Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jun 2012 17:35

RajeshA wrote:Now here is a great paper! Also seems like "pir-reviewed". They make a convincing case as to why Indo-Aryans could not have come from Europe or Central Asia based on genetic information.

@Korenine: Project - Origin of the Slovenian People

Indo-Aryan and Slavic Linguistic and Genetic Affinities Predate the Origin of Cereal Farming
By Joseph Skulj, Jagdish C. Sharda, Snejina Sonina, Ratnakar Narale
Baffling!

good paper

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jun 2012 17:44

shiv wrote:R1a1 is transmitted in males only, so the wimmens in the photu will not have any.

I understand that, but I think their brothers wouldn't look all too different!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jun 2012 17:55

One thing that I found interesting was that in Iran only 11% are of R1a1 haplogroup! So if Indo-Iranians were to have separated from the Central Asian Aryans who were going to make their journey to Europe, then one may have expected Iranians and other ethnic groups like Punjabis and Sindhis to have some similar composition of R1a1.

So there seems to be perhaps a bigger overlap of North Indians (including Pakis) with the Slavs then what Iran has with the Slavs.

All this brings me to a curious thought: Did the Slavs separate from the North Indians after the Iranians did so? But that would mean that Indo-Iranians did not separate from the others first, say in Central Asia, and then proceeded South together.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jun 2012 18:10

The writer is criticizing the Aryan mentality in Iran, but he may be a little bit apologist for Islam.

Published on Aug 06, 2010
By Reza Zia-Ebrahimi in London
Iranian Identity, the 'Aryan Race,' and Jake Gyllenhaal: PBS

Despite the rather inglorious legacy of Aryanism, many Iranians still nonchalantly seize every opportunity to emphasize their "Aryanness." But how did Aryanism reach Iran in the first place? Iranian Aryanists would have us believe that we have referred to ourselves as ariya since time immemorial, and that this epithet is a racial one, used to distinguish those who are ariya from those who are not. The claim is fallacious. The term occurs only a handful of times in ancient inscriptions in the Avesta, and on the bas-reliefs of Naqsh-e Rostam and Bisotun. Absolutely no consistent meaning can be derived from these occurrences.

In spite of many attempts to force ariya into Aryanist assumptions, recent scholarship -- in particular the work of Gherardo Gnoli -- has shown that ariya was not quite a racial category. According to Gnoli, in Achaemenid times, ariya was a cultural and religious term to evoke the kings' origin, like a title of particular nobility. In its very restricted, exclusivist nature, that is quite different from a racial category. Moreover, as already mentioned, the term "Aryan" was coined by Anquetil-Duperron. The neologism is charged with modern and romantic European conceptions of "race" that did not exist in Eastern antiquity. Even more importantly, in the entire corpus of Persian literature, verse and prose, there is no reference to an Aryan race until the twentieth century.

A related myth is the one according to which "Iran" means the "land of Aryans." This myth was propagated by Max Müller, who claimed in 1862 that the term airyanem vaejah found in the Avesta is the ancestor of "Iran" and means the "Aryan expanse." This myth became so widespread that serious scholars propagate it even to this day. Suffice it to look at a dictionary.

By contrast, Gnoli contends that airyanem vaejah is not a historical land, but a legendary, cosmogonic concept in Zoroastrianism. Additionally, the "land of Aryans" would suppose that the inhabitants of the Achaemenid or Sasanian empires were racially conscious in a manner similar to nineteenth-century Europeans. This is of course highly unlikely, particularly given that the Iranian plateau already -- as it has ever since -- featured a complex mix of populations. Out of 30,000 tablets excavated in Persepolis, not one was written in Persian (most are in Elamite, and a few are in Aramean). In fact, the empire was a melting pot. To imagine that its inhabitants believed that a territory must belong to one people is an anachronistic projection of modern ideas onto the distant past. The presence of Arabs on the Iranian plateau and Iranians in the Arabian Peninsula is also attested, but somehow ignored by the prophets of Aryanism.

The now ubiquitous concept of the "Aryan race" first appeared in Iran in the 1890s. Mirza Agha Khan Kermani, one of the ideologues of a particularly bigoted version of Iranian nationalism, was the first to ever refer to it in writing. Interestingly, he spelled it àriyàn (آریان), a transliteration of the French aryen. Later, Sadegh Rezazadeh Shafagh came up with àriyàyi, the term now usually used in Persian. Hasan Priniya dwelt upon Aryans and the "science of race" in the textbooks he wrote for the first cohort of children to be mass schooled by the Pahlavi state in the 1930s.

