Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Aug 2012 20:03

What is the known (written or spoken) oldest invasion of any human kind?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Aug 2012 20:17

SaiK wrote:What is the known (written or spoken) oldest invasion of any human kind?

Oldest existing written peace treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian-H ... ace_treaty.

It is not the oldest known peace treaty however.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 26 Aug 2012 20:23

If out-of-Africa genetic migratioin theory put forth by Oppenheimer and others is to be believed, there is proof that migraion into Indian subcontinent happened around 85k...so many treaties might have happened between any warring people for land or women with no written record. And Bhimbetka seems like proof of early colonization of Indian subcontinent. And actually those cave paintings do depict men on horses with what looks like arrows not sure made from what, signs of war perhaps.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 26 Aug 2012 20:32

Arjun wrote:When AIT/AMT-backers say there is archeological evidence to back their theory - I think they are trying to get the benefit of the positive connotations associated with archeology. Dating of historical events through radiometric and other methods has made the study of ancient artifacts a lot more scientific....This false positive connotation needs to be denied to them. The horse and chariot argument is NOT archeological - it is philological.

Some archeologists, like Anthony, may in keeping with the trend towards 'cross disciplinary' work - be using philological arguments...but I would tend to think traditional archeologists would be far more circumspect about deriving conclusions from the absence of datable artifacts, rather than focusing on the ones found. Most Indian archeologists don't support AMT.

Agree. That is the case with Archeoloigst - the scientists. Once one has agenda, all bets are off, irrespective of their educational, cultural and intellectual background.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 26 Aug 2012 20:51

ravi_g wrote: Though this study is about Ganga only but then your theory about Yamuna migrating may be challenged from the POV of the accounting aspects for extra waters in Ganga too. This could provide you with some upper bound for time period of the river course change else if the evidences clash then it could take the whole story much - much beyond OTOH it is a GoI, DST study (carries the establishment chaap with it)

I do not have this study as such with me and would love to be educated by somebody about it. My earlier 2-3 posts were specifically based on the following para from the Gist present on the net w.r.t. this study. Because of this one para i was working under the assumption that something had happened between 20000 ybp to 10000 ybp. Surely if my assumption is wrong from Archeoastronomy POV then could be that we have to find a period even before that.

Thanks for the reference. Significant geological events occured during this 20K BP - 10K BP time interval.
When I refer to Ramayana work and Yamuna, I don't have anything massive - Archeo astronomy and existances of Yamuna/Ganga or Yamuna merging with Ganga etc. - in mind.

Rather, all I was saying is that the conclusion of 'earth core studies -Zircon sampling " that Yamuna had split from Saraswati sometime before 8000 BCE can be corroborated from Ramayana text observations (ordinary non-astronomy observations). Of course Archeo Astronomy evidence is of paramount importance in locating the period of Ramayana itself.

The evidence is scant, but then remember 2 points define the line and 3rd point is capable of screwing up (falsifying) hypotheiss of 'straight line (high value) or corroborating it (low value). In first case, we have to look for another theory, in second guess we know that our theory survived for NOW.

Added -

ravi_g ji, I looked at research of Rajiv Sinha and his team. Based on cursory look, his work is consistent with my research on 2 fonts - (1) research on firm footing per references in Mahabharata, Ramayana, Harivamsha, Samhitas, Brahmanas, Srautasutras- using geology, archeoastronmy, anthropology, genetics etc and (2) speculative research based on Purana referencs and my efforts to corroborate the same with the help of same scientific discipilnes mentioned in (1)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 00:21

Something posted by a blogger on Sulekha by the name of J Luke about Witzel. I found it interesting assessment by him!

Let me point out how fake is Prof. Witzel the foremost proponent of AIT:-

1. In mid 1999 Witzel had to step down as chairman of the Sanskrit Department because of professional irregularities and personal misconduct. He was charged with misusing his position to bring unqualified people to Harvard and also threatening one of his students (possibly more) with a lawsuit for disagreeing with him.

2. One of his favorites, Enrica Garzelli, was expelled by Harvard and sued the university. His latest favorite is one Steve Farmer who claims that DNA research discrediting Witzel's theories is an international conspiracy! So far Witzel's troubles had been confined to Harvard. Thanks to his political meddling, what was Harvard's embarrassment is now an international scandal.

3. Michael Witzel and a small group of his followers, mainly Europeans and the usual Indian hangers-on like Romila Thapar, are almost the last holdouts for the foreign origin theory of the Vedas and Sanskrit as products of the Aryan invasion.

Their academic reputation, what was left of it, rested on the survival of their Aryan theories. Though largely ignored by the Indian media, two major developments have sounded the death knell of the Aryan invasion theory.

These are: (1) genetic evidence showing that the Indian population is almost entirely indigenous with negligible input from outsiders going back to the last Ice Age (more than 10,000 years); and (2) British admission that the Aryan invasion theory was concocted to serve imperial interests, because, "it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier." In 1929, the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin stated in the House of Commons: "Now, after ages, …the two branches of the great Aryan ancestry have again been brought together by Providence… By establishing British rule in India, God said to the British, I have brought you and the Indians together after a long separation, …it is your duty to raise them to their own level as quickly as possible …brothers as you are…" [reference here is perhaps to ASI, ANI integration because of British rule in India... for more details search for British House of commons proceedings... not available on the net.]

4. American Publishers (who originally published Witzel AIT theories) are avoiding Witzel (& Thapar) like the plague now, having incurred delay and losses due to his meddling in California school curriculum (re: Ramayana happened after Mahabharata etc.,) Some (publishers) are facing lawsuits, as is the California State Board of Education, for violating the civil rights of Hindu children in America.

5. Witzel's failure to attract money in America is what seems to have sent Witzel to Pakistan looking for business as an anti-Hindu lobbyist. In the March 12 2009 issue of the Karachi newspaper Dawn, Witzel proudly proclaimed Defeat for Hindutva revisionists, thanks to his lobbying efforts in California. The interesting thing about this advertisement masquerading as an article on education is Witzel's identification of himself as "Professor of South Asia Studies at Harvard." This conceals his real position as Professor of Sanskrit (the position he was sacked from at Harvard in mid 1999 (see 1, 2) Witzel no doubt sensed that Sanskrit is closely associated with Hindu religion and culture so thought "South Asia Studies" may sell better than Sanskrit in Pakistan.

6. The interesting thing about this advertisement (in Dawn Karachi) masquerading as an article on education is Witzel's identification of himself as "Professor of South Asia Studies at Harvard." This conceals his real position as Professor of Sanskrit. He no doubt sensed that Sanskrit is closely associated with Hindu religion and culture. "South Asia Studies" may sell better than Sanskrit in Pakistan.

7. In spring of 2009, California education authorities accepted recommendations to make changes to the depiction of Hinduism and India in textbooks to be used in the State as recommended by Hindu American Foundation (HAF.) If you want to read more about how Witzel and his supporters lost AIT & their arguments to changes in CA-school book depictions of hindu history and what changes were accepted by California School Board please write to: http://www.hafsite.org/

8. Many of Witzel issues are still in California courts (see 4.) Be aware of medling there (on those issues) and be aware of true face of Witzel and Thapar supporters.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 01:03

Nilesh Oak wrote:Timing of Ramayana

Here are three key existing proposals for timing of Ramayana from those many sources.

...

I am looking for origin/researcher/additional details (anything and everything anyone of you can find on this first proposal where source is unknown.
Appreciate your help,

(1) Source unknown -17 Jan 10205 BC

(2) P V Vartak - 4/5 Dec 7323 BC
(I have his Wastav Ramayana, so I am set)

(3) Pushkar Bhatnagar - 10 Jan 5114 BC (I have good info, however if someone has PDF of his book -Ramayana Era?, that would be helpful)

(1) January 17, 10205 BC:

Publication Date: 2002
Ancient History of India through Vedic Astronomy
Authors: Dr S P Sabarathnam , N P Ramadurai & V. Sundaram (Chennai)
Editor: N. Mahalingam
Publisher: International Society for the Investigation of Ancient Civilizations, Chennai

Review of the Book

Published on June 05, 2005
By V. Sundaram
Retired IAS Officer
The Rama Legend: Organizer

They calculated the date based on Vedanga Jyotisha!

