Bharat Rakshak

Gurus,
Could someone point to the timeline of Romani migration out of India?

Virendra wrote:

RajeshA wrote:peter ji,
If Rama is considered ~67 generations after Ikshvaku, then Harita Rishi is considered 52 generations after Ikshvaku, as grandson of Ambarisha, an ancestor of Rama. So if Bappa Rawal is supposed to have met him, we are speaking of considerable antiquity.

Also there is speculation that the genealogy lists of Guhilots/Sisodias have become confused and with big holes.

Moreover he is said to have taken over from Raja Maan Mori of Mewar. The Moris would have been in power around Chandragupta Maurya's time, whose own coronation happens to be around 1534 BCE as per Puranas. So I am wondering if the Rajputs came about in the mid second millennium BCE.

Interesting. The geneology lists have definitely, not speculatively, become confused because of the destruction and disruptions faced for more than a millennia. I had read somewhere that in one of the sieges of Chittor its libraries were burnt.
But Rajputs weren't around in 2nd century BCE. ......

What is the signicficance of the date 2nd century BCE? Do you have evidence for post 2nd century BCE?

RajeshA wrote:Virendra ji,

thanks for your comments and help. I did read the academia.edu article earlier.

Well the Islamic sources do not mention him, so I was wondering if Bappa Rawal could be a figure from pre-Islamic times!

They had hard time with Indian names. And perhaps not highlighting a defeat is also real politik?

RajeshA wrote: It would be interesting to know for sure whether Bappa Rawal really took on the Arabs or simply some other Mlechha army occupying NW India. What is the level of certainty that he really fought the Islamics?

Tod had collected bardic records which were "less lost" than now during his times. Bardic records generally had grains of truth. Have you read tod's description of Bappa?

RajeshA wrote: Was it simply a convenient way to motivate other Rajputs to fight against the Islamics citing Bappa Rawal as having done it in his time as well? Considering that Bardic records are messed up, somebody may have "reused" the popular personality of Bappa Rawal and transported him centuries into his future to fight against the Islamics, even though he may have been a personality from much earlier. Just wondering!

This would be difficult because songs of bravery about ancestors were well preserved in their lineages.

If Bappa has been somehow brought forward in the timeline; we should also be seeing an ancient parallel of him and his deeds/stories in Indian or foreign historical/epigraphical sources where the said events took place.

As far as I know, the story of his demise is exactly the same as Nushirwan of Persia but he also seems at best a few centuries early than Bappa.

There is mention of a certain Nushirwan's (not sure if same guy) son sacking Vallabhipur - seat of Bappa's ancestors in 6th century.
Bappa's known connections with north west are - Naushera Pathans (via Nushirwan?), Rawalpindi and Arab attacks.

All the dots roam in medieval era. Even if we connect them in a new way, interpratations would belong to the same era.

Regards,
Virendra

Don't know if this is the right thread, but the AIT is debunked again by evidence. And the usual suspects are whining.

Ramayan row, in genetics

New Delhi, June 27: A team of Indian researchers has used the genetic make-up of three tribes mentioned in the Ramayan to challenge the longstanding view that Indo-European speakers populated India after their root language originated in Central Asia over 6,000 years ago.

Biologist Gyaneshwar Chaubey from an Estonian research centre and his collaborators in India say their genetic analysis suggests India has not witnessed any massive influx of populations for at least 12,500 years.

The researchers analysed the genetic make-ups of the Bhils, Gonds and Kols, tribes mentioned in the Ramayan, specifically in the sections known as the Ayodhyakanda, Aranyakanda and Kiskindhakanda, and published their findings in the journal PLOS One.

"We picked these tribes because the Ramayan is among the oldest of epics from India, and we assume that the tribes mentioned in this epic would have existed beyond the timeline described in the epic," Chaubey told The Telegraph .

But some geneticists and linguists have questioned the claims made in the paper.

"The critical time estimate of 12,500 years does not appear to come from this study," said Partha Majumder, director of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, who was not associated with the paper but had himself earlier published findings about the influx of populations into India.

"Not all the inferences made in the paper can be robustly drawn from the data and the results in this study."

Linguistics specialists too have questioned the claim about the absence of large-scale influx of Indo-European speakers into the subcontinent.

"The overwhelming evidence supports the movement of people into the subcontinent," said Imtiaz Hasnain, professor of linguistics at Aligarh Muslim University.

"There is abundant evidence in the language patterns for the southward movement of populations within India, possibly triggered by the influx of Indo-European-speaking population groups from Central Asia."

Some researchers also say that anthropological, linguistic and genetic studies have "without doubt" established the arrival of Indo-European speakers into the subcontinent.

