Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Nilesh Oak »

peter wrote: It is incomplete and there is really nothing to read further till you answer what pole star was visible in 4500 BC and was moving "apasavyam" and other questions that have been raised.
Peter ji,

Thus we have reached a crossroad ...catch 22....mexican standoff, where you won't read my book further until I answer your question about pole star.

Thus this discussion has come to a close and I officially declare it to be so. It was a pleasure chatting with you via this thread. If you ever decide to rejuvinate it, all you have to do is post 150+ references (please post them on 'Discussions of epics, text..thread) that you claimed Achar has quoted, and finish reading my book.

I will get back to my work on Ramayana and other ancient Indian events.

We will see each other around via our posts, preferably to other forum participants, on other sujbects.

Best wishes.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

peter ji,

you are most welcome to post your findings about the dating of Mahabharata and a summary of your discussion with Nilesh Oak ji once you have carried it out on some other alternate thread. It is a bit distracting here, and I see you have a lot to talk about!
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Nilesh Oak »

shiv wrote:
This was the point I have been making to ManishH. In linguistics, when a sound change occurs naturally in the direction that the linguists want it to go (from Central Asia to India) it is used as proof. But when sound changes cannot be explained - they simply construct a PIE word that has elements of both sounds and say "See? You can get both words out of the proto-word we have constructed. So that PIE word must have existed." Linguists don't seem to see the point that the PIE word exists only because they have constructed it to have both sounds. And when it does not have all the sounds they explain it away as further sound change. The whole think is a mess of faking mixed up with some genuine stuff. If a sound change can be explained without PIE it should be explained directly. You can actually reverse a "natural" sound change by an artificial construct like PIE.
Emphasis mine, in Shiv ji's quote above

Reality check: What we have here is 'Huge mess of faking stuff..mixed with some genuine stuff'

What we also know is ......One Kg of stuff (Rabadi, Payasam, basundi, Chomchoum..whatver is your fancy here.. please insert) gone bad, when mixed with 50 Kg of good stuff of the same kind ...spoils the whole lot.
KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by KLP Dubey »

brihaspati wrote:We should not so quickly accept the identifications of words like Yavana/Barbara/Raumaka and use that to date Kumarila. Kumarila could very well have been later in CE but that should not be concluded from those words.
Brihaspati, Nilesh Oak, RajeshA, and others,

I am not necessarily "accepting" these identifications. I agree - as mentioned in my previous post - that the above words in the Tantravartika are not enough to conclusively assign a date to Kumarila. If he had mentioned a few words of the Yavana and Raumaka languages, that would have helped. There are only some Tamil words mentioned.

There is some other "data" from the Buddhist viewpoint. From Kumarila's well-developed attack on the Buddhists, it is clear that he discusses and refutes the theories of Dignaga (dated to ~500 CE). He does not refer to Dignaga by name, but - as pointed out by later commentators - the theories refuted by Kumarila are exactly those of Dignaga. But then again, it is possible that the dating of Buddhists is also incorrect.

KL
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_22872 »

OT alert, I apologize, just one quick message to Dubey ji:

Dubey ji, do you know any works of Kumarila (assuming Najarguna is earlier than Kumarila, don't know the chronology)or any other Vedic philosophers who criticised the works of Nagarjuna in particular? thanks.
KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by KLP Dubey »

venug wrote:OT alert, I apologize, just one quick message to Dubey ji:

Dubey ji, do you know any works of Kumarila (assuming Najarguna is earlier than Kumarila, don't know the chronology)or any other Vedic philosophers who criticised the works of Nagarjuna in particular? thanks.
Assuming that you are considering Vedic and Vedantic to be different (which they indeed are), then I think there is nothing much from the Vedic philosophers by way of direct criticism of crackpots like Nagarjuna. Kumarila and Prabhakara are not concerned with esoteric (and practically useless) "knowledge" about things like Brahman, the pursuit of which does not require the Veda and can be understood from Vedanta, Upanishads etc. Their interest was in far more important things such as the eternality of the Vedic word and the linguistically-driven pursuit of "dharma" by correct application of verbs on nouns.

The Mimamsasutra of Jaimini makes clear its practical purpose in ths first sutra, "athato dharmajijnyasa" (now then, the desire to know dharma). Whereas the Brahmasutra of Badarayana makes clear an esoteric purpose, "athato brahmajijnyasa".

However, if you asked Kumarila what he thought about Nagarjuna's theory, the more-than-likely answer would be that:

1) such a theory was utter nonsense, since the eternality of Words is shown by Mimamsa. The entire universe is maintained by Vedic words and grammar, specifically by action of Vedic verbs on Vedic nouns, and therefore theories which claim that the "universe is a void" or "full of fleeting perceptions" are indeed nonsensical.

2) In general, the works of all Buddhists, including Nagarjuna, are full of corrupted words and therefore cannot provide any reliable guidance. Please note, this is far from a mere "insistence on correct grammar and spelling". It is a fundamental issue that defective words can only lead to defective actions.

The main refutation of Nagarjuna and others like him is carried out by Shankara and the other Vedanta philosophers. They found it necessary to get into detail about this, since their purpose was to "find the ultimate reality" (Brahman) and show that it was not some sort of shunya or emptiness or fleeting perception.

KL
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_22872 »

Dubey ji, Thank you, greatly appreciate your understanding let me keep in mind while reading Buddhist works.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by peter »

Nilesh Oak wrote:
peter wrote: It is incomplete and there is really nothing to read further till you answer what pole star was visible in 4500 BC and was moving "apasavyam" and other questions that have been raised.
Peter ji,

Thus we have reached a crossroad ...catch 22....mexican standoff, where you won't read my book further until I answer your question about pole star.
No crossroad. Self invented catch 22. If you can't answer basic questions about the pole star which is travelling left in 4500 BC what use is the identification of Arundhati? You can't invent your own definitions of what Vakri means either.