An excerpt from their book:

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Aug 2012 01:15

It would be interesting to read dating of say stories associated with shiv puran. Since Lord Shiv is all about forms, and matter.. it would be easy to relate to a geological event.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 27 Aug 2012 01:34

RajeshA wrote:
(1) January 17, 10205 BC:
Dr S P Sabarathnam , N P Ramadurai & V. Sundaram, all from Chennai proposed this date.

Published on June 05, 2005
By V. Sundaram
Retired IAS Officer
The Rama Legend: Organizer

They calculated the date based on Vedanga Jyotisha!

RajeshA ji,

You the man!

Thank you so much. Sent a note to V Sundaram. Waiting for his response.

It is interesting to see effect of cultural background....Sangam literature refers to going back to 20K + years, recent (last 100years. mostly due to Tilak) consensus for Rigveda in Indian psyche was for 4500 BC, and for western world.. earth did not begin before 4000 BC (until ~1800 in scientific circles and until 1950 in social circles).. thus The above Tamil team could comfortably date something in 10,000 BC, while Kak, Frawley, Danino, Rajaram, Talageri are stuck around 4500 BC, and western world stuck at 2000 BC.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 01:43

Nilesh Oak ji,

I have added more information to the post above!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 01:43

From India Divine page:

Sri N. P. Ramadurai has categorically stated in his "Ancient History of India through Vedic Astronomy":

Pages 120-124

I am deeply indebted to those astrologers who have laboured a lot, especially, Prof. K. S. Raghavan who inspired me. Yet, I beg to differ from them on basic issues involved in this study. I strongly advocate that, for reckoning the time correctly, the Indian almanac must be prepared, having the Sapta Rishi Era of B. C., 13-10-15261, as a base, since it agrees with sidereal and luni-solar systems.

My humble finding is that, as we are passing through the Treta Yuga of 29th Mahayuga, from 9th February 1765 A.D., the almanacs may give up the Kali Yuga, assumed incorrectly to have begun from B.C. 25-2-3101 and calculate the Treta Yuga fixed by me. Following are cited as examples to emphasise the relevance and significance of my findings and fixations of dates based on the Vedic astronomy.

The reference date 12-2-1999 A.D. is equated with:

a. the completion of the 17258th Sapta Rishi year calculated from B.C. 13-10-15261;

b. 138th year of 108th Magha cycle;

c. completion of 5137th year of Yudhishtra Saka, calculated from B.C. 27-12-3140;

d. nearing completion of 5099th year of Jayabharatha Yudhishtira Saka calculated from B.C. 6-2-3201;

e. nearing completion of 5099th year of imaginary Kali Yuga, calculated from B.C. '25-2-3101;

f. 59th year of 85th cycle of Tamil Prabhavadi cycle of 60 years;

g. completion of the 5098th year of 29th Mahayuga;

h. completion of 234th year of Treta Yuga;

i. Nearing completion of 2055th year of Vikramasaka B.C. 57 and nearing completion of 1920 years of Salivahana saka calculated from B.C. 79.

ASTRONOMICAL DATA AS AID TO THE STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT INDIA

SI. Events Dates in Christian Era no of days from and day 13-10-15261 B.C Friday

(28th Maha Yuga (Night of Brahma in B.C.)

1. Commencement of Krutha Yuga 13-10-15261 Friday As Sapta Rishi Era, inaugurated by Vaivaswatha Manu}

2. Treta Yuga started 12-11-10397 Thursday 1776607

3. lord Ramo's birth 17 - 1-1O205 Monday 1846436

4. Hanuman's birth 22- 1-10205 Saturday 1846441

5. Ravana's Death 8- 1-10167 Friday 1860307

6. Lord Rama's Coronation 15-1-10167 Friday . 1860314

7. Dvapara Yuga Started 5-12-6749 Tuesday- 3109062

8. Julian Day 1-1- 4713 Thursday 3852373

9. Kali Yuga started 20-12-4317 Friday 3997365

10. Lord Krishna's birth 23- 7-3185 Wednesday 4410678

11. Yudhishtira's Yagna 25-10-3155 Tuesday 4421730

12. Yudhishtira saka started 27-12- 3140 Sunday 4427272

13. Mahabharata war started 29.10.3139 Friday 4427578

14. Mahabharata war ended 15.11.3139 Monday 4427595

15. Yudhishtira's coronation 27-12-3139 Monday 4427637

16. Rathasapthami 2-1-3138 Sunday 4427643

17. Bheeshamashtami 3-1-3138 Monday 4427644

18. Astronomically Kali Yuga ended 11-12-3105 Saturday 4440039

19. Astronomically Krutha Yuga of 29th Maho Yuga storIed 12.12.3105 Sunday 4440040

20. Jayabharatha Yudhishtira saka 6-2-3101 Thursday , 4441192

21. Pnchanga kaliyuga started 25-2-3101 Tuesday 4441211

22. End of Kali Yuga of 28th Maha Yuga 27-12-3101 Saturday 4441516

23. Krutha Yuga starIed 28-12-3101 Sunday 4441517

24. Janamejaya Copper Plate 3013-3012

25. Birth of Adi Sankara 2-4-509 Tuesday 5387975

26. End of Krutha Yuga 8.2.1765 A.D. Friday 6218122

27. Treta Yuga Started 9.2.1765 A.D. Saturday 6218123

THE BEGINNING OF INDIAN CALENDAR. ITS HOARY ANTIQUITY

The duration of great cyclic periods such as the cycle of Sapta Rishi Era, Maha Yuga Cycle, Maagha Cycle and the rate of precession of equinoxes have been well ascertained by our Vedic Rishis even earlier than 15000 years ago. Various statements and descriptions contained in the Vedic texts, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Vishnu Purana, Bhagavatam, etc, evidently prove this fact. The recent researches which have been undertaken in the field of Vedic astronomy based on Ancient Scriptures enable us to establish the truth that our Bharath was the first country to evolve and streamline a perfect calendar (almanac) according to the code rules and guidelines provided by Vaivaswatha Manu who commenced the Great Era of Sapta Rishi.

The Sapta Rishi Era started on the first day of Kruta Yuga of the 28th Maha Yuga cycle, this being the night time of Creator God Brahma, occurring in the period of Vaivaswatha Manu, the 7th Manu of Svetavaraha Kalpa. It was 13-10-15261 B. C., Friday. According to the Tamil tradition, this was exactly the first day of the bright half of Tamil Kumbha Masi of Sarvari year with Sravishta nakhatra. From this, it may be reasonably deduced that our Bharath was the first nation on Earth to design a schemed calendar.

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

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 27 Aug 2012 01:46

SaiK wrote:It would be interesting to read dating of say stories associated with shiv puran. Since Lord Shiv is all about forms, and matter.. it would be easy to relate to a geological event.

Dating would be great.

But at a minimum..possible analogies/mythologies between puranic instances and geological/agricultural/civilization events could/should be sought.

e.g. Samudra Manthan - could be geological event (flood/massive tectonic changes, sea level changes) followed by establishment of civilization.

Shiva drinking poison - managing rapid flow of crude oil

as a result of tectonic shift.

and not limiting to Shiva,
Sunda -Upasunda (two groups within or two civilizations, communities. etc. ) fighting for Tilottama (Tila-uttma) best seeds of Seasame! (agriculture/land/etc.).

Mohini during distribution of Amrit to Dev and Danav, who came together to generate/loot wealth. Modern counterpart is Western European countries/including USA getting together with Eastern block (Stalin) to loot defeated Germany and to divide the landscape.

Another geological event (Bhagavat Purana) comes to mind is..... After following Mohini for a distance, Shiva ejaculats semen.. which turns into hills/mountains of gold and other metals/minerals etc.

