).
Rgds,
Fanne

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jun 2012 18:43

venug wrote:IVC certainly is not 2. The existence of agriculture, trade with other settlements and with advanced irrigation and water management says that it had all the markings of a great civilization. Not sure about it's war making capabilities. If it were in deed a Vedic civilization, it is possible that it's war machinery was limited to defense, but I have no idea.

my number scheme is not options, just a list

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Jun 2012 19:05

Shiv ji,
as I have tried to draw attention to before:

(1) Language is used differently at different layers of society. The spoken substrate of the non-elite often persist beyond changes occurring at the elite level. This is obvious in modern times : with even within the North Indian languages, the elite using lots of "foreign" words - and even subtle syntactical changes, while the "lower" you go down along the so-called elite-non-elite scale one can trace the tenacious remnants of the older forms.

(2) I think an alternative model for the Indian subcontinent is a language process that existed before the rise of so-called proto-Sanskrit and proto-Tamil - and that survived in traces within the so-called praakrit. Most people assume that "prakrit" derived from Sanskrit. But as language of the "prakriti/praja/people" its continuance must have been independent of elite mechanims like education etc? After all the Sanskritists are supposed to be elitist, "Brahminical" repressors who denied liberty and intlletcual development to the non-elite - no?

If that people's language survived even under repression from obnoxious elitist Brahmins -either there was no repression and denial of formal education even to the lowest of the lowly, or that praakrit was actually there all along - as a pool of languages from which Sanskrit was formalized.

(3) In fact a more likely scenario is a collection of languages that existed on the subcontinent connecting both north and south, and which provided a common language for commerce and exchange over large distances. Its the elite which rose up on the basis of these activities ine different regional groupings that tried to put their own stamp on language for their own identity politics for regional mobilizations. This is how the drift started and gave rise to a proto-Sanskrit in the north and proto-Tamil in the south. Bronze age - or pre-Bronze age regional economics - under the backdrop of ice-age disruptions to agriculture and commerce, or in some cases relative favouring of one region over another due to prevailing climatic conditions - could have tipped off the distinctions.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2012 19:57

It is easy to create history than to change one. Facts rather factoids are important to even consider and prove oppression. We should not just see the word oppression, but what is being oppressed and check out if accepted privacy aspects are violated. And, if the oppression happened during british times and continued by way AIT forces, then it is false as well.. in the sense, that is not what the originators thought to be implemented.

Instead of recreating, it is better to create 'cause actual vedic texts are not implementation specific, but a set of APIs for you to implement. /polymorphic thoughts could be very helpful.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jun 2012 20:17

saik - there is a clash of civilisations element to this as well. our invaders came with different frames of reference, and rejected and then attempted to delete ours. our job is one of data recovery and building up a new interpretation

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2012 20:41

tomato <> tamoto

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jun 2012 22:19

Shiv, For your deconstruction skills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus

Perseus (Greek: Περσεύς), the legendary founder of Mycenae and of the Perseid dynasty of Danaans there, was the first of the heroes of Greek mythology whose exploits in defeating various archaic monsters provided the founding myths of the Twelve Olympians......
Because of the obscurity of the name Perseus and the legendary character of its bearer, most etymologists pass it by, on the presumption that it might be pre-Greek; however, the name of Perseus’ native city was Greek and so were the names of his wife and relatives. There is some prospect that it descended into Greek from the Proto-Indo-European language.......

Perseus might be from the ancient Greek verb, "πέρθειν" (perthein), “to waste, ravage, sack, destroy”, some form of which appears in Homeric epithets. According to Carl Darling Buck (Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin), the –eus suffix is typically used to form an agent noun, in this case from the aorist stem, pers-. Pers-eus therefore is a sacker of cities; that is, a soldier by occupation, a fitting name for the first Mycenaean warrior.

{Was Perseus the prototype Aryan invader the sacker of cities! Did the Wastern scholars take the Perseus story and fit it on the Indra! Or the reverse was Perseus based on Indra?}

But read on for it could support the OIT!