Here is an advice do some research on the accuracy of planetarium software. Best is skymap pro and it is also accurate only till 3000 +delta BC. Voyager and others have poor algorithms.
Nilesh Oak wrote: Thus this discussion has come to a close and I officially declare it to be so.
No. You have basically run away because you cannot prove your claims.
Nilesh Oak wrote: If you ever decide to rejuvinate it, all you have to do is post 150+ references (please post them on 'Discussions of epics, text..thread) that you claimed Achar has quoted, and finish reading my book.
This is preposterous. Do you know how papers are written? 150 references are from Sathe,Joshi, Deshmukh book. Achar is not going to list them when he is referencing the Sathe book. Again you are implying that Achar is lying because you are not accepting that he has actually looked at all these Mahabharata astronomical references from the Sathe book. Eventhough he says he has. So guess whom should we believe? You or him?

This makes you a poor debater when you question, without understanding, a stalwart scientist who is firmly in anti-AIT camp.

Least you/we all should be doing is strengthening Achar's argument. But I guess we all have egos.
Last edited by peter on 21 Sep 2012 05:13, edited 1 time in total.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by peter »

shiv wrote:Here is a question for Arun Gupta, Dubeyji or anyone else who is interested.

Why did Sapta-Sindhu become Hapta-Hindu in Avestan? Or alternatively, why did Vedic people start pronouncing "Hapta-Hindu" as Sapta Sindhu?
Is'nt s>h? Do notice that in Mitanni the numeral seven is called "satta" instead of sapta or hapta. Mitanni are reliably dated to mid 2nd millenium BC.

If you look at this : http://www.zompist.com/euro.htm#ie notice a geographically tight area speaks seven starting with an "h". They are: Saka, Parthians, Persians, and their descendants. Outliers are Sinhalese and Brahui (probably they picked it up from their more numerous neighbours?). Not clear how/why Sinhalese have an h?

Related question is why would this happen? Is it a speech defect or the effect of substratum language/group in which these populations moved into? Could the spread of Buddhism be the vehicle?
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Agnimitra »

KLP Dubey wrote:Assuming that you are considering Vedic and Vedantic to be different (which they indeed are), then I think there is nothing much from the Vedic philosophers by way of direct criticism of crackpots like Nagarjuna. Kumarila and Prabhakara are not concerned with esoteric (and practically useless) "knowledge" about things like Brahman, the pursuit of which does not require the Veda and can be understood from Vedanta, Upanishads etc. Their interest was in far more important things such as the eternality of the Vedic word and the linguistically-driven pursuit of "dharma" by correct application of verbs on nouns.
Dear Dubey ji, when you have time could you also expand on the relationship between Vedic versus Vedantic? Any pointers will be appreciated. Are they considered complementary by traditionalists? If Vedic theory and its application focuses on the removal of semantic corruption, then my understanding is that this is necessary core of the Vedantic process, one that is through the mind (rather than circumventing it). TIA.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by disha »

peter wrote:Least you/we all should be doing is strengthening Achar's argument. But I guess we all have egos.
Peterji, the least we should be doing is a fraternal fight. The point that should be strengthened is the antiquity of Mahabharata. The first step we need to prove from all observations is that it is definitely 3000 BCE or older.

After that one can have a fraternal fight on how old is older (whether @3000 BCE or @5000 BCE). Currently the way the debate is going, my personal fear is that it will lead to the monkey and two cats situation where the monkey benefits in the cat fight. The AIT monkey needs to be defeated first. And it should be visibly defeated.

So please please refrain from making inflammatory statements again a fellow bharatiya. Just because the MBH date has been resolved for you does not mean that the AIT has been defeated.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by peter »

disha wrote:
peter wrote:Least you/we all should be doing is strengthening Achar's argument. But I guess we all have egos.
Peterji, the least we should be doing is a fraternal fight. The point that should be strengthened is the antiquity of Mahabharata. The first step we need to prove from all observations is that it is definitely 3000 BCE or older.
From the earliest in my debate with Nilesh I have expressed my disappointment that "scholars" in anti AIT camp are pulling in different directions. Astronomers/scientists etc from India are not converging on a single date for Mahabharata. Each loves his date and defends it. You have seen this debate unfold here. Achar has been made into a liar but no effort has been made to check if he could be right. This man has presented papers all over the world and has written articles in multiple books. Does'nt he and his work deserve more respect and scrutiny?
disha wrote: After that one can have a fraternal fight on how old is older (whether @3000 BCE or @5000 BCE). Currently the way the debate is going, my personal fear is that it will lead to the monkey and two cats situation where the monkey benefits in the cat fight. The AIT monkey needs to be defeated first. And it should be visibly defeated.
I agree. And this is why our best minds need to pull in the same direction.
disha wrote: So please please refrain from making inflammatory statements again a fellow bharatiya. Just because the MBH date has been resolved for you does not mean that the AIT has been defeated.
What inflammatory stmnts are you referring to?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

peter wrote:
shiv wrote:Here is a question for Arun Gupta, Dubeyji or anyone else who is interested.

Why did Sapta-Sindhu become Hapta-Hindu in Avestan? Or alternatively, why did Vedic people start pronouncing "Hapta-Hindu" as Sapta Sindhu?
Is'nt s>h? Do notice that in Mitanni the numeral seven is called "satta" instead of sapta or hapta. Mitanni are reliably dated to mid 2nd millenium BC.

If you look at this : http://www.zompist.com/euro.htm#ie notice a geographically tight area speaks seven starting with an "h". They are: Saka, Parthians, Persians, and their descendants. Outliers are Sinhalese and Brahui (probably they picked it up from their more numerous neighbours?). Not clear how/why Sinhalese have an h?

Related question is why would this happen? Is it a speech defect or the effect of substratum language/group in which these populations moved into? Could the spread of Buddhism be the vehicle?
I had posted one paper above that documents and acknowledges the S>H change. That has some details as to why it occurs. I am interested in finding out if anyone changed H>S. There appears to be no natural way in which people change H>S, but many population groups do change S>H.

For an S to become H, the S has to exist earlier. That would make the name "Sapta Sindhu" pre date the name "Hapta Hindu"

But linguists who dabble in history,have bypassed the direct S>H explanation and have postulated an "older" word "sept" in a mythical PIE language. Every country from Britain and Spain down to India were given the choice of using "sept" or "hept" by people from central Asia who brought that word, along with horses and chariots. Greeks chose "hept" in 1800 BC, and Vedics chose "sept" in 1200 BC.