Tectonic shifts are responsible for creating 'diamonds' and moving stuff from the ocean floor to mountains (Corals are found in Nepal - Himalaya mountains. this is because as Indian continent pushes against mainland Asia, the geological action does bring portion of ancient ocean floor (that existed between India and Asia) up at this interphase.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 27 Aug 2012 01:58

RajeshA ji,

Quoting something from one of your recent refernces.. related to Ramayana date from Tamiland,

But there is one author (R.R. Karnik) who agrees with NPR on the yuga periods being only 'earthly' years. His article on how the large numbers such as 4,320,000 years for a mahayuga came into being, is interesting. In Ref. No.3, basing his thoughts on an intensive study of Surya Siddhanta, he writes:

In the hightech uses of computer technology there is an area called simulation, in which time is used in two different manners. One is called 'real time' and the other 'non-real time' - either slow motion or fast motion. The surprising thing is that Surya Siddhanta makes use of this concept of time. All the arithmetics in the Surya siddhanta is in terms of integers for which sometimes 'real time' is not suitable. Some people believe that these huge number of years correspond to an LCM of the periods of revolution of the planets around the sun. ...

The answer is simple and elementary. The least count used in Surya siddhanta for general computations is one kala or minute of the arc of which there are 21,600 in the whole circle. If one has to specify the movement of planetary element to the accuracy of one kala in a year a period of 21,600 years will have to be taken. This is the period of a mahayuga and its tenth part which is 2160 years is the period of kaliyuga. ...

The accuracy of one kala in a year is not adequate. To therefore obtain an accuracy of one two-hundredth of a kala in a year, a period that is 200 times 21,600, that is, 4,320,000 years is necessary. The first number of 21,600 years is the real time and the other number of 4,320,000 years taken for a mahaytuga is the frame-time or the non-real time. ...

Surya siddhanta says (i.10) "The time which destroys is the real time and the other kind of time is for the purpose of computations. They are of two kinds, the gross one is used for real time and the firm one for the purpose of computations.' 'Such thousand yugas, of the all destroying kind, are called a day or kalpa of brahma the night being of equal duration.'

This reminds me a paper of John Playfair, where he quotes how a Indian Brahmin (Asrologer/astonomer -same thing as Jyotish in those days) would go through lengthy calculations - multiple rounds of a individual planet and then subtract small number/correction to arrive at accurate position of planet/eclipse/conjuction etc.

But I better avoid digression and get back to Ramayana.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 27 Aug 2012 02:07

Nilesh Oak wrote:
All the arithmetics in the Surya siddhanta is in terms of integers for which sometimes 'real time' is not suitable. Some people believe that these huge number of years correspond to an LCM of the periods of revolution of the planets around the sun. ...

The answer is simple and elementary. The least count used in Surya siddhanta for general computations is one kala or minute of the arc of which there are 21,600 in the whole circle. If one has to specify the movement of planetary element to the accuracy of one kala in a year a period of 21,600 years will have to be taken. This is the period of a mahayuga and its tenth part which is 2160 years is the period of kaliyuga. ...

The accuracy of one kala in a year is not adequate. To therefore obtain an accuracy of one two-hundredth of a kala in a year, a period that is 200 times 21,600, that is, 4,320,000 years is necessary. The first number of 21,600 years is the real time and the other number of 4,320,000 years taken for a mahaytuga is the frame-time or the non-real time. ...

And let me propose a theory...John Playfair refers to these Brahmins using 'seashells' in doing these lengthy calculations, where they would roll these seashells (not unlike dice (6 faces) or die (2 of them with many permitationsand combinations from 2 to 12) in making complex calculations.

Interestingly Mahabharata text uses the words 'Krita' and 'Dwapara'....see page 143 of my book.... (words for Yuga) also in the sense of combination obtained while rolling a dice in the game of Dyuta!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Aug 2012 02:13

I think dating of this game is wrong too:
Out of Africa

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

---

http://www.wikimanqala.org/wiki/Pallankuzhi

O Ruler of Ayodhya, of the inestimable form!
I have the desire to listen
To my hearts fill and my ears delight, your sweet speech
That you and Sita and spoke with true love and understanding,
Gazing at each other, when you played a game of Pallanguzhi
With her and won, which was heard by Bharata and Hanuman.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 02:16

Nilesh Oak ji,

So there are three scholars Sri Yukteswar, N. P. Ramadurai and R.R. Karnik, who are of the view that the Yugas are not in Divya years but normal solar years!

However I don't understand why R.R. Karnik refers to Kaliyuga being 2,160 years long, when it has been defined as 1,200 years. I will have to look at their work a bit more to better understand them!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 27 Aug 2012 02:25

RajeshA wrote:Nilesh Oak ji,

So there are three scholars Sri Yukteswar, N. P. Ramadurai and R.R. Karnik, who are of the view that the Yugas are not in Divya years but normal solar years!

However I don't understand why R.R. Karnik refers to Kaliyuga being 2,160 years long, when it has been defined as 1,200 years. I will have to look at their work a bit more to better understand them!

If you are willing to consider me 'a scholar', then there are at least 4 of them who view Yugas as not Divya.

Would you email me the links of Karnik you posted (but may be re-edited again), please? Thank you.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 03:04

Nilesh Oak ji,

And then there were four! I will stay outside and believe in non-Divya Yugas anyway!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 03:27

Published on Jul 19, 1996
By R.R Karnik
Yuga, Mahayuga and Kalpa: Hindunet

Many people including Indian astronomers such as Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Bhaskaracharya, as also experts outside India such as Whitney, Burgess, Bentley, etc. believe that one Kaliyuga, is of 432,000 years, one Mahayuga is ten times this as much (4,320,000 years) and one Kalpa is a thousand times Kaliyuga (4,320,000,000 years). Many knowledgeable people just do not accept these large numbers and reject such astronomy.

It appears that these numbers have a bearing on the dating of Ramayana. According to Valmiki the period of Ramayana is at the beginning of Tretayuga. Reckoning with these numbers some archaeologists found volcanic ash which was 1,400,000 years old and associated it with the period of the Ramayana. On the other hand, there are others who assert that the Ramayana occured about 8000 years ago.

Various forms of Indian arithmetic have already found an honourable place in the history of mathematics. It was known that complex mathematics is available in the Surya Siddhanta, which is reputed to be very ancient. Since these huge numbers of years for Yuga and Kalpa were to be found in this Siddhanta, I had avoided studying it. But in my search for higher mathematics in ancient India, I read this document in original Sanskrit, analysing each word and its syntax. The knowledge contained in this document is truly of a high quality. The document could not have been written in the historical period of the fifth century A.D. with the advent of Aryabhata and Varahamihira, as the logic for the use of these huge number of years was not been understood by them.

In the hightech uses of computer technology there is an area called simulation, in which time is used in two different manners. One is called "real time" and the other, "non-real time" -- either slow motion or fast motion. The surprising thing is that the Surya Siddhanta makes use of this concept of time. All the arithmetics in the Surya Siddhanta is in terms of integers for which some times "real time" is not suitable.

Some people believe that these huge number of years correspond to an L.C.M. of the periods of revolution of the planets around the sun. There have been attempts in Vedanga Jyotisha, where a period of five years has been used and by Varahamihira in Romaka Siddhanta using 2,850 years. Cicero gives 12,954 years in the thirty-fifth fragment of Hortensius by the name of Magnun Annum. Neither of these numbers can divide 4,32,000. In fact no number however large can give an integer multiple of the number of years required.

The answer is simple and elementary. The least count used in Surya Siddhanta for general computations is one Kala or minute of the arc of which there are 21,600 in the whole circle. If one has to specify the movememnt of planetary element to the accuracy of one Kala in a year a period of 21,600 years will have to be taken. This is the period of a Mahayuga and its tenth part which is 2,160 years is the period of Kaliyuga. Dwaparyuga is twice this or 4,320 years, Tretayuga is thrice this or 6,480 years and Krutayuga is four times this or 8,640 years, all four totaling up to 21,600 years.