By that point, the strange idea of Iranian-German racial brotherhood had already appeared in various writings, such as a poem dedicated to "Germania" by Vahid Dastgerdi during World War I. After the Nazis took power, the notion was actively disseminated by the German propaganda machine. The hugely popular journal Nàmeh-ye Iràn Bàstàn, the Persian-language broadcasts of Radio Berlin, the publications and lecture tours of the Deutsch-Persische Gesellschaft, and the holdings of the German Scientific Library all promoted the idea of Aryan brotherhood, as Germany sought to convince Iranians to supporting her cause against the "ugly fox" (Great Britain) and "deceitful bear" (the Soviet Union). It all worked very well. Observe how the German football team is even now welcomed in Iran, occasionally with enthusiastic collective Nazi salutes.

Why is Aryanism in Iran so resilient? Why has it never been questioned, criticized, or reevaluated? In my view, late-nineteenth-century Iran was a receptive environment for Aryanism, which came to play a crucial role in the definition of modern Iranian identity. In the nineteenth century, Qajar Iran had come into contact with Europe. This was no smooth encounter, as it first came through the defeats of the Russo-Persian wars. The Qajar elites were profoundly traumatized by the discovery of Europe's advances and Iran's backwardness. Iranian intellectuals spent decades attempting to make sense of the nation's decay.

Around the 1860s, a few intellectuals such as Mirza Fath'ali Akhundzadeh and Mirza Agha Khan Kermani pioneered a digestible and reassuring narrative, staggering in its simplicity: pre-Islamic Iran was a utopia of glory, power, refinement, and prosperity. The causes of the end of this magnificent past were to be laid entirely at the doorstep of the Arabs and their religion, Islam. Since the advent of Islam, Iranians had been miserable. If only Arabs had not brought Islam to Iran, the country would be as advanced, if not more, than France and England. The solution? Uprooting anything perceived to be "Arabic" or "Islamic" in Iranian customs and beliefs, including the alphabet, loanwords, and all religious practices. Such a project, which these intellectuals sincerely believed to be achievable, would overnight return Iran to its ancient glories. They entirely overlooked Iran's recent achievements -- of which there were more than a few -- but all this was, of course, designed to avoid examination of the nation's own shortcomings. Nationalism always needs scapegoats to protect the pristine nature of the "homeland" and its "true" people.

This was the context in which Iranian intellectuals heard, or rather read in Orientalist literature, that Iranians were members of that same superior race as Europeans. Aryanism was for them manna from heaven. It suddenly -- and, it should be added, unexpectedly -- provided them an attractive means to consolidate their fanciful theories. It is fascinating how deeply compatible Aryanism was with the emerging nationalist discourse: the opposition between Iranian and Arab fit squarely into the Aryan vs. Semite paradigm. It also came from Europe. How could the celebrated, emulated Europeans be wrong? Iranians' pride, seriously wounded by the encounter with Europe, could be assuaged with the conviction that they shared in the Europeans' racial superiority. No surprise that they adhered so tightly to the myth of the Aryan race.

It seems the Iranians too have a real identity crisis on their hands.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jun 2012 19:11

are there any other signatures to genetic mutation mapping, to predict transformation or mutating ones, and produce an hierarchy of mutation map?

/aam stupid question.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jun 2012 19:14

The wimmin in the photo do not look very uncommon as types seen in northern India. In fact one of them look pretty close to someone I know as a relative. If you look closely, the facial type is only slightly deviated [lengthening of the chin - genetically from retaining more meat eating] from types found in sections of north Indian populations - not known to have been mixed up with later invaders.

There are studies of mutation maps - but not a predictive one as yet. At least people are too cautious to claim so as yet.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jun 2012 19:26

RajeshA wrote:One thing that I found interesting was that in Iran only 11% are of R1a1 haplogroup! So if Indo-Iranians were to have separated from the Central Asian Aryans who were going to make their journey to Europe, then one may have expected Iranians and other ethnic groups like Punjabis and Sindhis to have some similar composition of R1a1.