This story is in direct conflict with Indian records of history that date events (like the Mahabharata) to a date prior to 3000 BC, and therefore the existence of Sanskrit itself to a date prior to 3000 BC.

If you look at how Avestans (Zoroastrians/Parsis) have recorded their history, it is clear that Ahura Mazda was an "Asura" who were considered as opposed to the evil "devas", The similarity of geographic terminology and names with the Vedas suggests similar antiquity. Both the Vedas and Avestan texts are undated, but the S>H change is an indicator that the S existed earlier. Avestan records also speak of Avestans moving from their homeland in the Afghanistan area to Iran.

But these records are either ignored or explained away by the community of historical linguists who have a readymade story of languages that they want to push. They postulate that "devas" were originally Iranian gods that the Avestans rebelled against. But there is no ancient Iranian record that considers Deva as god. References to Deva in Iranian are all negative. The ancient Iranians may have had a pre-Zoroastrian God called "Bag" (I wonder if there is a bhagwan connection here)

The linguists story gets badly upset by the fact that Sanskrit and Avestan were probably already widely spoken by 2000 BC. A physical record of Vedc Sanskrit exists from Syria from 1500 BC. (Mitanni Treaty and Kikkuli horse training texts)

Since Avestan probably underwent a S>H change before 2000 BC and the same Avestans ruled countries all the way up to Turkey and Greece, there is every possibility that the S>H change in Turkic and Greek language today is a result of spread of the Avestan mispronunciation of Vedic "S" to Avestan "H" all the way up to Greece. It is not as if Sanskrit went directly to Greece. It was Avestan/Old Persian. There is absolutely no need to invoke a mythical PIE and try and fake the idea that PIE existed in central Asia because graves in central Asia are like Rig Veda "burials" (what burials are there in Rig Veda?). Genetic findings of humans in central Asia graves (Kurgan} show the R1a1 M17 sub clade that is widely present in India - even among South Indian Scheduled Tribes. That gene likely originated n India.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

peter wrote:
disha wrote: After that one can have a fraternal fight on how old is older (whether @3000 BCE or @5000 BCE). Currently the way the debate is going, my personal fear is that it will lead to the monkey and two cats situation where the monkey benefits in the cat fight. The AIT monkey needs to be defeated first. And it should be visibly defeated.
I agree. And this is why our best minds need to pull in the same direction.
I disagree with this. We need not bury our personal quests for the truth simply because we want to prove that some other guy is a liar. We need not agree with each other simply for that reason.

In fact all of us are agreed that AIT is bullshit. That includes you and Nilesh Oak. Why is it then that you are intent to disputing Nilesh Oak's view? Let hm hold his view. You hold yours. The truth may be neither, but whatever it may be, it is NOT AIT. It is you who are stirring the pot more than anyone else. It is OK to have differences of opinion.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by peter »

peter wrote:
shiv wrote:Here is a question for Arun Gupta, Dubeyji or anyone else who is interested.

Why did Sapta-Sindhu become Hapta-Hindu in Avestan? Or alternatively, why did Vedic people start pronouncing "Hapta-Hindu" as Sapta Sindhu?
Is'nt s>h? Do notice that in Mitanni the numeral seven is called "satta" instead of sapta or hapta. Mitanni are reliably dated to mid 2nd millenium BC.

If you look at this : http://www.zompist.com/euro.htm#ie notice a geographically tight area speaks seven starting with an "h". They are: Saka, Parthians, Persians, and their descendants. Outliers are Sinhalese and Brahui (probably they picked it up from their more numerous neighbours?). Not clear how/why Sinhalese have an h?

Related question is why would this happen? Is it a speech defect or the effect of substratum language/group in which these populations moved into? Could the spread of Buddhism be the vehicle?
shiv wrote: I had posted one paper above that documents and acknowledges the S>H change. That has some details as to why it occurs. I am interested in finding out if anyone changed H>S.
Gujju examples given earlier seem to suggest that S did change into an H for them. I wonder if someone would know that are these examples from Gujarat sensitive to the religion of the speaker? i.e do Islamic peolpe speak with an "H"?
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by peter »

peter wrote:
disha wrote: After that one can have a fraternal fight on how old is older (whether @3000 BCE or @5000 BCE). Currently the way the debate is going, my personal fear is that it will lead to the monkey and two cats situation where the monkey benefits in the cat fight. The AIT monkey needs to be defeated first. And it should be visibly defeated.
I agree. And this is why our best minds need to pull in the same direction.
shiv wrote: I disagree with this. We need not bury our personal quests for the truth simply because we want to prove that some other guy is a liar. We need not agree with each other simply for that reason.
Unless the non AIT camp story becomes one voice AIT can never be defeated. I have got no issue with personal quests. Realise when the "status quo" gets overturned the "other side" will want to refute, as is logical in a debate. But if the non AIT side has a million theories for litmus tests then the AIT side is sitting happy as they have to refute nobody.
shiv wrote: In fact all of us are agreed that AIT is bullshit. That includes you and Nilesh Oak. Why is it then that you are intent to disputing Nilesh Oak's view?
I have asked Nilesh a question about Dhruv in 4500 BC because I am curious what Dhruv existed in that time frame. I am hoping that Nilesh sees may be there is some error in his calculation and perhaps that date is not correct.
shiv wrote: Let hm hold his view. You hold yours. The truth may be neither, but whatever it may be, it is NOT AIT. It is you who are stirring the pot more than anyone else. It is OK to have differences of opinion.
I have got no problem in him holding his view but a problem where Achar is made to look like a liar (first Achar hand waves and hopes no body notices then he has not seen/read/looked at 150 Mahabhrata astronomical references) .