The accuracy of one Kala in a year is not adequate. To therefore obtain an accuracy of one two-hundredth of a Kala in a year, a period that is two hundred times 21,600 or 4,320,000 years is necessary. The first number of 21,600 years is the real time and the other number of 4,320,000 years taken for Mahayuga is the frame time or the non-real time.

The Surya Siddhanta records in i. 10:

"Lokanam antarkt kalah kalonyah kalanatmakah
Sa dvidha sthulasuksmatvan murtas ca amurta uccyate".

Rendered in English it means:

"The time which destroys is the real time the other kind of time is for the purpose of computations. They are of two kinds, the gross one is used for real time use and the firm one for the purpose of computations."

For the movement of the apogee of the sun this frame time of 4,320,000 years is not adequate and a number ten times this is required which is 43,200,000 years called Kalpa. This is given in the Surya Siddhanta i.20, thus,

"ittham yuga sehesrena bhutasanharakarkah
kaIpo brahmam ahah proktam sarvari tasya tavati"

"Such thousand yugas, of the all destroying kind, are called a day
or Kalpa of Brahma the night being of equal duration."

The Surya Siddhanta gives the rates of motions of apogees and nodes starting from i.41. It starts with the apogee of the sun which rate is given by:

"Braggate surya mandasya kalpe saptastavahnayah"

"The apogee (mandocca) of sun goes eastwards 387 (bhagana) in a Kalpa."

The computation of the modern value is as follows:

Code: Select all

Mean motion of the sun (tropical)   36000.76892    degrees per 100 years 
Motion of precession                -1.39571       degrees per 100 years 
Mean sidereal motion  of the sun    35999.37321    degrees per 100 years 
Motion of anomaly                   35999.04975    degrees per 100 years 
Motion of apogee                   .32346          degrees per 100 years 

which is X 1200                    = 388.152 bhagana in a Kalpa

This is the fineness with which the motion of the apogee of the sun has been given in the Surya Siddhanta.

Surya Siddhanta (i.2) states:

"alpavasiste tu krte mayonama mahasurah
rahasyam paramam punyam jijnasur jnanam uttamam"

A short time (10 to 12 years according to critics) before the end of Krutayuga, a great Asura named Maya sought to acquire this high quality knowledge endowed with spiritual blessings."

At the end of the Surya Siddhanta there are two verses describing that when the sages came to know that the Sun has blessed the Maha Asura Maya with the knowledge of astronomy, they went to him with great respect, touched his feet and prayed that this knowledge be given to them. Maya then with great love and affection (in a thorough and complete manner) imparted this knowledge to them. Xiv. 26-27.

"jnatva tamrsyasc atha surylabdhavaram mayam
paribabrurupety atho jnanam pepracchur adarat (Xiv.26)

sa tebbyah pradadau pritau grahanam caritam mahat
etyadbhutatamam loke rahasyam brahmasammitam II 27 II

This period would be at the end of Krutayuga and the beginning of the Tretayuga.

The period of Ramayana is of Tretayuga. Mayasura is the father of Mandodari the wife of Ravana. It is obvious that this knowledge was obtained by the sages before the Great War between Rama and Ravana. After his defeat it is said that Mayasura went home by the land route in a westward direction to his place. There is a reference to a period of counting of 360 days, visibility of Sagittarius in the land of Asuras (when Aeries is visible in the land of Suras) and the sky in the land of Asuras rotating in the clockwise direction (when it rotates in an anti-clockwise direction in the land of Suras) in the Surya Suddhanta suggesting a link with the South American continent for Maya and with the Mayan culture there. It is to be noted that the fifth ice age was on at this time and journey from Europe to the American continent would have been possible by land route at that time. It is said that Mayasura travelled using this route.

If a learned person like Maya has to "run away", then what can one say of his disciples and his teachings. It also seems that this knowledge had to be practised in a surreptitious manner, bearing the wrath of royal displeasure. It seems that Aryabhata got this method of astronomy official recognition, however, in the time from Maya to Aryabhatta much knowledge was lost.

Aryabhatiya shastra has two distinct parts. One of the parts consists of 108 Aryas taken from the Surya Siddhanta and the other part contains 10 Giti -- the original compositions of Aryabhata. On this Brahmagupta scathingly attacks Aryabhata (Brahmasputa Siddhanta ix.8 )

"aryastasate pata bhramanti dasagitike sthirah pata"

[In 108 Arya the nodes rotate (but) in 10 Giti they are stationary.]

But Bhaskara tries to defend Aryabhata.

"atyanta suksmaisam gatir mahata kalena kiyate apy upaciyate
tayoh stokatvad antarasya viksepah sphuta eva laksante"

[A mere eye wash. because of the extremely slow motion even after large periods of time the deviation is correct i.e. is negligible.]

Obviously, none of the three, Aryabhata, Bhaskara or Brahmagupta had any knowledge of the correct number of years to be taken for the revolutions of the apogee of the sun. After them no one has been able to decipher the mystery of the revolutions of apogees and nodes of the planets.

Indian astronomy has been possessed by these non-real time computation of Mahayuga and Kalpa and their influence still remains. It has become almost impossible to view the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata in an objective manner due to this. The correct measure that can be seen in the light of the mathematical contents of Surya Siddhanta for Kaliyuga, Mahayuga and Kalpa, have been given here. This may perhaps help in exorcising-the influence of imaginary numbers which have afflicted the thinking in India for several centuries.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Aug 2012 07:46

I had hypothesized earlier:

One possibility is to hypothesize that a basic Indo European vocabulary spread early in human history - let me say 40,000 years ago. It may have become widesperad over Europe and Asia. Germanic languages are said to have a mixture of Basque. There is a hypothesis that the Basques were descended partly from interbreeding with Neanderthals, and that Basque may have been a Neanderthal language. If proto-Basque was a pre existing language in Europe then the migrating IE people would have mixed with them.

In the case of India, perhaps the earliest human migrations in the North (not along the coast) were Indo-European speaking. If all later migrations to India came from Indo-European speaking areas, it would mean that Indo-European languages form superstrate, substrate and adstrate in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is Creole of Prakrit+Prakrit+more Prakrit. Not only would this explain lack of mixture with other non IE langauges, it would also suggest great antiquity for Sanskrit as claimed and it would not go against the horse origin hypothesis.

It turns out that one Shri Lubotsky actually has some evidence for the part of the hypothesis that is in bold text
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstr ... sequence=1

it indicates that, to put it carefully, a
substratum of Indo-Iranian and a substratum of Indo-Aryan represent the same language, or, at
any rate, two dialects of the same language. In order to account for this fact, we are bound to
assume that the language of the original population of the towns of Central Asia, where Indo-
Iranians must have arrived in the second millennium BCE, on the one hand, and the language
spoken in Punjab, the homeland of the Indo-Aryans, on the other, were intimately related.4

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 27 Aug 2012 10:46

RajeshA wrote: b) My book (2000) points out that the later Mandalas contain hymns fictitiously attributed to ancestors. Mandala 10, for example attributes a hymn to the ancestral Sudas, who is the hero of Mandalas 3 and 7. No scholar, so far as I know, has used this to claim that book 10 is older than or in line with books 3 and 7.

When convenient, Shri Talageri terms the anukramaṇi authoritative. When inconvenient, they are "fictitiously attributed". This is setting new standards in data interpretation.

Maṇḍala VI is a Bharadvāja kula-maṇḍala. It was maintained by that clan for generations. Labelling the entire maṇḍala as belonging to "earlier period" is a spurious claim.

ManishH wrote:2. There is no mention of 'yamuna' in maṇḍala VI.
Yamuna is not mentioned in book 6. So what?

So - it's called inventing data. When Shri Talageri gives a graphic in his book :
http://www.hindubooks.org/dynamic_inclu ... /img20.jpg

The graphic claims yamuna in the row of maṇḍala VI. Whereas the fact is that there is no yamuna in that whole maṇḍala. As Shri Talageri himself says " A picture is worth a thousand words". He is well aware that speed-reading will only glance at the graphic, so he can slip in non-facts. Whereas reality is something else.