A Greek folk etymology connected the name of the Persian (Pars) people, whom they called the Persai. The native name, however has always had an -a- in Persian. Herodotus[2] recounts this story, devising a foreign son, Perses, from whom the Persians took the name. Apparently the Persians themselves[3] knew the story, as Xerxes tried to use it to suborn the Argives during his invasion of Greece, but ultimately failed to do so.

Perseus was the son of Zeus and Danaë, who by her very name, was the archetype of all the Danaans.[4] She was the only child of Acrisius, King of Argos. Disappointed by his lack of luck in having a son, Acrisius consulted the oracle at Delphi, who warned him that he would one day be killed by his daughter's son. Danaë was childless and to keep her so, he imprisoned her in a bronze chamber open to the sky in the courtyard of his palace:[5

{Shades of Kamsa and Devaki Nandan Krishna! Only the relations are changed from uncle and nephew to grandfather and granson}

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 27 Jun 2012 22:24

Greek towns and villages would routinely be sacked and razed by Persians. So maybe that's why "Perseus" is a sacker of cities.
To be fair, though, the Persians would also construct unprecedented infrastructure in those Hellenic areas. The Persians helped civilize the Greeks, but were ultimately overrun by the Hellenized Macedonians.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Jun 2012 02:14

I am quoting from Witzel, because I feel he is the juiciest one to be his own undoing :

http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ej ... rticle.pdf

In order to evaluate the substrate materials,[substrate of RV language] the time frame and the geographical spread of these texts have to be established first. The procedures to arrive at a fairly secure dating cannot be discussed here in any detail; this would take another long paper. It may suffice to point out (Witzel 1987, 1989, 1995, 1999) that the Rgveda (RV) is a bronze age (pre-iron age) text of the Greater Panjab that follows the dissolution of the Indus civilization (at c. 1900 BCE) — which limits its time frame to (maximally) c. 1900–1200 BCE; the latter date is that of the earliest appearance of iron in the subcontinent. The RV is followed by a number of other Vedic texts, usually listed as Sam. hita ̄s, Bra ̄hman.as, A ̄ran.yakas and Upanis.ads. Linguistically, however, we have to distinguish five distinct levels: (1) Rgveda, (2) other Sam. hita ̄s (mantra language),

(3) ̄ Yajurveda Sam. hita ̄ prose, (4) earlier and later Bra ̄hman.as (incl. Aran.yakas and Upanis.ads) and
̊
(5) the late Vedic Su ̄tras (Witzel 1987, 1997; for abbreviations of names of texts, their dates and their geographical location see attached list). While the area of the RV, as clearly visible in the mentioning of the major rivers, is the Greater Panjab (with the inclusion of many areas of Afghanistan from Sistan/Arachosia to Kabul/Gandhara), its temporal horizon consists of three stages, roughly datable between c. 1700– 1200 BCE (Witzel 1995, 1999, J. R. Gardner, Thesis Iowa U. 1998, Th. Proferes, Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard U. 1999). They are:

*I. the early R ̊gvedic period1: c. 1700–1500 BCE: books (man. d. ala) 4, 5, 6, and maybe book 2, with the early hymns referring to the Yadu-Turva ́sa, Anu-Druhyu tribes;

*II. the middle (main) Rgvedic period, c. 1500–1350 BCE: books 3, 7, 8. 1–66 and 1. ̊ 51–191; with a focus on the Bharata chieftain Suda ̄s and his ancestors, and his rivals, notably Trasadasyu, of the closely related Pu ̄ru tribe.

*III. the late R ̊gvedic period, c. 1350–1200 BCE: books 1.1–50, 8.67–103, 10.1–854; 10.85–191: with the descendant of the Pu ̄ru chieftain Trasadasyu, Kuru ́sravan.a, and the emergence of the super-tribe of the Kuru (under the post-RV Pariksit, Witzel 1997).
.
These levels have been established, not on the basis of linguistic criteria, but on the basis and by the internal criteria of textual arrangement, of the ‘royal’ lineages, and independently from these, those of the poets (rs.is) who composed the hymns. About both groups of persons we know ̊ enough to be able to establish pedigrees which sustain each other. Applying this framework to the linguistic features found in the various man. d. alas of the R ̊gveda, we are in store for some surprises.