I am stirring the pot in the hope we can become "ekmat" in the non AIT camp or perhaps I want amrit to come out of the pot :wink: !
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

peter wrote:
I am stirring the pot in the hope we can become "ekmat" in the non AIT camp or perhaps I want amrit to come out of the pot :wink: !
Thank you for acknowledging that you are stirring the pot. You are stirring the pot because you have a particular personal and selfish view of ekmat and you do not see ekmat as occurring until your personal view becomes common to everyone. None of us on here have sworn that we agree with Nilesh Oak. Nor are people going to swear that they agree with Achar or anyone else's viewpoint, But you specifically want to push Achar over Oak, ignoring everyone else.

In your view the opinions of "we" should equal your opinion. Until then you raise the slogan of ekmat as a strawman that is necessary. In the real world this would be politicking. In the world of forums, it could be trolling.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by peter »

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:
I am stirring the pot in the hope we can become "ekmat" in the non AIT camp or perhaps I want amrit to come out of the pot :wink: !
Thank you for acknowledging that you are stirring the pot. You are stirring the pot because you have a particular personal and selfish view of ekmat and you do not see ekmat as occurring until your personal view becomes common to everyone. None of us on here have sworn that we agree with Nilesh Oak. Nor are people going to swear that they agree with Achar or anyone else's viewpoint, But you specifically want to push Achar over Oak, ignoring everyone else.

In your view the opinions of "we" should equal your opinion. Until then you raise the slogan of ekmat as a strawman that is necessary. In the real world this would be politicking. In the world of forums, it could be trolling.
Look no politicking or trolling. I am airing my point of view on how AIT can be defeated. I specifically want to learn that does Achar's analysis have any valid holes that need to be plugged. I was hoping that Nilesh would be one such person to point out any weaknesses in his theory plugging which could strengthen it.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

peter wrote: Look no politicking or trolling. I am airing my point of view on how AIT can be defeated. I specifically want to learn that does Achar's analysis have any valid holes that need to be plugged. I was hoping that Nilesh would be one such person to point out any weaknesses in his theory plugging which could strengthen it.
Then ekmat is not the issue. It is one of exchange of ideas and clarification of details. Please take your discussion to a separate thread as requested repeatedly by others. There are other threads.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13367
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by A_Gupta »

shiv wrote: Now here are my preliminary observations from the results. Sanskrit leads the list in providing cognates to 78% of the 110 words. Greek and Latin are not far behind, with 76 and 72%. The contribution rapidly tails off after the first 11 languages with Avestan contributing only to 50% of words. The 20 plus languages after that contribute from 47 to less than 1% to that word list.
Talageri, in "The Aryan Invasion Theory : A Reappraisal" (1993) points out:
Childe, at the end of his chapter on Primitive Aryan Culture Reconstructed by Linguistic Palaeontology, gives a list of 72 basic cognate words in different Indo-European languages.

Of the 72 words given, Sanskrit has 70 cognates, Greek 48, Teutonic (Germanic) 46, Latin 40, Lithuanian 39, Celtic 25, Armenian 15 and Tocharian 8.

The position of Lithuanian vis-a-vis Sanskrit is self-evident; especially when it is considered that Childe has counted the entire Baltic and Slavonic branches under the heading "Lithuanian" and the actual Lithuanian words are only 20, old Slavonic words are 16, Old Prussian words are 2 and there is one Lettian word.

It can, of course, be argued that there are so many cognate words in Sanskrit, as compared to the other languages, purely and simply because the very criterion adoped for classifying cognate words as "belonging to the parent speech" is that they must be "found in Indo-Iranian on the one hand, and a European language on the other."

However, it must be noted that this criterion has been adopted and accepted, not by scholars who can be accused of being biased in favour of an Indian homeland, but by scholars, like Childe, who are staunch supporters of the South Russia homeland theory. The adoption of this criterion is itself tantamount to an open acceptance of the fact that Sanskrit has a greater number, than any other language, of what Brandenstein called "early Indo-European words", and that Sanskrit vocabulary is therefore the closest to that of proto-Indo-European.
Regarding linguistic palaeontology, Talageri also observes:
The proto-Indo-Europeans are supposed to have been a pastoral people, but there is no common word for milk. In spite of a common word for honey, there is no common word for bee.
Regarding the Kurgan theory of Gimbutas, he points out that plenty of fishing gear and fishing bones are found in Kurgan remains, indicating that fishing was an important means of subsistence; yet there is no common Indo-European word for fish.

etc.
KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by KLP Dubey »

shiv wrote:If you look at how Avestans (Zoroastrians/Parsis) have recorded their history, it is clear that Ahura Mazda was an "Asura" who were considered as opposed to the evil "devas", The similarity of geographic terminology and names with the Vedas suggests similar antiquity. Both the Vedas and Avestan texts are undated, but the S>H change is an indicator that the S existed earlier. Avestan records also speak of Avestans moving from their homeland in the Afghanistan area to Iran.
The language of the Parasis (Iranians) is teeming with corrupted Vedic words, so that some "patterns" of speech defects and errors might be deduced within that population.

For example, a general "cascade" of corrupted sounds among the Iranians might go like consonants ---> aspirates ---> visarga.

The Vedic word "Yajn~a" is corrupted to "Yasna" in Avestan. Here two palatals (j- and n~-) are corrupted to a "s". This is a classic case of a "nirasta" (incorrect place of utterance) defect, caused by a laziness in pushing up the tongue, and instead speaking with a flat tongue (this is sort of like a "lisp"). This is mentioned in the RV pratishakhya.

Similarly, "s-" is corrupted to "h-" by speech defects involving incorrect positioning of the oral and jaw muscles ("Suna", or speaking with hollow mouth).

In addition to defective "shiksha", defective "vyakarana" (grammar) could also be an issue. In Vedic it is found that terminal "-s" is grammatically changed to visarga "-H" in pausa, at the end of a metered Rk in the RV. It could be that some Iranians, not being properly conversant with Vedic, thought this was a general rule and started substituting "s" with "h" everywhere.

Similarly, Vedic words that do indeed contain "h-" are also found to be corrupted by incorrect application of an aspirate. E.g., the Vedic word "hotR" is found to be corrupted to "zaotR". This is not exactly a "h --> s" but an "h --> z" change.