So there seems to be perhaps a bigger overlap of North Indians (including Pakis) with the Slavs then what Iran has with the Slavs.

All this brings me to a curious thought: Did the Slavs separate from the North Indians after the Iranians did so? But that would mean that Indo-Iranians did not separate from the others first, say in Central Asia, and then proceeded South together.

Maybe the Iranians were replaced by others.

The paper you linked says that once agriculture started the common words between Slovenian and Sanskrit tailed off. The commonality is restricted to an older period when cattle domestication had occurred. But HG R1a1 is much much older in the region of 100,000 years old and occurs in 10% of the human population of the world.

By the way here is a list of words for "horse" in Slovenian and other "Indo-European" languages

Code: Select all

(le) ‘cheval’ 	French (France)
(o) ‘cavalo’ 	Portuguese (Portugal and Brazil)
(il) ‘cavallo’ 	Italian (Italy)
(el) ‘cavall’ 	Catalan (Spain and southern France)
(el) ‘caballo’ 	Spanish (Spain, Argentina, Mexico)
‘pferd’ 	German (Germany)
‘paard’ 	Flemish (Belgium)
‘paard’ 	Dutch (Netherlands)
‘perd’ 	Afrikaans (South Africa)
‘hevonen’ 	Finnish (Finland)
‘häst’ 	Swedish (Sweden)
‘hest’ 	Danish (Denmark) & Norwegian (Norway)
‘hestur’ 	Icelandic (Iceland)
‘lò’ 	Hungarian (Hungary)
‘cal’ 	Romanian (Romania)
‘kòn’ 	Polish (Poland)
‘kon’ (koHb) 	Belarusian (Belarus) & Russian (Russia)
‘konj’ (koHb) 	Macedonian (Macedonia), Serbian (Serbia), Croatian (Croatia), Bosnian (Bosnia) & Slovenian (Slovenia)
‘kon’ (koH) 	Bulgarian (Bulgaria)
‘kin’ (kiHb) 	Ukrainian (Ukraine)
‘beygir’ 	Turkish (Turkey)
‘capall’ 	Irish (Ireland); also 'eoch' (Irish - Gaelic)
‘ceffyl’ 	Welsh (Wales)
‘cuddy’ 	Scottish (Scotland)
‘yarraman’ 	Aboriginal (Australia); Barkly Tableland region of NT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jun 2012 19:27

brihaspati wrote:The wimmin in the photo do not look very uncommon as types seen in northern India.

True - especially the one on the left. make the colour a little less white and make the lips a bit thicker and you have an SDRE

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jun 2012 19:30

I have been trying to point out in my debates with ManishH ji, that finding or claiming similarities and direction of derivation of Sanskrit/RV from a reconstructed language based on the assumption that RV/Sanskrit was a derivation from this hypothetical proto-language - is a circular argument, that linguists miraculously fail to understand as a logical fallacy.

Somehow the linguists cannot see the circularity of argument - and that it all crucially depends on
(1) assuming that Sanskrit is a daughter of a proto-language via RV to start with
(2) reconstructing a proto language on this basis
(3) then claim that the reconstruction shows Sanskrit is a daughter of the reconstructed proto-language via RV as a conclusion.
(4) the reconstruction is a valid one based on "universal laws of sound change" - universal in the sense of different population groups, cultures and historical periods, and regions.
(5) these "universal laws" are estimated based on samples of modern observable languages
(6) But these modern training samples are based on language groups which have stabilized from pre-existing language using communities, which in turn might have shaped their changes or tendency towards specific changes.
(7) in genetics, pre-existing genetic arrangements can influence direction or nature of change, as well as cumulative change may affect it too. If a similar process is possible in linguistic evolution, we cannot use current training sample based estimation to conclusively guess or estimate sound changes before such accumulation or evolution.

The time ordering, or hierarchy of derivation crucially depends on these "laws" arguments, whicha re themselves rather empirical and stand on some very unsound and misapplication of statistical arguments.

Shiv ji, thats the one I meant.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 29 Jun 2012 19:32

RajeshA wrote:One thing that I found interesting was that in Iran only 11% are of R1a1 haplogroup! So if Indo-Iranians were to have separated from the Central Asian Aryans who were going to make their journey to Europe, then one may have expected Iranians and other ethnic groups like Punjabis and Sindhis to have some similar composition of R1a1.