§ 0.4. Before coming to this, however, another item must be discussed briefly, that of the concept of substrates. The RV contains some 300 words, that is roughly 4% of its hieratic vocabulary, that

[footnote: 1Settlement in Gandha ̄ra/Panjab: early books 5, 6 up to Yamuna ̄/Gan ̇ga ̄, e.g. Atri poem 5.52.17; the relatively old poem6.45.13hasg ̄an ̇gya, next to chieftain Brbu.]

are not Indo-Aryan (Kuiper 1991). It is possible to establish their non-IA character by studying their very structure. For, words belonging to a certain language follow well-established patterns. The word structure of English (or IE in general) is well known. In English, for example, a word cannot start with tl- or pt-. Words such as Tlaloc, an Aztec god, are impossible, and those in pt- are loans from Greek, such as Ptolemy. Whorf’s structural formula of English monosyllablic words (Language, Thought and Reality, 1956; simplified): { 0, (s+/-) C-η ̆ + V + 0, C-h } allows to predict that English words beginning in ngo- or ending -goh are not possible. If ng- or nk- do occur now, they are late loans from African languages (e.g., Nkrumah); or, before the influx of Yiddish or German words into American English, sh + consonant also was not allowed, while we now have: to shlep or strudel, as opposed to older words such as to slip or to stride.

These examples also show that foreign words can enter a host language in pronunciations close to their original ones (however, strudel does not have the German but the American -r-), and that, at the same time, at they can easily be detected if they violate the original structure of the language in question.

IE nouns and verbs have three parts: root (dha ̄tu), suffix (pratyaya) and ending, such as dev-a-m. ́sam. s-a-ti “he praises the god.” The root (dha ̄tu), the part of the word carrying the lexical meaning (dev “heavenly”, ́sam. s “praise”), is enlarged by suffixes (immediate/primary: krt, ̊

secondary: taddhita). They are attached (here: -a-) to the root and are followed by the noun endings (-m) or verb endings (-ti). IE roots ordinarily have three consonants, and can only have the structure given below, where ( ) indicates possible appareance; b is very rare in IE; C = consonant (includes the laryngeal sounds, H = h1, h2, h3); e = standard IE vowel (> Skt. a); it can change to o (> Skt. a), ̄e, ̄o (> Skt. a ̄) or disappear (zero forms); R = resonants, the “semi-vowels” y, r, l, v and m, n which can also appear as i, r, l, u, a, a; further, s when found at the beginning of roots, is unstable and can disappear (as in spa ́s ‘spy’ : pa ́s-ya-ti ‘he sees’).

IE/IA/Vedic roots must conform to the following formula (Szemer ́enyi 1970): prefixes +/- {(s) (C) (R) (e) (R) (C/s)} +/- suffixes Possible thus are, e.g., Skt. ad (eC), pat (CeC), ́srath (CReC), bandh (CeRC), kr (CR), ́sru (CRR), kram (CReR), krand (CReRC), i (R), is. (RC), man (ReR), manth (ReRC), tras (CRes), tvak.s (CReKs), stambh (sCeRC), svap (sReC), sas (ses) etc.; with laryngeals: bhu ̄ (CRH), bru ̄ (CRRH), ̄ıks. (HRCs), as (Hes), etc. Sounds inside a root are arranged according to the following order of preference: C/s-R-e, thus : CRe-(Skt. ́sram...), sRe- (Skt. srav...) are allowed, but not: RCe-, Rse- (Skt. *rka..., *usa...). Not allowed in IE are the following consonant groupings in ̊ a root, the types: bed, bhet, tebh, pep, teurk/tekt (Skt. *bad, bhad, tabh, pap, tork, takt) This classification of possible roots often allows to classify non-IE roots and words at a glance. The number of primary suffixes is limited to certain types, usually *Ce, CR, CRe, R, Re, es (Skt. -ta, -ti, -tra, -i, -ya, -as) etc. Secondary suffixes build up on the primary ones, thus Skt. -u-mant, -a-t ̄at, -a-m ̄ana, etc. On the other hand, suffixes such as - ̄a ́s, -ta, -an-da/-a-nda-, -bu ̄th- a/-bu ̄-th-a (see below) do not exist in IE and IIr.