It can be concluded that the speech of the Iranians at the time was of a confused nature, being full of speech defects and incorrect grammar, leading to a profusion of corrupted words.
The ancient Iranians may have had a pre-Zoroastrian God called "Bag" (I wonder if there is a bhagwan connection here)

More likely this could be "vAk" (speech) - somewhat ironically, though, considering that they were in the business of corrupting Vedic words. In the Upanishads one finds statements like "vAg vai brahma" (speech is brahma). Maybe they thought that "vak" should therefore be worshipped as a god.

KL
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Agnimitra »

KLP Dubey wrote:
The ancient Iranians may have had a pre-Zoroastrian God called "Bag" (I wonder if there is a bhagwan connection here)

More likely this could be "vAk" (speech) - somewhat ironically, though, considering that they were in the business of corrupting Vedic words. In the Upanishads one finds statements like "vAg vai brahma" (speech is brahma). Maybe they thought that "vak" should therefore be worshipped as a god.

KL
No, the word vAk and modifications like vAch are still current in Farsi, and they know what it means - speech. It would be a mistake to consider the Iranic segment or any other nation as some bumbling set of envious fools and copycats who couldn't quite even pronounce, much less understand, the Vedas or Upanishads which only some races or castes were privy to. Rather, its possible that Sanskrit, as its name suggest, was set to the rudimentary and pure phonemes for its mantric value. These distilled and primordialized phonemes would have been culled from among different contributing nations. In reverse, it is also possible that Sanskrit terms then were absorbed back into the nations and recorrupted according to their individual characteristics. I believe the process worked both ways, not just a one way street.

Iranian Baga is related to Sanskrit Bhaga. The city of Baghdad is the Arabized corruption of the older Iranian name meaning either "god given" or "given as wealth".
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_20317 »

Peter ji and Nilesh ji and respected members,

This thread is much too precious and I am taking the liberty to advocate for some self policing. Kindly bear with me.

Carrying western dialectical methods into an Indian setting may not advisable. West has traditionally had people with different points claiming superiority for their respective POV. In the Indian milieu the way has had superiority over the point. At what point a person stands on the way has been taken as God’s will.

Peter ji, getting an educated Indian into BRF is as it is a challenge. Board Index shows about 100-150 people viewership. Getting a writer is rarer still, Kaushalji and Nilesh ji are the only two writers that I have seen here since ‘Santhanam days’ (4 years now).

A writers way may not be the same as readers way. Writers are under no compulsion to be a good debater. Debaters are the ones who invariably read and it is upto the readers to be a good debater.

Anyhow, we have learnt so much from ManishH ji that even though he is in the opposing camp we still need to appreciate the fact that he single handedly saved us the trouble of reading up 200 years of western scholarship in histrionics :). Thanks to him we have Shivji actively looking into Linguistics. I already see a 100 page thesis from Shivji (like his work on Pakis). Bji and A_Gupta ji are also looking at the problem from a slightly different angle. If this much we have gained from one person not in OIT camp, imagine the benefits of actual researchers and writers for BRF.

I request everybody to be a little more charitable to everybody and also to sport some Sahan-Shakti.

Chances are the truth encompasses both the set of observations and thus the truth will get understood with completeness when we account for both the set of observations. Till that time both set of observations will remain open to attack.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by member_20317 »

Peter ji, I have batted for Arundhati-Vashishtha observation.

I was struck by the simplicity of it all. Kind of like the Chinese observation of the supernova, no debate there. Though I am not equipped to handle almost anything of such matters (maths, physics, scriptures) still the more I read on related matters the more I get convinced of the ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ (‘EoA’).

Dates whether of Nilesh ji or even of Achar ji for periods so old may remain open to debate, especially if they belong to a category of near earth entities. All you need is a slight error in the expected position of such objects. A slight error will reveal new stars in the background. This especially gets compounded when the observations are of apparent retrograde motions instead of prograde ones because an error in calculating any part of the whole orbit affects the smaller duration for which the retrograde motion lasts. I have seen this line of attack being used.

But you are pushing for a pole star definition. Request you to tell me how the absence of a Pole Star will affect the EoA observation as such. The Arundhati-Vashishtha combine have been on that trajectory for a long long period and many times during those periods there was not visible pole star. Besides you are questioning Nilesh ji on a pole star observation for ~4500 BC while his observation is for ~5500 BC. Also you have advised Nilesh ji
Here is an advice do some research on the accuracy of planetarium software. Best is skymap pro and it is also accurate only till 3000 +delta BC. Voyager and others have poor algorithms.
. Now the observation is for Arundhati moving ahead. Does skymap pro show otherwise at 3000 BC. I doubt it would. Still that observation has to be accounted for. At least at some point Arundhati could/would have been ahead. If since 3000 BC it is not so, then it would appear reasonable to assume that Arundhati could/would have been ahead before 3000 BC. IOW the

Also I was working under the assumption that an observation for a deep space object will carry more weight than one dependent on near earth objects which act and react upon one another. This to my mind appeared a reasonable presumption considering the stellar observation is an observation of the background and not an observation of some object against a stellar background.

Also from elsewhere on the net I gather that Nilesh ji is using the best version of Voyager (Astronomers version) for his work. I think it was V4.5. There are other versions also for kids and amateurs. And I think I have also seen his claim that he has used more than one such software. In any case EoA observation is his big idea so he would be checking it out with every piece of software available for the rest of his life as if his life depended on it :). Still I would be grateful if you could point out where to understand better these issues with such softwares. The ‘poor algorithm’ you are suggesting, how big would the error margin be? Would the error margin be so big as to be debilitating for the EoA theory.

Also how can you reconcile the following :


Saraswati-Mahabharat:

I mean MBH has to be placed during the period of Dwarka and the seas are showing a rise around 6900 BC. In fact by 3000 BC the seas could have been higher than that at present. So no chance of Krishna getting the Dwarka (12 Yojans of land) as a boon from the Sea god.
Note Figure 1
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/oct25/articles20.htm
The decline of Saraswati appears to have commenced between 5000–3000 BC

+

Saraswati’s march to oblivion commenced around 3000 BC. Bereft of waters through separation of its tributaries15, which shifted or got captured by other neighbouring river systems, Saraswati remained here and there as disconnected pools and lakes and ultimately became reduced to a dry channel bed.