There is no reason why every book should mention every river of their area.

The "area" here is Ganga which empties in the Bay of Bengal. If Yamuna can be inferred (inspite of not being mentioned) by liberal extrapolation, then why not the Hoogly, or the Brahmaputra too. This kind of methodology is very loose.

Book 6 mentions Sarasvati and Ganga. And not only book 6, all the old books (2-4, 6-7) and even the middle book 5, mention the lakes, mountains, places and animals of the east (all of which are known to the new books as well), but not a single lake, mountain, place or animal of the west (which are all abundantly mentioned in the new books)

This claim is totally wrong. The maṇḍala 5 mentions kubhā, krumu, sindhu - all are rivers in the west ...

RV_05.053.09.1 mā vo rasānitabhā kubhā krumur mā vaḥ sindhur ni rīramat
RV_05.053.09.2 mā vaḥ pari ṣṭhāt sarayuḥ purīṣiṇy asme īt sumnam astu vaḥ

So much for the "not a single place in the west". In the boundless enthusiasm to place genesis of ṛgveda in the area of Ganga river, Shri Talageri has forgotten to refer to the altas.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 27 Aug 2012 11:03

shiv wrote:
ManishH wrote:No purely linguistic technique can be used to derive the homeland. One needs archaeological proof of linguistic markers. In the case of the AIT debate, the horse and chariot language terminology is one such marker.
There is no linguistic marker for language in the Pontic Steppe. Therefore horse and "chariot language terminology". Note that the words "chariot language terminology" are purely linguistic, but we need to ignore that contradiction when schlolars say it.

Spoken languages don't leave markers. One has to use archaeological evidence to find markers of a technology. Indo-European language family shares the terms for horse, wagon, chariot. They share it in the same deep way, that they share the terms for kinship, body parts and common verbs. The same set of sound changes govern all the shared vocabulary.

Archaeological evidence of the horse domestication and chariotry is all in the Eurasian steppes starting with horse domestication at Botai (3,500 BC) and evidence of fast, horse driven chariots (2100 BC) in Sintashta-Arkaim.

Horse evidence exists in Pontic steppe. "chariot language terminology" exists in many cultures. But when did it come to India? 150 AD is the best evidence we have. But how can Sanskrit with "chariot language terminology" from 150 AD be connected with Pontic steppe 2000 BC?

150 AD is only the direct inscriptional evidence. Sanskrit was spoken way before it was written. ṛgveda is the earliest Sanskrit text and it mentions horses tied to theology. The earliest ṛgveda could have been composed is when horse evidence are begun to be found on the Indian subcontinent. The earliest accepted evidence for horse domestication on the Indian subcontinent is Pirak (1700 BC). An earlier evidence which I think is also acceptable is Surkotada (2100 - 1700 BC).

Sadly there is no evidence. If we are to follow the dictum quoted by Manishji: "A theory should stand on facts"

The above are all independently verifiable facts. Theorizing that horse bones before early 2nd millenium BC have all been "methodically destroyed" or cremated or rotted is all fantasy.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Aug 2012 11:17

manish ji, guess what ? the indo-european language family also shares terms for computer, bus, telephone etc. all it shows is that Indian languages have adopted those items from the west and retained the terms used by the original users.

I strongly suspect that it's the same for horses. also, I haven't seen a credible explanation why the vedic people didn't ride horses to battle unlike their steppe 'brothers'.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 27 Aug 2012 11:33

RajeshA wrote: Initially horses were used mostly by the royalty and increasingly by the cavalry,

There is no basis for this statement. Even the vedic ṛṣi's used horses as seen in the multiple dāna-stuti-s where horses are prayed for and given as gifts. And where are you seeing "cavalry" in vedic society

? There is no mention of "cavalry" (defined as horse-mounted warfare) anywhere in ṛgveda.

so one would expect the remains to be disposed of more methodically than with other animals, who were either wild or domesticated and available among the commons!

Please. Where is the evidence in Indian texts for the tradition of "methodically disposing" of horse remains ? If I have to believe you, not only were horse remains methodically disposed, but also all evidence of horse paraphrenalia like snaffle, cheek pieces (some of which has to be metal) was also methodically disposed.

This is just a tall tale you are inventing. The invention is necessary because the lack of evidence or horse remains in India during the fantastic dates of 3,000 BC or 5,000 BC needs to be covered up.

If OIT enthusiasts are to be believed, this disposal was so methodical only before 2nd millenium BC. Thereafter, the "methodic disposal" suddenly comes to a halt and we start finding horse in the archaeological footprint.

Since mostly Indians used to cremate themselves

Really

? "Cremate themselves" ?

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 27 Aug 2012 12:12

Rahul M wrote:manish ji, guess what ? the indo-european language family also shares terms for computer, bus, telephone etc. all it shows is that Indian languages have adopted those items from the west and retained the terms used by the original users.

The three words you show are all loan words in Indian languages. Whereas words for horse, chariot, wagon have undergone the same regular sound changes as that of kinship terms and common verbs. Therefore horse, chariot and wagon terms cannot be mere loan words; but part of shared pre-dispersal vocabulary.

This was explained in detail in this post.

I strongly suspect that it's the same for horses. also, I haven't seen a credible explanation why the vedic people didn't ride horses to battle unlike their steppe 'brothers'.

Archaeology of steppe shows that cavalry (riding a horse to battle) was a much later technology. Please check wiki article on Cavalry for origins of horse use in battle. To be effective, this activity needs stirrups which were not even invented when IE languages dispersed. The stereotype of horse riding steppe warriors comes from much later, Iron age Mongols or Scythians that is part of popular imagination.

IOW, no evidence that riding horses to battle even existed in steppe at the putative time of the beginning of IE dispersals (late 3rd millenium BC/early 2nd millenium BC).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Aug 2012 12:48

I will check out our point about loan word but you are quite incorrect about historical use of cavalry. please do not cite wiki as a source.

stirrups are not necessary for cavalry warfare, let alone simple horse riding. they are anyway a pretty recent invention, having spread to europe around 500 CE or so. many celebrated cavalry units through history have operated without stirrups (alexander's companion cavalry f.e) and even saddles (numidian cavalry, that hannibal barca used to tremendous effect against the romans).

the records of steppe invasions into assyria (3rd and 2nd millenia) also attest to horse riding invaders from the steppe. the assyrians however used cavalry mainly in the form of chariots and even when they used horse riding forces, it was a very clumsy arrangement in which 2 people rode on two horses, one controlled both horses and the other shot arrows.
what I find interesting is that nowhere in the vedas is there a ref of horse riding cavalry, it's either chariots or at most using horses as a mode conveyance to battle, after which the warriors dismounted and fought on foot ! very un steppe like.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 27 Aug 2012 13:36

Stirrups were invented in India

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

First Known Examples of Stirrups:

So what do we know? Chinese Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi's terracotta army (c. 210 BCE) includes a number of horses, but their saddles do not have stirrups. In sculptures from ancient India, c. 200 BCE, bare-footed riders use big-toe stirrups. These early stirrups consisted simply of a small loop of leather, in which the rider could brace each big toe to provide a bit of stability. Suitable for riders in hot climates, however, the big-toe stirrup would have been no use for booted riders in the steppes of Central Asia or western China.

Interestingly, there is also a small Kushan engraving in carnelian that shows a rider using hook-style or platform stirrups; these are L-shaped pieces of wood or horn that do not encircle the foot like modern stirrups, but rather provide a sort of foot-rest. This intriguing engraving seems to indicate that Central Asian riders may have been using stirrups circa 100 CE, but it is the only known depiction from that region, so more evidence is needed to conclude that stirrups were indeed in use in Central Asia from such an early age.