Therefore, the very.structure of many of the ‘foreign’ and loan words in the RV simply do not fit the IE structure of those properly belonging to Ved. Sanskrit (just as Nkrumah, Mfume must be foreign words viz. recent loans in English). Consequently, RV words such as k ̄ın ̄a ́sa, K ̄ıkata, Pramaganda, Balbu ̄tha, Brbu, Brsaya are simply not explainable in terms of IE or IIr: the verbal/nominal roots k ̄ın, k ̄ık, mag, balb, brs do not exist in IE as only roots of the format {(cons.) (R) e (R) (cons.)} are allowed and as b is very rare in IE; further, only s. (but not s) is allowed in Vedic after i, u, r, k, and finally, the suffixes - ̄a- ́sa, -t.a, -an-da/-a-nda, -bu ̄th-a/-bu ̄-th-a do not exist in IE/IIr.

§ 0.5. The structure of RV words has already been studied at some length by former colleague at Leiden and one of my several great teachers, F.B.J. Kuiper (1991, cf. 1955). However in this small book, written at the age of 85, he limited his task to a discussion of their structure and to pointing out some features which link them to Dravidian and Munda, and, as he conceded, “maybe to some unknown language(s).” Therefore, he did not proceed to discuss the Indus language, nor did he study the various levels of Rgvedic speech beyond the usual division into older (books 2–7, etc.) and late RV (book 10). However, as soon as we apply the three stage leveling discussed above, a different picture of the RV and the subsequent Vedic texts emerges than known so far. To sum up, we can distinguish the following substrate languages.

— A Central Asian substrate in the oldest ̊Rgvedic;
— RV I: no Dravidian substrate but that of a prefixing Para-Mundic (or Para- Austroasiatic) language, along with a few hints of Masica’s U.P. Language “X”, and some others;
— RV II and III: first influx of Dravidian words;
— Post-RV (YV, AV Mantras <MS, KS, TS, VS, AV, PS> and later Vedic): continuing influx of the same types of vocabulary into the educated Vedic speech of the Brahmins; occurence of Proto-Munda names in eastern North India.

— Other substrates include Proto-Burushaski in the northwest, Tibeto-Burmese in the Himalayas and in Kosala, Dravidian in Sindh, Gujarat and Central India, and prede- cessors of remnants language groups, now found in isolated pockets of the subcontinent (Kusunda in C. Nepal, pre-Tharu in S. Nepal/UP, Nahali in C. India, and the pre-Nilgiri and Vedda substrates).
So far, linguists have concentrated on finding Dravidian and Munda reflexes, especially in the oldest Veda, the R ̊gveda (RV). These studies are summed up conveniently in the etymological dictionaries by M. Mayrhofer (Indo-Aryan; KEWA, EWA), Th. Burrow – M.B. Emeneau (Dravid- ian; DED, DEDR), and in the work of F.B.J. Kuiper (Munda/Austro-Asiatic; 1948, 1955, 1991, Pinnow 1959). In addition, it has especially been F. Southworth who has done comparative work on the linguistic history of India (IA, Drav., Munda) during the past few decades; his book on the subject is eagerly awaited.

There are three most interesting things Witzel is saying here :

(1) He is no longer pretending on the absolute dating capacities of "linguistics". What he is now using is the so-called "internal consistencies" that supposedly point to chronological ordering. But he is still not saying it clearly that his method, even if valid [which we can show is based on certain assumptions not provable itself based on the narrative/text itself] still gives onlee a relative ordering and not actual time differences.

His method has several logical problems [of course as a linguists he can devise his own suitable logical system that is itself conditional on his needs] - including that of identification of personages, and the possible effects of reformulation at a later time of an earlier narrative - something he himself claims in his interpretations of the MB.