So there seems to be perhaps a bigger overlap of North Indians (including Pakis) with the Slavs then what Iran has with the Slavs.

I've read that Eastern Iranics and Western Iranics were genetically different, as per some of their own histories. The East Iranics are much closer to Indics in their genetics. The Eastern Iranic areas used to be the center of Iranic civilization for a lot of their history. This area comprised north Afghanistan, Tajikistan, south Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan. The Eastern Iranics have been almost completely replaced by Turko-Mongol invaders. Some of these East Iranics have merged into other populations, such as the West Iranics (present day Iranics) and Indo-Pak area.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 29 Jun 2012 19:35

A useful paper there on the Sanskrit-Slovenian-Russian language links with the discussion on direction of gene flow, etc. Thanks for posting it.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jun 2012 19:43

From Shiv ji's list, the German word for horse as cited struck me as interesting. As far as I know, Pferd cannot be derived from PIE. It comes from a late Latin word - in turn not derived from PIE "ekuos", that means a courier/support/extra horse. There are other words used in german too, but less frequently, as in Gaul or Ross. The last one could be perhaps twisted to be derived from ekuos.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jun 2012 19:45

brihaspati ji,

at the other end of the historical Aryan lineage, in Slovenia, sitting beside Austria, one sees an incredible similarity to Sanskrit and they call themselves Slavs.

Basically if any Slav languages lying geographically in between are different than Slovenian and Sanskrit, then it would be wrong to transport these differences up a hypothetical inheritance chain of languages to Proto-Indo-European or even Proto-Slavic or Proto-Satem, as those changes took place in the languages after they had separated from Sanskrit/India or any hypothetical PIE.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jun 2012 20:16

Many East European languages - show the same - more in traditional "non-educated" usage. In fact some Polish subregional usage is strikingly similar also.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jun 2012 21:33

If you ask my opinion Sanskrit like languages spread from the "Indo Iranian" area - perhaps India itself in two separate directions. One went to east Europe and stayed satem. It was the one that went via Iran and Greece that became centum.

Let me explain again something that I said earlier.

If you take 10 fresh dead bodies and bury 9 of them in graves but put the 10th one in a cold chamber at -50 deg C and then wait for 4000 years what will you find after 4000 years assuming your cold chamber works for that long. You will find that 9 bodies may have rotted away completely but the 10th one looks just like the dead person at the time of freezing.

Instead, take 10 languages. Preserve one of them using a clever system so it does not change for 4000 years. After 4000 years 9 languages will have changed, but the 10th, preserved one will be exactly like the language it was 4000 years ago.

If the 9 other languages are similar today to the old, preserved one, their similarity is present even after 4000 years of change. That suggests that the 9 changed languages were much more similar to the well preserved language 4000 years ago. There is no way of telling if there was an earlier proto-language, or whether the preserved language itself is the proto language. You can make all sorts of clever "dating" arguments to build the story any which way you like. But whichever way you cut it, the well preserved language is the only one that gives you a picture 4000 years into the past.

It is plain silly to make cosmetic changes to the well preserved language and claim "Hey this was the mother language". You just don't know. And using this bluff with a horse bones bluff and genetic bluff is asking to be slammed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jun 2012 21:51

RajeshA wrote:

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 29 Jun 2012 22:27

shiv garu, please post one from the south too for completeness

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 29 Jun 2012 22:31

venug wrote:shiv garu, please post one from the south too for completeness

waheeda rehman is from south

you should be asking from north

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jun 2012 22:31

VenuG, She is from South! Her family used to live in Vizag before she moved to films.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 29 Jun 2012 22:35

Virupaksha garu, ramana garu, I didn't know, Thanks

. That picture says many things. No Virupaksha garu, if a woman from south looks similar to a slav woman, that says everything, no genetic disparity so to speak...only cosmetic.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Jun 2012 22:37

Does the following march of Man match with genetic and language theory (AITee) from 80000 years and 12500 on/out/ward?

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 29 Jun 2012 23:01

ramana wrote:VenuG, She is from South! Her family used to live in Vizag before she moved to films.