Modern-style Stirrups:

The earliest known representation of a modern-style enclosed stirrups comes from a ceramic horse figurine that was buried in a First Jin Dynasty Chinese tomb near Nanjing in 322 CE.

http://asianhistory.about.com/od/asiani ... tirrup.htm

Stirrups Reach Europe:

Meanwhile, European riders made do without stirrups until the eighth century. The introduction of this idea (which earlier generations of European historians credited to the Franks, rather than Asia), allowed for the development of heavy cavalry. Without the stirrups, European knights could not have gotten on to their horses wearing heavy armor, nor could they have jousted. Indeed, the Middle Ages in Europe would have been quite different without this simple little Asian invention.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 27 Aug 2012 14:00

[youtube]A_JAoojCHC0&feature=related[/youtube]

Shivji, you'll like this one. Claims that sanskrit comes from anatolian and discusses indo-aryan branch of PIE.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 14:20

ManishH wrote:
RajeshA wrote: Initially horses were used mostly by the royalty and increasingly by the cavalry,
There is no basis for this statement. Even the vedic ṛṣi's used horses as seen in the multiple dāna-stuti-s where horses are prayed for and given as gifts. And where are you seeing "cavalry" in vedic society ? There is no mention of "cavalry" (defined as horse-mounted warfare) anywhere in ṛgveda.

Well if the word 'cavalry' seems to bother you, we can say 'regime sustaining apparatus, which uses horses'! In that apparatus, royalty is at the top of the pyramid, so they would have earlier access to the virtues of Horse.

Here is something you wrote:

ManishH wrote:Shiv: Roving bards and their patronization by kings is a cross-IE phenomenon. The concept of 'śravas akṣiti' (fame immortal) echoes in multiple similar phrases in IE world "kleos apthiton". Basically, kings believed that words of Bards (Oral Tradition) could make them immortal or be damned forever. Just search Rg for 'śravas'. Therefore patronization by kings of sages was quite common. There is no evidence that RgVeda sages were purely sedentary. They have knowledge of considerable breadth of the land.

Added later: Eg. see the similies that RgVeda sages use - nothing to do with agriculture - a lot with equestrian, chariotry and cattle rearing. Compare to similies used by Kabir (weaver).

The comparativist Dumezil's work studying many Epics across IE world concludes very close symbiotic relationship between the priest/bard and Kings in various IE cultures. I'm sure you have heard of Brahma/Kṣatra alliance.

So considering all this 'śravas akṣiti' based economy, wouldn't it be natural that the kings would donate/do dāna/dō- horses to those, who sing to their fame and provide advice on a host of matters?

And the kings would be getting their horses naturally through trade with regions outside the Subcontinent or having their own limited breeding programs!

ManishH wrote:
so one would expect the remains to be disposed of more methodically than with other animals, who were either wild or domesticated and available among the commons!
Please. Where is the evidence in Indian texts for the tradition of "methodically disposing" of horse remains ? If I have to believe you, not only were horse remains methodically disposed, but also all evidence of horse paraphrenalia like snaffle, cheek pieces (some of which has to be metal) was also methodically disposed.

This is just a tall tale you are inventing. The invention is necessary because the lack of evidence or horse remains in India during the fantastic dates of 3,000 BC or 5,000 BC needs to be covered up.

Well tallest tale is of course AIT. But anyway....

Question is why would you expect anything less than methodical from those who wrote the Vedas and other texts, those who prepared and conducted the Yajnas and those who later on went to build the very methodical cities one sees in the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization.

The level of methodical application of certain customs would decrease if the domain of such application is too large, or if the agents of such application are not well versed. None of that would be true in the case of a 'regime sustaining apparatus' which is by its nature methodical and the domain is small with relatively few horses to tend to.

Or would you expect the royal stables to simply throw the dead horses on the streets of their cities, to let them rot and cause diseases.

You yourself have said that 'cavalry' i.e. 'horse mounted warfare' came much later, and so one would not see many horse remains on old battlefields! No?

ManishH wrote:If OIT enthusiasts are to be believed, this disposal was so methodical only before 2nd millenium BC. Thereafter, the "methodic disposal" suddenly comes to a halt and we start finding horse in the archaeological footprint.

What is so surprising about that? When the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization came to an end at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, there would have been much turmoil in society and waves of refugees, internally displaced people moving to other places in the Subcontinent and beyond! Under such circumstances, I believe, they should be excused if their carelessness and less than methodical approach have 'spoiled' the archaeological strata!

Bottom Line: AIT-proponents have to prove that the mention of Horse in the Rigveda in praise, reverence, popularity, demand, etc. is NOT a consequence of

misunderstanding that this mention does not refer to the abstract notion of Aśvaḥ being relentless energy, kinetic power, endurance!
availability due to trade
availability of other equus species, which are also being termed as Aśvaḥ.

ManishH wrote:
Since mostly Indians used to cremate themselves
Really ? "Cremate themselves" ?

You are obviously not familiar with the invention of Ancient Indians called Anti-Soma. Just before death, a person would drink it and it would spread throughout the body. When the normal physiological processes in the body cease, the compound use to catch fire!

People used to do this because one couldn't rely on the wayward children to do the cremation ceremony! The children were usually too busy doing proto-Bhangra!

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 27 Aug 2012 15:31

Rahul M wrote: stirrups are not necessary for cavalry warfare, let alone simple horse riding.

I agree about horse riding, but the context of discussion was cavalry warfare.

Stirrups are not necessary - but needed for such warfare to be effective. Without them, the kind of balance needed to either hurl a spear or keep a bow steady is not possible. Moreover, in the 2nd millenium BC, there was no composite bow yet. The longbow makes it even more
clumsy to carry on a horse.

they are anyway a pretty recent invention, having spread to europe around 500 CE or so.

Exactly. That's my point. The stirrups being so late an invention, that the absence of mounted warfare in ṛgveda is expected.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 27 Aug 2012 15:43

RajeshA wrote: And the kings would be getting their horses naturally through trade with regions outside the Subcontinent or having their own limited breeding programs!

First OIT will have to find trace of horse and horse furniture in the Indian subcontinent at the timelines where it proposes Mahabharata and ṛgveda to have been composed. Only then the question of trade, breeding programs comes.

RajeshA wrote:
ManishH wrote: Please. Where is the evidence in Indian texts for the tradition of "methodically disposing" of horse remains ?
Question is why would you expect anything less than methodical from those who wrote the Vedas and other texts, those who prepared and conducted the Yajnas and those who later on went to build the very methodical cities one sees in the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization.

So, basically, you don't have a single textual reference to backup this "methodically disposing of horse" fable. Not only are horse remains incinerated, but also any trace of non-organic objects like snaffle, cheekpiece too - anything remotely connected to the horse was incinerated by pre-2nd millenium BC Indians.

Or would you expect the royal stables to simply throw the dead horses on the streets of their cities, to let them rot and cause diseases.

Again you use a word like "cities". Where are "cities" even mentioned in ṛgveda ? If I have to believe you, not only are there "horse imports/breeding programs", but also "cities" and "methodical disposing" of horses during ṛgveda. Keep spinning the yarn sir.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 16:16

ManishH wrote:
RajeshA wrote: b) My book (2000) points out that the later Mandalas contain hymns fictitiously attributed to ancestors. Mandala 10, for example attributes a hymn to the ancestral Sudas, who is the hero of Mandalas 3 and 7. No scholar, so far as I know, has used this to claim that book 10 is older than or in line with books 3 and 7.
When convenient, Shri Talageri terms the anukramaṇi authoritative. When inconvenient, they are "fictitiously attributed". This is setting new standards in data interpretation.

Isn't one allowed to say, that such and such person said such and such thing in the past? From the context it becomes clear!

ManishH wrote:Maṇḍala VI is a Bharadvāja kula-maṇḍala. It was maintained by that clan for generations. Labelling the entire maṇḍala as belonging to "earlier period" is a spurious claim.

The Bharadvāja or ANgirases also had Mandala IV as a kula-maṇḍala, which comes later for the descendant rsis!