Also I read the following and take it to mean that Saraswati was still flowing and reaching the sea during MBH times and was merely going underground at some places for long distances. Saraswati was still not characterized as a continuation of lakes and ponds and short rivers no reaching the sea.

So ideally MBH should be dated at a time between :
(1) The last time when Saraswati was at its peak ie. 5000 BC – 7000 BC; and
(2) When Saraswati definitely began its decline ie. [Two sources - 4000 BC or between 3000 BC – 5000 BC)]
http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Origins#Mahabharata

The Mahabharata also refers to the Saraswati as a seasonal river that had dried up in a desert (at a place named Vinasana or Adarsana), disappeared in the desert, reappears in some places, and joins the sea "impetuously"[29]. The Saraswati river had stopped being a perennial river and became a seasonal between the period of 4000 BC and 1900 BC.

29.↑ Mahabharata 3.80.118, 3.82.111, 3.88.2, 3.130.3, 6.7.47, 6.37.1-4, 9.34.81, 9.37.1-2
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

Behistun Inscription

Published on July 31, 2012
By Culture Desk
New words identified in Bisotun inscriptions: Teheran Times

Image
The Bisotun bas-reliefs and the inscriptions of Darius the Great

TEHRAN -- New words and expressions have been discovered in the Bisotun inscriptions of Darius the Great engraved on a rock near the city of Kermanshah, the Bisotun Cultural Heritage Center (BCHC) announced on Tuesday.

The words and expressions have been identified during a study project to reread the inscriptions that has been in progress since June 2012 and is being carried out by a team of Iranian and foreign experts, BCHC Director Hossein Raei told the Persian service of ISNA on Tuesday.

“The alluviums formed on the surface of the rock had made parts of the inscriptions unreadable. Now, the team has a high-precision scanner, which enables them to read those parts,” he added.

The foreign experts of the team, which is led by Professor Wouter F. M. Henkelman of the German Archaeological Institute, include Professor Bruno Jacobs of the University of Basel, Professor Johannes Hackl of the University of Vienna and Joan De Winne of the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium.

Henkelman has made some revisions to previous translations of the inscriptions during this season of studies. He has also identified some new words and expressions, which will be published in a report in three months, Raei stated.

He said that the scans show all the tiny cracks and the growth of algae and other wild plants on the inscriptions. As a result, the scans will help the BCHC make a plan for restoration of the inscriptions.

The first efforts to decipher the inscriptions were made by the British adventurer and scholar Henry Creswicke Rawlinson in 1835. He completed his studies in 1844.

Professor of Indo-Iranian languages at Columbia University William Jackson revised Rawlinson’s studies in 1903.

The inscriptions were thoroughly studied by George Glenn Cameron of the University of Michigan in 1948 and 1949.

Bisotun, an ancient Iranian site bearing bas-reliefs and inscriptions of Darius the Great, was registered on UNESCO’s World Heritage List in 2006.

The site is located in western Iran, 30 kilometers east of the provincial capital Kermanshah, at the foot of the Zagros Mountains.

The area was on the ancient trade route linking the Iranian high plateau with Mesopotamia and contains remains dating from prehistoric times to the Median and Achaemenid eras.

The principal monument of this archaeological site is the bas-relief and cuneiform inscription ordered by Darius the Great shortly after he ascended to the throne of the Persian Empire in 521 BC.

The bas-relief portrays Darius holding a bow, as a sign of sovereignty and treading on the chest of a figure who is lying on his back before him. According to legend, the figure represents Gaumata, the Median Magus and pretender to the throne whose assassination led to Darius’s rise to power.

Below and around the bas-reliefs, there are about 1,200 lines of inscriptions telling the story of the battles Darius waged in 521-520 BC against the governors who attempted to take apart the empire founded by Cyrus.

The inscription is written in three languages. The oldest is an Elamite text referring to legends describing the king and the rebellions. This is followed by a Babylonian version of similar legends. The last phase of the inscription is particularly important, as it is here that Darius introduced for the first time the Old Persian version of his res gestae (things done).

This is the only known monumental text of the Achaemenids to document the re-establishment of the empire by Darius I. It also bears witness to the interchange of influences in the development of monumental art and writing in the region of the Persian Empire. There are also remains from the Median period (8th to 7th centuries BC) as well as from the Achaemenid (6th to 4th centuries BC) and post-Achaemenid periods.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

Books for the Library

This is from the Professor working on the Behistun Inscription mentioned above

Image

Publication Date: 2008
Author: W.F.M. Henkelman
The Other Gods Who Are: Studies in Elamite-Iranian acculturation based on the Persepolis fortification texts [Google]

Table of Contents
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

Dr. Narahari Achar on Determining the date of the Mahabharata War

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

peter ji,

Here is a suggestion if you feel up to it. In any discussion which involves comparison of two works (Nilesh Oak ji (NNO) and of Dr. Narhari Achar (NA)) basically on the same domain (Dating of Mahabharata War), it can get pretty confusing if not done in a structured manner.

It would be helpful if you could make a table of the two works, listing all the archaeo-astronomical references in Mahabharata and any external evidence used for both works. The table would have to have.
  1. The Mahabharata Reference
  2. Your assessment of the critical nature of the reference based on non-repeatability, uniqueness, rarity. If the reference is not to be considered an astronomical reference at all, one can assign value 0. The scale can be from 9 to 0
  3. Interpretation of the Mahabharata Reference by NNO
  4. Whether the interpretation was verified using astronomical software by NNO or not
  5. Verification Score (how well the fit is)
  6. Product of Verification Score and Critical Level of Reference
  7. Your critique of the interpretation and the verification procedure by NNO
  8. Interpretation of the Mahabharata Reference by NA
  9. Whether the interpretation was verified using astronomical software by NA or not
  10. Your critique of the interpretation and the verification procedure by NA
  11. Verification Score (how well the fit is)
  12. Product of Verification Score and Critical Level of Reference
Commentary on the comparison!

If you are able to do this, it will be a great help for us here as well as for Nilesh Oak ji and Dr. Narahari Achar! One would be able to follow your criticism better.