Ramana garu, she is from Rajamahendravarmu IIRC.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jun 2012 23:04

I know. Her family used to live near my grand father's house for a short period in Vizag.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jun 2012 23:09

are you guys talking about traits or waheda rahman?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jun 2012 23:11

She is original Orooyan.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 29 Jun 2012 23:35

Elamite (language)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamite_language
Elam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamites

This was in the western part of Iran. It left writings that have been deciphered. And so

"The later Neo-Elamite period is characterized by a significant migration of Indo-European speaking Iranians to the Iranian plateau. Assyrian sources beginning around 800 BC distinguish the "powerful Medes", i.e. the actual Medes,(Parthians, Sagartians, Margians, Bactrians, Sogdians etc.). Among these pressuring tribes were the Parsu, first recorded in 844 BC as living on the southeastern shore of Lake Urmiah, but who by the end of this period would cause the Elamites' original home, the Iranian Plateau, to be renamed Persia proper. These newly arrived Iranic peoples were largely regarded as vassals of the Neo-Assyrian Empire until the late 7th Century BC."

---- So the arrival of Iranians in at least part of Iran is actually documented.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 00:06

does she have a hooked nose?

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 30 Jun 2012 00:20

well my sis has similar features and we are proper TAM-BRAHM from Thanjavur.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 00:26

is she actress too? /kidding.

type: i or y/u ?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 Jun 2012 01:09

Is Baryan a punjabi surname ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2012 06:19

Virupaksha wrote:
venug wrote:shiv garu, please post one from the south too for completeness
waheeda rehman is from south you should be asking from north

Actually I was looking for a photo of an Indian male who looks like the other woman in the photo. But the fact is R1a1 occurs in 25% of tribal men from South India.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 30 Jun 2012 06:51

Anybody looked at this book

Olson, Richard G. Technology and Science in Ancient Civilizations, 2010 Praguer?

The above book is referred to in Wikipedia to say that Indian agriculture is 6000-7000 BCE. If that is the case, it is hard to believe that they did not have any language during that time. Could that be the Proto-Indian which is the mother of PIE? I think we should search for PI instead of PIE.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2012 07:57

matrimc wrote: The above book is referred to in Wikipedia to say that Indian agriculture is 6000-7000 BCE. If that is the case, it is hard to believe that they did not have any language during that time. Could that be the Proto-Indian which is the mother of PIE? I think we should search for PI instead of PIE.

Please permit me another pisk.

I will return to ramana's note that Sanskrit "kapala" (skull) corresponds with Greek "kephale" (head). These words are clearly related. they are cognates despite the biblical origin arguments in which kephale is thought to refer to "source" or "authority" as used in the Bible.

When you look at the words "kephale' and "kapala", of which the sanskrit word is at least 3500 years old (as per "pir reviewed" accepted dates) , and the Greek word is perhaps 2000 years old (used by St. Paul born in 5 AD) exactly what part of your brain decides that both have a common ancestor? Why does your brain not suggest to you that Sanskrit kapala might itself be the ancestor of Greek kephale? The Greek word after all has appeared at least 1500 years after the Sanskrit word

<start pisk>It is only an inability to swallow the idea that Sanskrit may be an ancestor of Greek that would make one try and work backwards to find a common "proto-ancestor" < end pisk>. Proto seems to be the most highly prostituted word in linguistics, used by everyone at his pleasure.

If one finds it difficult to swallow the idea that Greek, found thousands of km away from Sanskrit could be a descendant of Sanskrit and not sister, why should anyone have any taqleef with the idea that Sanskrit is not a descendant of horse grave people of central Asia whose language is not know at all. Either way we have to look at evidence available before making conjecture into fact.

It is only trusting desis such as SN Rajan who state that scholars "must have proof". They bloody well do not have proof a lot of the time. If you start digging you find that these buggers have been bluffing, with no one to question them.

The desire for proto bullshitting reached its height when I looked for the origin of the word "hundred". This delusional crap is un-friggin-believable. Just look at this from Etymology online

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none

Hundred: from PIE *kmtom "hundred" (cf. Skt. satam, Avestan satem, Gk. hekaton, L. centum, Lith. simtas, O.Ir. cet, Bret. kant "hundred")

Can you believe this people? These linguistic Einsteins have taken Sanskrit "shatam", Greek "hekaton" and Bretton "kant" to cook up the unbelievable "PIE" word *kmtom as the original word meaning "hundred". I mean what the f*k? *kmtom? What is *kmtom? "*kmtom" is the mother of shatam? And I am Brad Pitt.