His ordering is also crucially dependent on the textual marking as being chronologically authentic in ordering. However in his MB analysis he claims that MB was formulated, [even in layers and stages like it is suggested for RV] by an appropriation of a prevalent narrative to glorify the up and coming Kurus. Thus in case of MB, Witzel will admit the effects of a later formulation on both relative importance of chapters, ordering etc by the instantaneous needs/greed of the reformulator - but he never even blinks an eye when he completely forgets to apply the same on RV as a possibility that may entirely jeopardize his ordering argument.

(2) His absolute timing is solely dependent on identification of modern river names with textual ones, and identification of words for metals. [Note that claims of non-changeability of river names can lead to problems itself with his disjunction of the RV from "Indus"/Sarasawati.

(3) He is finding Indian substrate language "traces" in the Steppenwolf gifted PIE derivative - RV.

The third point is crucial to understand how the PIE compromise is being sought to be maintained in spite of the hagiographies we have been plastered with on the forum - about soc-alled modern "scholars" no longer having "imperialist" hangovers. The compromise of acknowledging a "substrate" that is not Steppe-PIE derivative - is a pre-emptive strike to stop the potential exploration of all that the imagined "PIE" cannot claim as its children, from going into a problematization of PIE manufactory itself.

More to follow.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jun 2012 02:23

Bji, The fact this German guy is being imported into US to do Sanskrit studies, just as Max Muller was imported into London shows the imperialist project has changed hands only and is not dead.
Only its a different form of Imperium.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 28 Jun 2012 03:17

[quote]These levels have been established, not on the basis of linguistic criteria, but on the basis and by the internal criteria of textual arrangement, of the ‘royal’ lineages, and independently from these, those of the poets (rs.is) who composed the hymns. About both groups of persons we know ̊ enough to be able to establish pedigrees which sustain each other. Applying this framework to the linguistic features found in the various man. d. alas of the R ̊gveda, we are in store for some surprises.[/quote

When Talageri did this, Witzel only had vitriol for him.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 28 Jun 2012 03:29

(1) He is no longer pretending on the absolute dating capacities of "linguistics". What he is now using is the so-called "internal consistencies" that supposedly point to chronological ordering. But he is still not saying it clearly that his method, even if valid [which we can show is based on certain assumptions not provable itself based on the narrative/text itself] still gives onlee a relative ordering and not actual time differences.

His method has several logical problems [of course as a linguists he can devise his own suitable logical system that is itself conditional on his needs] - including that of identification of personages, and the possible effects of reformulation at a later time of an earlier narrative - something he himself claims in his interpretations of the MB.

Bji, how is Witzel's chronological ordering of Rg Veda different from Talageri's (I meant the method used)? one can say the same thing about Talgeri. Chronological ordering seems to be everything to fix directionality of movement, if one says the earliest mandala is composed first beyond Indus and later ones inside India you have exactly opposite to what Talageri proposed.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Jun 2012 04:58

venug wrote:
(1) He is no longer pretending on the absolute dating capacities of "linguistics". What he is now using is the so-called "internal consistencies" that supposedly point to chronological ordering. But he is still not saying it clearly that his method, even if valid [which we can show is based on certain assumptions not provable itself based on the narrative/text itself] still gives onlee a relative ordering and not actual time differences.

His method has several logical problems [of course as a linguists he can devise his own suitable logical system that is itself conditional on his needs] - including that of identification of personages, and the possible effects of reformulation at a later time of an earlier narrative - something he himself claims in his interpretations of the MB.

Bji, how is Witzel's chronological ordering of Rg Veda different from Talageri's (I meant the method used)? one can say the same thing about Talgeri. Chronological ordering seems to be everything to fix directionality of movement, if one says the earliest mandala is composed first beyond Indus and later ones inside India you have exactly opposite to what Talageri proposed.

How do we know that the so-called "first mandala" was really pointing to a narrative that came "first"? Witzel, says that MB was "appropriated", with insertions/deletions/modifications by "narrators/priests/Brahmins" who adapted prevalent narratives in a way that upped their patrons the Kurus. If MB internal structure still formally retains sequential ordering after such Kuru-upping adaptations [which can therefore reorder or insert/delete to highlight/downgrade aspects to suit their agenda] of earlier narratives - why is it not possible for RV?