Admittedly Dr. Narahari Achar does not list all the references in his work, so perhaps one can just import the relevant references from Sathe's book, and add to that Dr. Narahari Achar's interpretation, or Sathe's interpretation if Dr. Narahari Achar accepts that interpretation in toto. One could list the 150+ references from Sathe, including those 100+ which are interpreted as
peter wrote:(a) repeated references to the events already selected,
(b) references of a very general nature such as time and its division into kaal, muhurta, paksha, maasa etc.,
(c) references that are not directly connected with the war, and finally,
(d) those that are purely astrological in nature.
as well as more importantly the 40+ references that Dr. Narahari Achar uses. Similarly one can include the 200+ references that Nilesh Oak ji has used.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

An otherwise good documentary spoiled by AIT-Nazism!



Check at 3:25.

transcript: The Capadocian Region of Turkey was part of the Zoroastrian Empire, which was Persian in nature. It is one of the oldest religious traditions on the face of the Earth. The Zoroastrian religion, an ancient faith, based on opposing forces of good and evil, is widely believed to have influenced Hinduism and Judeo-Christianity. Founded sometime before the 6th century B.C., its chief god is the creator, the Ahura Mazda! ...

---------

So here is how they do it! They give one bone to Zoroastrianism to chew on, and then they take out one bone from its ribs.

Bone Given: widely believed (false) to have influenced Hinduism (false) and Judeo-Christianity (probably)
Bone Taken: Before 6th century! That is like saying Jesus Christ was born some time before last month!
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

Here is something written about the Tarim Mummies in Wikipedia.

Genetic links
DNA sequence data shows that the mummies had Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) characteristic of western Eurasia in the area of East-Central Europe, Central Asia and Indus Valley.

A team of Chinese and American researchers working in Sweden tested DNA from 52 separate mummies, including the mummy denoted "Beauty of Loulan." The features of the Loulan Beauty have been described as Nordic in appearance. She was approximately 45 years old when she died. By genetically mapping the mummies' origins, the researchers confirmed the theory that these mummies were of West Eurasian descent. Victor Mair, a University of Pennsylvania professor and project leader for the team that did the genetic mapping, commented that these studies were:
...extremely important because they link up eastern and western Eurasia at a formative stage of civilization (Bronze Age and early Iron Age) in a much closer way than has ever been done before.
An earlier study by Jilin University had found an mtDNA haplotype characteristic of Western Eurasian populations with Europoid genes.

In 2007 the Chinese government allowed a National Geographic team headed by Spencer Wells to examine the mummies' DNA. Wells was able to extract undegraded DNA from the internal tissues. The scientists extracted enough material to suggest the Tarim Basin was continually inhabited from 2000 BCE to 300 BCE and preliminary results indicate the people, rather than having a single origin, originated from Europe, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley and other regions yet to be determined.

However, In 2009, the remains of individuals found at a site in Xiaohe were analyzed for Y-DNA and mtDNA markers. They suggest that an admixed population of both west and east origin lived in the Tarim basin since the early Bronze Age. The maternal lineages were predominantly East Eurasian haplogroup C with smaller numbers of H and K, while the paternal lines were all West Eurasian R1a1a. The geographic location of where this admixing took place is unknown, although south Siberia is likely.

It has been asserted that the textiles found with the mummies are of an early European textile type based on close similarities to fragmentary textiles found in salt mines in Austria, dating from the second millennium BCE. Anthropologist Irene Good, a specialist in early Eurasian textiles, noted the woven diagonal twill pattern indicated the use of a rather sophisticated loom and, she says, the textile is "the easternmost known example of this kind of weaving technique."
Mair claims that "the earliest mummies in the Tarim Basin were exclusively Caucasoid, or Europoid" with east Asian migrants arriving in the eastern portions of the Tarim Basin around 3,000 years ago while the Uyghur peoples arrived around the year 842. In trying to trace the origins of these populations, Victor Mair's team suggested that they may have arrived in the region by way of the Pamir Mountains about 5,000 years ago.

Mair has claimed that:
The new finds are also forcing a reexamination of old Chinese books that describe historical or legendary figures of great height, with deep-set blue or green eyes, long noses, full beards, and red or blond hair. Scholars have traditionally scoffed at these accounts, but it now seems that they may be accurate.
Chinese historian Ji Xianlin says China "supported and admired" research by foreign experts into the mummies. "However, within China a small group of ethnic separatists have styled themselves the descendants of these ancient people". Due to the "fear of fuelling separatist currents" the Xinjiang museum, regardless of dating, displays all their mummies both Tarim and Han, together.

Posited origins

Physical anthropologists propose the movement of at least two Europoid physical types into the Tarim Basin. Mallory and Mair associate these types with the Tocharian and Iranian (Saka) branches of the Indo-European language family, respectively.

B. E. Hemphill's biodistance analysis of cranial metrics (as cited in Larsen 2002 and Schurr 2001) has questioned the identification of the Tarim Basin population as European, noting that the earlier population has close affinities to the Indus Valley population, and the later population with the Oxus River valley population. Because craniometry can produce results which make no sense at all (e.g. the close relationship between Neolithic populations in Ukraine and Portugal) and therefore lack any historical meaning, any putative genetic relationship must be consistent with geographical plausibility and have the support of other evidence.

Han Kangxin, who examined the skulls of 302 mummies, found the closest relatives of the earlier Tarim Basin population in the populations of the Afanasevo culture situated immediately north of the Tarim Basin and the Andronovo culture that spanned Kazakhstan and reached southwards into West Central Asia and the Altai.

It is the Afanasevo culture to which Mallory & Mair (2000:294–296, 314–318) trace the earliest Bronze Age settlers of the Tarim and Turpan basins. The Afanasevo culture (c. 3500–2500 BCE) displays cultural and genetic connections with the Indo-European-associated cultures of the Eurasian Steppe yet predates the specifically Indo-Iranian-associated Andronovo culture (c. 2000–900 BCE) enough to isolate the Tocharian languages from Indo-Iranian linguistic innovations like satemization.