"They arrived in waves, not in one go," said Anvita Abbi, former professor at the Centre for Linguistics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. "A claim that Indo-European speakers did not arrive is untenable."

Earlier genetic studies by scientists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, had shown that most modern Indians have their origins in two root populations.

These are the ancestral south Indians (ASI), not related to any population outside the subcontinent, and the ancestral north Indians (ANI), related to present-day Central Asians, Caucasians and Europeans.

The new analysis by Chaubey and his colleagues suggests that the genetic elements that mark the ASI are found at their highest levels in the Bhils, Gonds and Kols and are shared across almost all modern Indian populations.

"These genetic signatures that we call ASI appear to be the common thread connecting all Indians," Chaubey said.

"When we assemble Indian populations in the context of other world populations, they unite into one cluster."

The genetic differences observed within Indian populations, the researchers say, appear to have primarily resulted from the emergence of the caste system, environmental pressures and specific food habits.

The modern caste groups and the tribes appear to share a common ancestry from the initial settlement of the subcontinent between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, Chaubey said.

The claims challenge the conventional view based on linguistic studies that most modern Indian caste populations are the descendants of the Indo-European speakers.

So, whether tribal or upper caste, all Indians share the same genetic ancestry. Genetically, there are no real 100% imported TFTA among us. We may have diverged due to caste stratification, but such divergence is relatively recent. As caste barriers break, we are going to become even more homogeneous again. Even now, we are genetically more similar to each other than to populations outside the Indian subcontinent.

JMT

I have been meaning to ask this question for long but recent post from schinnas on SriLanka thread made me speak out:

Well...Tamil is more Sanskritic than Hindi. Other than the Devanagiri script which is used by both Sanskrit and Hindi, Tamil has more in common with Sanskrit than Hindi, which is heavily influenced by Persian and Arabic. More than 50% of words in Tamil are of Sanskrit origin and the very first grammer book of Tamil clearly calls out how to modify pronunciation of words when they are borrowed from Sanskrit. It beats me as to why would any scholar worthy of merit would consider Tamil as not being in the same category of languages as Sanskrit. This whole dravidian family of languages thing is highly suspect.

What exactly is Indo-European Language Family? and What is Dravidian Language Family? What makes them different?

In the "Indo-European" terminology, what exactly is european about it?

Similarly, how similar/dis-similar are other Indian languages like Telugu, Tamil that get categorized as "dravidian." and how does these compare with the so called members of the same family "Indo-European"?

Can I request learned folks of this subject to give a primer/ throw some light on this please? Or if you can identify experts who can, please provide names and we shall explore options to bring them to this thread?

telugu (te) outgrew from kannada (k) probably soon after eastern chALukyAs split from the western chALukyAs ruling from bAdAmi. To start with there were only three "draviDian" languages - Tamizh (Ta), maLayAla[m], and kannaDa (ka). The first two have a very close relation as far as script goes. But m has a lot of samskrita words. The real question is whether Ta is as old as it is claimed to be or is a derivative of m and so me other language.

Kakkaji wrote:Don't know if this is the right thread, but the AIT is debunked again by evidence. And the usual suspects are whining.

Ramayan row, in genetics

New Delhi, June 27: A team of Indian researchers has used the genetic make-up of three tribes mentioned in the Ramayan to challenge the longstanding view that Indo-European speakers populated India after their root language originated in Central Asia over 6,000 years ago.

Biologist Gyaneshwar Chaubey from an Estonian research centre and his collaborators in India say their genetic analysis suggests India has not witnessed any massive influx of populations for at least 12,500 years.

The researchers analysed the genetic make-ups of the Bhils, Gonds and Kols, tribes mentioned in the Ramayan, specifically in the sections known as the Ayodhyakanda, Aranyakanda and Kiskindhakanda, and published their findings in the journal PLOS One.

"We picked these tribes because the Ramayan is among the oldest of epics from India, and we assume that the tribes mentioned in this epic would have existed beyond the timeline described in the epic," Chaubey told The Telegraph .

But some geneticists and linguists have questioned the claims made in the paper.

"The critical time estimate of 12,500 years does not appear to come from this study," said Partha Majumder, director of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, who was not associated with the paper but had himself earlier published findings about the influx of populations into India.

"Not all the inferences made in the paper can be robustly drawn from the data and the results in this study."

Linguistics specialists too have questioned the claim about the absence of large-scale influx of Indo-European speakers into the subcontinent.

"The overwhelming evidence supports the movement of people into the subcontinent," said Imtiaz Hasnain, professor of linguistics at Aligarh Muslim University.

"There is abundant evidence in the language patterns for the southward movement of populations within India, possibly triggered by the influx of Indo-European-speaking population groups from Central Asia."