What if Sudasa's [hmm - no that has nothing to do with "dasa"s, sudasa is one word onlee, and unique. If you allow any connection with "dasas" who are hated in RV, and the onlee, onlee identification then possible to match the non-Indic RVians with "Dravidians" or as His divine linguistic grace concedes - a possible "IVC" language], mosahib priesthood reordered/altered/modified prexisting texts to upp their patron? What if later material had been "adapted" and pushed forward because it "pleased" their patron with associations that were developing onlee then as cults - for example a solar-equine cult?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2012 06:35

brihaspati wrote:
§ 0.5. The structure of RV words has already been studied at some length by former colleague at Leiden and one of my several great teachers, F.B.J. Kuiper (1991, cf. 1955). However in this small book, written at the age of 85, he limited his task to a discussion of their structure and to pointing out some features which link them to Dravidian and Munda, and, as he conceded, “maybe to some unknown language(s).” Therefore, he did not proceed to discuss the Indus language, nor did he study the various levels of Rgvedic speech beyond the usual division into older (books 2–7, etc.) and late RV (book 10). However, as soon as we apply the three stage leveling discussed above, a different picture of the RV and the subsequent Vedic texts emerges than known so far. To sum up, we can distinguish the following substrate languages.

— A Central Asian substrate in the oldest ̊Rgvedic;

He is finding Indian substrate language "traces" in the Steppenwolf gifted PIE derivative - RV.

This is a classic example of the circular reasoning that glottochronology is known to use.

Witzel says:

My respected teacher at age 85 said that Sanskrit has some words from an unknown source (and conveniently kicked the bucket I presume)
We have already constructed a hypothetical earlier language called PIE based on Sanskrit of the Rig Veda
Hey guess what? Those mystery words of the Rig Veda sound just like the reconstructed words we have created for PIE in central Asia.

This is like saying

My late dad told me that I may have some long lost relatives
I have looked at myself in the mirror and have decided what my long lost relatives should look like
Hey guess what? Rock Hudson is my long lost uncle

I am not surprised Witzel gets angry when his inconsistencies are pointed out by his peers. When you appoint scholar-bluffers to "respectable" places like Harvard the way people hang on to their words is like an old joke about the man who bought a Rolls for $100 in Saudi and drove off into teh desert. the car stopped after 50 miles and he discovered that it had no engine. he called the company and asked what was going on. He is told that the Rolls will go 50 miles on reputation alone, even without an engine.

That is how Witzel of Harvard gets so much attention.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2012 06:41

Carl wrote:Greek towns and villages would routinely be sacked and razed by Persians. So maybe that's why "Perseus" is a sacker of cities.
To be fair, though, the Persians would also construct unprecedented infrastructure in those Hellenic areas. The Persians helped civilize the Greeks, but were ultimately overrun by the Hellenized Macedonians.

The earliest Greek towns came 2000 years after Harappa, BMAC and Mesopotamia. 500 years after Mitanni.

adityahk · Post by **adityahk** » 28 Jun 2012 07:47

Speaking of genetics, Would recommend having a look at the blog Gene Expression at Discover magazine. The author has analysed some of the data that has been published (peer reviewed and open source) on Indian genetics.

{links to Discover Magazine deleted }

followed by

{link to Harappa DNA deleted}. Harappa has built up quite a data set for Indians.

My knowledge on quantitative genetics is limited. If there are any gurus who can analyse the SNP data and provide their inputs that would be great.

Moderator note: Your links have been deleted. They point to two blogs by Pakistani AIT proponents. Their nationality or their choice or argument itself wouldn't by themselves be a reason for this. However, if you note, they actively ridicule and ban anyone who comments on the OIT and take on their argument. They can gain credibility for that approach the hard way. A popular site like BRF will not give them free credibility in the form of search engine friendly links from here. Those who want to peruse those links can use google for the names in the placeholders above.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2012 08:02

adik wrote:Speaking of genetics, Would recommend having a look

{Edited}. Harappa has built up quite a data set for Indians.