Hemphill & Mallory (2004) confirm a second Europoid physical type at Alwighul (700–1 BCE) and Krorän (200 CE) different from the earlier one found at Qäwrighul (1800 BCE) and Yanbulaq (1100–500 BCE):

This study confirms the assertion of Han [1998] that the occupants of Alwighul and Krorän are not derived from proto-European steppe populations, but share closest affinities with Eastern Mediterranean populations. Further, the results demonstrate that such Eastern Mediterraneans may also be found at the urban centers of the Oxus civilization located in the north Bactrian oasis to the west. Affinities are especially close between Krorän, the latest of the Xinjiang samples, and Sapalli, the earliest of the Bactrian samples, while Alwighul and later samples from Bactria exhibit more distant phenetic affinities. This pattern may reflect a possible major shift in interregional contacts in Central Asia in the early centuries of the second millennium BCE.

Mallory and Mair associate this later (700 BCE–200 CE) Europoid physical type with the populations who introduced the Iranian Saka language to the western part of the Tarim basin.

Mair concluded:
"From the evidence available, we have found that during the first 1,000 years after the Loulan Beauty, the only settlers in the Tarim Basin were Caucasoid. East Asian peoples only began showing up in the eastern portions of the Tarim Basin about 3,000 years ago, Mair said, while the Uighur peoples arrived after the collapse of the Orkon Uighur Kingdom, largely based in modern day Mongolia, around the year 842."
__________________

I basically see a lot of fraud occurring here! All this "Europoid" physical type is nonsense. If Iranian Saka speakers were the Mummies, why are they being called Europoid?

In fact the whole articles reeks of racism and a desire to prove that the Tocharians were Europeans and R1a1a is European origin haplogroup!

B. E. Hemphill data is simply ignored as not very credible method.

In fact in the article, the Tarim Basin Mummies are being called blond!!! It is natural that after a long time, hair would start losing its dark color and mummies can appear red-haired. The effort is here to show that in the past, the Central Asian Aryans who lived there were in fact blond European looking people!

It is really a pity that these Europeans are being allowed to explore and write the history according to their own narrative, and even contrary data is used by them to still claim their own narrative. India on the other hand sends no archaeologists overseas.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Lalmohan »

^^^ there have been documentaries on these mummies on discovery channel, quite a few of them have retained their blonde and red hair, and facial features appear more european than mongoloid
KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by KLP Dubey »

Carl wrote:No, the word vAk and modifications like vAch are still current in Farsi, and they know what it means - speech.

Iranian Baga is related to Sanskrit Bhaga. The city of Baghdad is the Arabized corruption of the older Iranian name meaning either "god given" or "given as wealth".
Thanks, that is useful information. I think Shiv also mentioned Bhagadatta already.
It would be a mistake to consider the Iranic segment or any other nation as some bumbling set of envious fools and copycats who couldn't quite even pronounce, much less understand, the Vedas or Upanishads which only some races or castes were privy to.
One can only construct a theory (in this case: the speech defect/word-corruption model) based upon attested observations. Having a speech defect does not mean one is a "bumbling fool or copycat". Again, one must take a consistent approach. We do not know who was privy to what. Only available observations can be fit into a consistent model.

The Nambudiris of Kerala are probably some of the most learned Vedic practitioners in India. Yet their pronunciation is perhaps the worst in all India, and is full of corruptions. It is not as if they have never read the RV pratishakhya. For some reason this corrupt pronunciation has become inveterate. Some traits become ingrained either due to speech defects of some early Nambudiri, or it is a deliberate insistence on "sounding different from others". That does not make them "bumbling fools".
Rather, its possible that Sanskrit, as its name suggest, was set to the rudimentary and pure phonemes for its mantric value. These distilled and primordialized phonemes would have been culled from among different contributing nations. In reverse, it is also possible that Sanskrit terms then were absorbed back into the nations and recorrupted according to their individual characteristics. I believe the process worked both ways, not just a one way street.
Everything is possible, but what is likely ? The above starts to sound essentially like PIE-type speculations. They are unsupported by observations. First of all, the name "Sanskrit" can hardly be used as an indicator. It is of late origin.

There is also absolutely no evidence that the RV sounds are "culled from various sources". Historically, the evidence shows that Sanskrit grammar and phonetics have diffused OUT of India, and reverse (outside) influences have been very marginal. The reason is the existence of the Vedic standard and the rules of pronunciation and grammar. The difference between Vedic and other languages was the existence of an unbroken oral record and a phonetic record that backs up the oral record. That is an extremely significant point, and any credible theory of language diffusion MUST make this a cornerstone. Otherwise we are back to neo-PIE speculations.

In summary, we have now had 150 years of failed linguistic models based upon speculations not supported by observations. It is time to construct a radically different model based only upon real and available observations, not what "might have been". The result, of course, will not be palatable to some. But it is the scientific way forward. If new evidence is brought to light, the model can then change.

KL
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by RajeshA »

Lalmohan wrote:^^^ there have been documentaries on these mummies on discovery channel, quite a few of them have retained their blonde and red hair, and facial features appear more european than mongoloid
And are we sure that loss of hair pigmentation, i.e. becoming blond and red, is not a natural process in mummies? Perhaps one can find some reference to this! It could also be a chemical reaction with the surroundings, with the cloth, etc.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

Here is the Loulan beauty
Image

This one look Chinese to me - at least the mummy does. Check the buck teeth
Image
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

Check the distribution of R1a. Hardly "European"
Image
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Lalmohan »

shiv, you of all people should know what happens to corpses when they dessicate and mummify...
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Lalmohan »

rajesh - sure its possible. so are lots of different migratory patterns in different directions
there is insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion
in the meantime, i'm exploring the data with an open mind
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by shiv »

Lalmohan wrote:^^^ there have been documentaries on these mummies on discovery channel, quite a few of them have retained their blonde and red hair, and facial features appear more european than mongoloid
Egyptian Mummy
Caption
These are the mummies of Tuya and Yuya. The gold hair colour is as a result of the mummification process used, but you can clearly see they both have straight/wavy hair.
Image
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Post by Lalmohan »

thank you, i will absorb this information
Locked