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

Shrikant Talageri wrote:Yamuna is not mentioned in book 6. So what?
So - it's called inventing data. When Shri Talageri gives a graphic in his book :
http://www.hindubooks.org/dynamic_inclu ... /img20.jpg

The graphic claims yamuna in the row of maṇḍala VI. Whereas the fact is that there is no yamuna in that whole maṇḍala. As Shri Talageri himself says " A picture is worth a thousand words". He is well aware that speed-reading will only glance at the graphic, so he can slip in non-facts. Whereas reality is something else.

Yes, some people may get confused!

ManishH wrote:
Shrikant Talageri wrote:There is no reason why every book should mention every river of their area.
The "area" here is Ganga which empties in the Bay of Bengal. If Yamuna can be inferred (inspite of not being mentioned) by liberal extrapolation, then why not the Hoogly, or the Brahmaputra too. This kind of methodology is very loose.

Please see my explanation as to why Yamuna does not occur in Mandala VI, the oldest Mandala. Yamuna in fact may not have been in the East at that time, and may have moved only later on!

For that one would have to look more closely at the absolute chronology and not just the internal chronology of the Rig Veda.

Hoogly, Brahmaputra were far too East!

The methodology is not loose at all, but one needs to look at it keeping the geology of the region in mind.

In fact, any mention of Yamuna in Mandala VI may put the Mandala much later than it may actually be.

ManishH wrote:
Shrikant Talageri wrote: Book 6 mentions Sarasvati and Ganga. And not only book 6, all the old books (2-4, 6-7) and even the middle book 5, mention the lakes, mountains, places and animals of the east (all of which are known to the new books as well), but not a single lake, mountain, place or animal of the west (which are all abundantly mentioned in the new books)
This claim is totally wrong. The maṇḍala 5 mentions kubhā, krumu, sindhu - all are rivers in the west ...

RV_05.053.09.1 mā vo rasānitabhā kubhā krumur mā vaḥ sindhur ni rīramat
RV_05.053.09.2 mā vaḥ pari ṣṭhāt sarayuḥ purīṣiṇy asme īt sumnam astu vaḥ

So much for the "not a single place in the west". In the boundless enthusiasm to place genesis of ṛgveda in the area of Ganga river, Shri Talageri has forgotten to refer to the altas.

This rca refers to the rsis praying that Maruts should not be deterred by various rivers lying far far away!

It is like me saying sitting in Delhi, I hope my order of horses that I placed with the Maruts does not get held up by the custom officials in Afghanistan!

Oh Geez, since I talked about Afghanistan, then I must be sitting in Afghanistan and not in Delhi!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Aug 2012 16:25

ManishH wrote:speed-reading will only glance at the graphic, so he can slip in non-facts. Whereas reality is something else.

tsk tsk tsk ManishH ji? Why accuse someone of someting just before doing the same thing yourself? I have not said what you have alleged below. Why not find the person who said that and tell him?

ManishH wrote:Theorizing that horse bones before early 2nd millenium BC have all been "methodically destroyed" or cremated or rotted is all fantasy.

ManishH wrote:150 AD is only the direct inscriptional evidence. Sanskrit was spoken way before it was written. ṛgveda is the earliest Sanskrit text and it mentions horses tied to theology. The earliest ṛgveda could have been composed is when horse evidence are begun to be found on the Indian subcontinent. The earliest accepted evidence for horse domestication on the Indian subcontinent is Pirak (1700 BC). An earlier evidence which I think is also acceptable is Surkotada (2100 - 1700 BC).

Quite so. I am glad you accept this evidence. Was there something in the horse bones that suggested which language the people spoke? You also said:

ManishH wrote:Spoken languages don't leave markers. One has to use archaeological evidence to find markers of a technology. Indo-European language family shares the terms for horse, wagon, chariot. They share it in the same deep way, that they share the terms for kinship, body parts and common verbs. The same set of sound changes govern all the shared vocabulary.

Archaeological evidence of the horse domestication and chariotry is all in the Eurasian steppes starting with horse domestication at Botai (3,500 BC) and evidence of fast, horse driven chariots (2100 BC) in Sintashta-Arkaim.

Fine. Fine. What you write are facts even if I argue. You are THE expert here. But again, was there some evidence in the horse bones about what langauge the people spoke, or where they were going? Or where they came from? I suspect that you will say that the horse bones had no lingustic markers because langauges don't leave markers.

There is horse evidence in Central Asia from 3500 BC. There is Horse evidence (as per your statement) from 2000 BC found in Sukotada in modern day Gujarat, in India. How is it possible to say that the Surkotada horse came from central Asia of 1500 years earlier? Is there a trail of horse bones along some route? Where is the trail? Or were all the horse bones somehow destroyed en route and survived only in the origin and destination? Surely 1500 years of horse migration should have left some osteohippological evidence?

Secondly, once you demonstrate the piles of horse bones along the way, what are the archaeological markers that suggest that languages moved with the horse in a particular direction?

You see, the conclusions that you reach are guesswork that suits your theory. You are welcome to have it, but it is not science. It is guesswork. Sanskrit still has not been dated firmly for a minute earlier than 150 AD has it?

The case of the Surkotada horse is interesting. After all that evidence is a thousand km away from the western rivers of the Panjab which (according to some) were the earliest places mentioned in The Rig veda. If it took 500 to 1000 years for the horse to arrive in Panjab from Central Asia, it must have taken at least 250 to more years to reach Surkotada giving the possible dates for horse in Panjab of 2,250 BC and the date of exit of IE speaking people from central Asia goes back to 3250 to 2750 BC. But Mitanni texts are dated to 1500 BC, long after horse reached Surkotada. So Sanskrit was not developed when horses exsited in Surkotada, since you said that the Mitanni texts pre-date Sanskrit.

It appears that horses came first to India long before Sanskrit was developed and the Rig Veda composed. The similarity in culture of Sintashta and what has been guessed by mistranslation of a Rig Veda that came over a millennium later is a mischievous bluff that suits a particular theory of origin and timeline of migration of langauge. There is not one whit of credible evidence to suit the currently touted dates which are all cooked up.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 27 Aug 2012 16:43

Shiv ji, while your comments regarding Surkotda stand on their own. They will get stronger from the following:

THE HORSE AND THE ARYAN DEBATE
by Michel Danino

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifa ... ebate.html

Moreover, we have the case of Mahagara (near Allahabad), where horse bones were not only identified by G. R. Sharma et al., but “six sample absolute carbon 14 tests have given dates ranging from 2265 B.C.E. to 1480 B.C.E.”21 The case of Hallur, mentioned by A. Ghosh above, is even more striking: the excavation (in the late 1960s) brought out horse remains that were dated between 1500 and 1300 BCE, in other words, about the time Aryans are pictured to have galloped down the Khyber pass, some 2,000 north of Hallur.22 Even at a fierce Aryan pace, the animal could hardly have reached Karnataka by that time. When K. R. Alur, an archaeozoologist as well as a veterinarian, published his report on the animal remains from the site, he received anxious queries, even protests: there had to be some error regarding those horse bones. A fresh excavation was eventually undertaken some twenty years later — which brought to light more horse bones, and more consternation. Alur saw no reason to alter his original report, and wrote that his critics’ opinion “cannot either deny or alter the find of a scientific fact that the horse was present at Hallur before the (presumed) period of Aryan invasion.”23 The claim that horse finds are undated is therefore disingenuous.

Finally, S. P. Gupta offers a sensible reply to the further objection that horse remains, if at all they are accepted, rarely account for more than 2% of the total animal remains at any site. Pointing out that the same holds true of the camel and elephant (animals undeniably present in Harappan sites), he explains that this low proportion is “simply because these animals are not likely to have been as regularly eaten as cattle, sheep and goats as well as fish whose bones are abundantly found at all Indus-Saraswati settlements.”24

All in all, the case for the horse’s physical presence in the Indus-Sarasvati civilization is quite overwhelming, and is bound to be further strengthened by evidence yet to come out of thousands of unexplored sites.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2012 16:44

ManishH wrote:
RajeshA wrote: And the kings would be getting their horses naturally through trade with regions outside the Subcontinent or having their own limited breeding programs!
First OIT will have to find trace of horse and horse furniture in the Indian subcontinent at the timelines where it proposes Mahabharata and ṛgveda to have been composed. Only then the question of trade, breeding programs comes.