My knowledge on quantitative genetics is limited. If there are any gurus who can analyse the SNP data and provide their inputs that would be great.

Sir are you seriously "recommending" these links even as you disingenuously claim that your own knowledge is limited.

You are planting information and trying to wiggle out of the responsibility for planting information that could be flawed. I am amazed at the way this topic attracts people.

I suppose your limited knowledge caused you to fail to notice the first sentence in the above link:

Linguistic and genetic studies have demonstrated that almost all groups in South Asia today descend from a mixture of two highly divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners and Europeans, and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not related to any populations outside the Indian subcontinent.

Sir. On what grounds do you say that there is any truth to the above assertion, or are you going to hide behind your limited knowledge excuse. But if your knowledge is limited how do you "recommend" these links? Surely you're joking Mr. adik.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2012 08:44

People , please allow me a brief foray into piskology.

There is a commonly used human art of "suggesting" things without attracting attention on to the person who makes the suggestion as the originator or source of the suggestion. By doing this the suggestion becomes "It's not me - see others are saying it too. I am only pointing out what others say". This falls squarely in the category of lyrics from that song from Pakeezah: "Humri na maano sipaya se poocho"

My own grandmother used to want me to attend a boring family function and would try to deceive by saying "All your cousins were telling me that they would love to see you there". It was years before I figured out this trick. If you notice, Witzel above has done exactly that "My respected teacher said that Sanskrit has some non IE substrate it's not me its him, and that Central Asian substrate is proven by PIE"

But the reason I bring this up is the sheer coincidence of two people coming on here to "innocently" post some links while proclaiming great humility and noble intent. "It's not me. See those links. It's someone else. I want some of you "gurus' to read them" ( On the flattering lines of my grandmother's "Oh you are so popular that all your cousins want to meet you at the function")

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 28 Jun 2012 09:50

^^^

Shiv ji there is an inner Paki in everybody. Just like authors of those stupid sites.

For real people, well they can make up their own mind. There is more than enough information.

adik ji welcome here.

ManishH ji, SN_Rajan ji are not taking part now. I hope you continue to.

adityahk · Post by **adityahk** » 28 Jun 2012 11:48

Ravi_g thank you. Shiv ji, you have attributed my post to invoke piskology. Allow me to clarify I had no intent on going so. The site harrapadna is recommended for the only reason that the data is available online. An analysis of the same has been done and the method detailed. The data serves to explain his model, a model that would have been either formed over time or peer interaction. Is the model flawed maybe. Do I believe the model whether it's AIT/AMT ?, No. Are there discrepancies? Yes.
Do the archaeological, linguist models match? , No.
Is the oral tradition taken into consideration when coming up.with models to fit?, No.
My interest lies in checking different models and finally arriving at the one which fits all data.
Do I have the required knowledge to analyze the posted data on the fly ? No.

The first post on the blog that you quoted was an abstract that is being presented. It suits his model, he is entitled to it.
Moderators: I did observe that both banned those who did not agree with the authors. Did not realize the monetary consequence of linking those sites on BRF,I should have put warnings detailing their ideology,both related by their interaction on BrownpunXXXX. Apologies for the error.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2012 14:08

adik wrote: My interest lies in checking different models and finally arriving at the one which fits all data.
Do I have the required knowledge to analyze the posted data on the fly ? No.

Well blow me down. Aren' t we all interested in checking different models?

You claim on here sir, that you do not have the required knowledge to analyse the posted data on the fly.

Sir, that sounds like a false claim to me because you posted and "recommended" that we should read a blog about which you said:

adik wrote:The author has analysed some of the data that has been published (peer reviewed and open source) on Indian genetics.

You saw this blog and you verified that the author has used "peer reviewed and open source" data and you decided to post a link to the blog. You seem to have managed to analyze a lot more than anyone else by looking at those bogs "on the fly" and you now claim that you are unable to analyze data on the fly? Why don't you post a link to all that open source and peer reviewed information that you instantly and magically figured out on the fly while looking at those blogs?