Tell me, if Sanskrit kapala and Greek kephale stay that way from some mythical "proto" ancestor, how did Sanskrit make "shatam" out of *kmtom while Greeks made hekaton out of the same *kmtom? This can happen only by circular reasoning. First you cook up "*kmtom" by combining "satam", "hekaton" and "kant". then you say "Hey lookee here. Eureka! Satam (Sanskrit). Hekaton (Greek) and Kant (Bretton) are ALL derived from *kmtom (PIE), which clearly makes PIE the mother language that existed before all those known languages."

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 30 Jun 2012 09:16

As an interesting connection, Finnish language has a word 'sata' for "hundred", also 'ananas' for "pineapple". Any proof of Finnish having some connection?

Funnily, pre-Christian cultures in other parts of Europe have been subjected to a treatment not dissimilar from what has been attempted on ancient Hindu texts. For example Kalevala is an ancient mahakavya from Finland (passed on in the form of oral tradition) but since it was first printed in text during 19th century it has been assigned a date of 19th century poetry and classified as 'mythology'.

Since it is a small place (relative to Bharat), probably there was less strategic depth to escape the wholesale brainwashing, and now today everyone accepts this as a fact.

Another example is slavic deities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetovid. Even the alternative names appear quite "vedic".

Svetovid: to an untrained person like me, I can atleast make sense of white/clean from svet and knowledgeable/knowing from vid (vidya?). Also the other name of this deity 'Suvid' would sound like an Indian name if it was given to a baby boy.

When these kind of similarities are pointed out, most people in Europe take it as a "funny coincidence", since for them it is hard to even imagine that some place which the "largest open air toilet in the world" has any connection with their heritage.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 09:34

If we say 3500 years then Greeks appear old. If we say 3500 BCE, we appear ancient.

--

BTW, this is interesting:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... tsoc03.htm

In all respects, this wonderful stylized Indian tale has all the elements we could possibly require to show that the Christian and medieval Grail stories are nothing more than a retelling of much more ancient concepts, and that these concepts revolve around a universal and archetypal truth. This truth is that our own immortality and our own salvation lies within our own minds.

and more stories, perhaps realities
http://www.damaruworks.com/bone/skullcups-thopa/

and even if the dates were old and not ancient, how do we prove that one word actually came from the other just by the date of people who lived in a certain period that spans quite some time.. meaning kephale could have borrowed word by way of trading during 1200AD from India. Greeks are know to obtain Indian ornaments, jewels, and spices for a good price tag.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 30 Jun 2012 09:57

4*kmtom % sure the other lady looks like the elder son of Shashi Kapoor. The half blood prince.

Gupta_A ji Re. the Panini link you bring up. Hope you realise the imporatance of the fact that and as pointed out by some other member, Sanskrit existed before Panini. Panini could easily have been working in the light of earlier developments. Also let me put forth a conjecture and lets see if it can be falsified. Panini was an attempt to preserve a very rich tradition that was infact loosing out due to xyz reason. Panini through oral tradition knew much more then he could write about almost like it is the case today when any given writer/academic has more on his mind then what he writes about.

Gupta_A ji, there is a beautiful exposition of the continum of Mantr/BeejMantr/Swar/Sabd/Varn/Akshar/BrahmNaad in work of Shri Raj Malhotra (Being Different - Pages 230 to 232). Since it is copywrited material I doubt if I can scan it here. But you really need to visit/revisit those pages if you want to understand why Panini waving is not exactly good enough an arguement. The first time Panini was brought into this tread was by ManishH ji. He probably wanted some authority behind PIE reconstruction attempts.

Gupta_A ji, I never read Panini. And yet I am ready to wager my August Salary, he would not have given any rules for the reverse engineering of any language that was not in existence during Panini's time and his attempts would have been inspired more by the realisation of the continum so succintly brought out in our times by Shri Raj Malhotra.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 09:59

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 30 Jun 2012 10:01

prahar wrote:kalevala...

Interesting. My ancestors are from Kaluvaya and I used to go to our paddy fields at Kalwacherla and sleep overnight on a manche

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 10:08

http://books.google.com/books?id=q0pBAA ... &q&f=false

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 10:30

A recap of evidences in support of OIT

By Subhash Kak
The Aryans and Ancient Indian History