The problem is AIT-proponents too have been insisting on migration of Aryans into India, without showing any textual evidence in all of the scriptural corpus of India referring to this migration!

If the AIT-proponents wants to stick to migration, then it is THEY who have to prove that the horse in India could not have been known to India by any other means and only through migration!

How can AIT-proponents insist on X₁ (migration), when there are evidently multiple alternatives X₂, X₃, X₄ possible! In order to insist on X₁, AIT-proponents would have to conclusively debunk X₂, X₃, X₄, besides providing some little evidence for X₁.

Otherwise Aryan migration is simply an interesting speculation!

ManishH wrote:
ManishH wrote:Please. Where is the evidence in Indian texts for the tradition of "methodically disposing" of horse remains ?
RajeshA wrote:Question is why would you expect anything less than methodical from those who wrote the Vedas and other texts, those who prepared and conducted the Yajnas and those who later on went to build the very methodical cities one sees in the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization.
So, basically, you don't have a single textual reference to backup this "methodically disposing of horse" fable. Not only are horse remains incinerated, but also any trace of non-organic objects like snaffle, cheekpiece too - anything remotely connected to the horse was incinerated by pre-2nd millenium BC Indians.

It is just the force of logic for a start!

I think far more incriminating is that there isn't a single textual reference to backup a full-scale Aryan Invasion into India, which completely overhauled the previous culture, language and mythology!

I think that is a far more glaring absence than the Rig veda talking about how they disposed their horses! I think in Rig Veda there is also no mention of how men used to pee, standing or sitting down!

The Rig Veda is not going to go into every detail of horse life cycle and every administrative responsibility!

ManishH wrote:
RajeshA wrote: Or would you expect the royal stables to simply throw the dead horses on the streets of their cities, to let them rot and cause diseases.
Again you use a word like "cities". Where are "cities" even mentioned in ṛgveda ? If I have to believe you, not only are there "horse imports/breeding programs", but also "cities" and "methodical disposing" of horses during ṛgveda.

If you don't like the word cities, than you can use settlements! The emphasis of the message remains the same! One doesn't throw the carcass of the horse in the middle of the settlement and let it rot! Would you?

ManishH wrote:Keep spinning the yarn sir.

Some production has lately shifted from Aryan countries in the West to developing countries! Not all! Developing countries too have tried to integrate the industrial technology of the West in their production!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Aug 2012 16:49

ManishH wrote: Again you use a word like "cities". Where are "cities" even mentioned in ṛgveda ? If I have to believe you, not only are there "horse imports/breeding programs", but also "cities" and "methodical disposing" of horses during ṛgveda. Keep spinning the yarn sir.

Manishji you are wrong on two out of three counts

1. Cities are not mentioned in the Rig Veda because it pre-dated cities. If you have any proof to the contrary I would be happy to hear it.

2. Horse bones are very carefully disposed off in the Rig Veda
Let me quote from David Anthony's "Horse Wheel and Language"

From Horse wheel and language pg 409
Similarities between the rituals excavated at Sintashta and Arkaim and
those described later in the RV have solved, for many, the problem of
Indo-Iranian origins 46 The parallels include a reference in RV 10.18 to a
kurgan ("let them ... bury death in this hill"), a roofed burial chamber
supported with posts ("let the fathers hold up this pillar for you"), and
with shored walls ("I shore up the earth all around you; let me not injure
you as I lay down this clod of earth"). This is a precise description of
Sintashta and Potapovka-Filatovka grave pits, which had wooden plank
roofs supported by timber posts and plank shoring walls. The horse sacri-
fice at a royal funeral is described in RV 1.162: "Keep the limbs undam-
aged and place them in the proper pattern. Cut them apart, calling out
piece by piece." The horse sacrifices in Sintashta, Potapovka, and Ftlatovka
graves match this description, with the lower legs of horses carefully cut
apart at the joints and placed in and over the grave. The preference for
horses as sacrificial animals in Sintashta funeral rituals, a species choice
setting Sintashta apart from earlier steppe cultures, was again paralleled
in the RV.

Here is another reference about burial rites in the Rig veda you know so well. Click on the Thmbnail to see a screen grab of a book called "Origin of the Indo-Iranians" that clearly states how carefully the Rig Veda describes India's horse culture Rig Vedic burials:

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Aug 2012 16:52

ManishH wrote:
Rahul M wrote: stirrups are not necessary for cavalry warfare, let alone simple horse riding.
I agree about horse riding, but the context of discussion was cavalry warfare.

Stirrups are not necessary - but needed for such warfare to be effective.

I specifically pointed out examples of highly effective cavalry warfare sans stirrup. you have chosen to ignore it and address only the part about simple horse riding.
typical, I must say.

as I pointed out to you with examples, stirrups are NOT necessary for effective cavalry warfare and most certainly not a prerequisite for it.

Moreover, in the 2nd millenium BC, there was no composite bow yet.

not true. and even if it was, I fail to see the relevance.

Without them, the kind of balance needed to either hurl a spear or keep a bow steady is not possible.

and yet the parthians did this impossible thing for 100's of years to great effect !

sorry, this is laughably ill-informed. the numidian cavalry, to name another example were famed for their spear throwing prowess but used neither stirrups nor saddles. there are many other examples.

The longbow makes it even more
clumsy to carry on a horse.

no one ever used longbows on horses, with or without stirrups. your point being ?

they are anyway a pretty recent invention, having spread to europe around 500 CE or so.
Exactly. That's my point. The stirrups being so late an invention, that the absence of mounted warfare in ṛgveda is expected.

you seem to have confused what your point was. cavalry warfare had a history of about 2000 years in asia (minimum) and 2500 years in europe before the arrival of the stirrup.
even the popular comic strip asterix and obelix is well known for sticking to historical accuracy in this regard. none of the horse riders therein are portrayed with stirrups.

the lack of stirrup in India is completely irrelevant to the question of cavalry in rg veda.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 27 Aug 2012 17:02

Also Manishji, thanks for telling me about Pirak:

The earliest accepted evidence for horse domestication on the Indian subcontinent is Pirak (1700 BC). An earlier evidence which I think is also acceptable is Surkotada (2100 - 1700 BC).

But Google chacha tells us that Horse in Surkotada is not 2100 BC that your lordship has been magnanimous enough to allow us to believe.

A.K.Sharma, The Harappan horse was buried under the dunes of..., in Puratattva, Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society, No. 23, 1992-93, pp. 30-34]: "At Surkotada the bones of the true horse (equus caballus Linn.) identified are from Period IA, IB and IC. (radiocarbon dates: 2315 B.C., 1940 B.C. and 1790 B.C respectively). With the correction factors, the dates fall between 2400 B.C. and 1700 B.C.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 27 Aug 2012 17:18

Horse debate is back again. Glad to know it is live and well.

This thread is 100 pages long. I read ravi-g suggesting that this thread be archived. I definitely want to figure out where to access archived threads, however here is what I suggest.. irrsepective of whether this thread is archived right away or not.

Why don't we have two threads... OIT-1 and OIT - 2

OIT -1 will discuss Horse and domesticated horses, Science of Linguistics, Rhetorics, PIE and stuff.

OIT - 2 will discuss Genetics, Geology, psedo science of Archeo-astronomy, Historical records/genealogies from ancient Indian Literature.

Rigveda and Archeology can be discussed in either forums. I have no secret desire of making OIT-1 stream handicapped in any fashion.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 27 Aug 2012 17:31

Moreover, in the 2nd millenium BC, there was no composite bow yet.

What is a composite bow now? There are cave paintings in Bhimbetka supposedly dating back to 12000 BC depicting usage of bow and arrows, if one cant say they are not composite, one can't say they aren't either.