You're not really adik are you? Only your behavior suggests that you might be. It was your intention to deliberately link those blogs on here and that is exactly what you did, your protestations of innocence notwithstanding.

I find it amazing that you have been attracted to this site and this discussion. You could ask on those blogs couldn't you, and get the answer from the author whom you know has used peer reviewed and open source info. No?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Jun 2012 16:23

Though in general one cannot use the proof of a similar myth or similar religious practice among the 'Indo-European' people to make a guess at the origin of the practice or direction of migration, such similarities are still useful to pursue, since somewhere one may still get some clue.

One religious ceremony of the ancient Greeks, I find interesting is the use of fire altars.

From Wikipedia

Wikipedia wrote:Demeter was searching for her daughter, Persephone, having taken the form of an old woman called Doso, and received a hospitable welcome from Celeus, the King of Eleusis in Attica. As a gift to Celeus, because of his hospitality, Demeter planned to make his son Demophon a god, but she was unable to complete the ritual because his mother Metanira walked in and saw her son in the fire and screamed in fright, which angered Demeter, who lamented that foolish mortals do not understand the concept and ritual.

I am simply making a conjecture here, and I hope others can think about it and shed some more light on to this.

The fire ritual is something very much Indo-Iranian, that is something shared by the PUrus and Anus, whereas the Druhyus, who expanded into Central Asia, have forgotten about it.

So only those Greeks were privy to the fire ritual who moved into Greece from the Southern route, i.e. South of the Caspian - the Alinas, the Hellenes. Possibly the Mycenaean were these Greeks.

Here Demeter is being shown as a priestess who quite well knows about fire rituals. So a deification ceremony was being conducted meant to purify Demophon using a fire ritual possibly evoking Agni as witness.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2012 17:14

Someone, maybe Arun Gupta, had posted a critique about migration theories which are made up with a "Gengis Khan mentality" - which is to say that all migrations revolved around pillaging and occupation. Most migrations probably do not occur that way and language is more likely to spread because of people to people contact and commerce. People to people contact and commerce was thriving in the area between Egypt, Iraq, Iran and India between 3000 BC and 2000 BC. There is archaeological proof for that. If you look at accounts of travellers from a much later era you realise that until about 150 years ago long distance overland transport usually meant journeys lasting weeks or months. There were no letters to be written and little news to be exchanged. But people would pick up wives on the way and frequent travellers would have "a wife in every port" so to speak.

If your mother tongue is Kannada and you marry a French girl, she will not do koochie koo to your kid in Kannada. She will do it in French. The word "mother tongue" is significant in recognizing this fact. You may have a bilingual child after 6 years, but this fact was probably as true 5000 or years ago as it is today.

I feel that what brihaspati says may be right - and that is some from of Prakrit may have been the common tongue across a wide area of not just India - but way across all the way to Iran. There is no proof of this - but there definitely is proof of a "Sanskrit like language" being present across those areas dating back to 1500 BC. Trade between Harappa. BMAC and Mesopotamia between 3000 BC and 2000 BC would have ensured a string of in-between towns and settlements where food and shelter could be found for travellers and caravans, and inevitably sick or injured people would linger in these areas till recovery and a few of them would marry there or find a wife there.

It is most likely that Indo-European language spread in this way - from the oldest urban settlements and trade rather than a village language being imposed by force on horseback. I suspect that other than the (previously discussed) exceptional circumstances of South America a conquering, murderous horde has never managed to impose his language on anybody without a commercial advantage lasting many generations. South America may be a case of population replacement. Folk memories do not seem to retain any information about populations replacement.

Greek is much younger. I have been looking at the history of the Greek language and it basically starts around 1000 BC. Any similarity in folklore only adds to a well known connection between old civilizations, but the late origin of Greek tends to favor a late entry of PIE into Europe and not the "simultaneous spread" of language through India and Europe between 2000 BC and 1000 BC. That theory is convenient to explain the appearance of Greek, but ignores the "Indo Iranian" area that had civilization for 2000 years before Greece.