Some researchers also say that anthropological, linguistic and genetic studies have "without doubt" established the arrival of Indo-European speakers into the subcontinent.

"They arrived in waves, not in one go," said Anvita Abbi, former professor at the Centre for Linguistics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. "A claim that Indo-European speakers did not arrive is untenable."

Earlier genetic studies by scientists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, had shown that most modern Indians have their origins in two root populations.

These are the ancestral south Indians (ASI), not related to any population outside the subcontinent, and the ancestral north Indians (ANI), related to present-day Central Asians, Caucasians and Europeans.

The new analysis by Chaubey and his colleagues suggests that the genetic elements that mark the ASI are found at their highest levels in the Bhils, Gonds and Kols and are shared across almost all modern Indian populations.

"These genetic signatures that we call ASI appear to be the common thread connecting all Indians," Chaubey said.

"When we assemble Indian populations in the context of other world populations, they unite into one cluster."

The genetic differences observed within Indian populations, the researchers say, appear to have primarily resulted from the emergence of the caste system, environmental pressures and specific food habits.

The modern caste groups and the tribes appear to share a common ancestry from the initial settlement of the subcontinent between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, Chaubey said.

The claims challenge the conventional view based on linguistic studies that most modern Indian caste populations are the descendants of the Indo-European speakers.

So, whether tribal or upper caste, all Indians share the same genetic ancestry. Genetically, there are no real 100% imported TFTA among us. We may have diverged due to caste stratification, but such divergence is relatively recent. As caste barriers break, we are going to become even more homogeneous again. Even now, we are genetically more similar to each other than to populations outside the Indian subcontinent.

JMT

I haven't seen the study but I too am curious how he arrived at the date of 12,500 years. All of the evidence that I've seen so far does point to two major groups ANI and ASI. This may have happened some 50-60,000 years ago after the eruption of Mt. Toba which created a bottleneck in the human species.

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

Kakkaji wrote:Don't know if this is the right thread, but the AIT is debunked again by evidence. And the usual suspects are whining.

Ramayan row, in genetics

New Delhi, June 27: A team of Indian researchers has used the genetic make-up of three tribes mentioned in the Ramayan to challenge the longstanding view that Indo-European speakers populated India after their root language originated in Central Asia over 6,000 years ago.

Biologist Gyaneshwar Chaubey from an Estonian research centre and his collaborators in India say their genetic analysis suggests India has not witnessed any massive influx of populations for at least 12,500 years.

The researchers analysed the genetic make-ups of the Bhils, Gonds and Kols, tribes mentioned in the Ramayan, specifically in the sections known as the Ayodhyakanda, Aranyakanda and Kiskindhakanda, and published their findings in the journal PLOS One.

"We picked these tribes because the Ramayan is among the oldest of epics from India, and we assume that the tribes mentioned in this epic would have existed beyond the timeline described in the epic," Chaubey told The Telegraph .

But some geneticists and linguists have questioned the claims made in the paper.

"The critical time estimate of 12,500 years does not appear to come from this study," said Partha Majumder, director of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, who was not associated with the paper but had himself earlier published findings about the influx of populations into India.

"Not all the inferences made in the paper can be robustly drawn from the data and the results in this study."

Linguistics specialists too have questioned the claim about the absence of large-scale influx of Indo-European speakers into the subcontinent.

"The overwhelming evidence supports the movement of people into the subcontinent," said Imtiaz Hasnain, professor of linguistics at Aligarh Muslim University.

"There is abundant evidence in the language patterns for the southward movement of populations within India, possibly triggered by the influx of Indo-European-speaking population groups from Central Asia."

Some researchers also say that anthropological, linguistic and genetic studies have "without doubt" established the arrival of Indo-European speakers into the subcontinent.

"They arrived in waves, not in one go," said Anvita Abbi, former professor at the Centre for Linguistics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. "A claim that Indo-European speakers did not arrive is untenable."

Earlier genetic studies by scientists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, had shown that most modern Indians have their origins in two root populations.

These are the ancestral south Indians (ASI), not related to any population outside the subcontinent, and the ancestral north Indians (ANI), related to present-day Central Asians, Caucasians and Europeans.

The new analysis by Chaubey and his colleagues suggests that the genetic elements that mark the ASI are found at their highest levels in the Bhils, Gonds and Kols and are shared across almost all modern Indian populations.

"These genetic signatures that we call ASI appear to be the common thread connecting all Indians," Chaubey said.

"When we assemble Indian populations in the context of other world populations, they unite into one cluster."

The genetic differences observed within Indian populations, the researchers say, appear to have primarily resulted from the emergence of the caste system, environmental pressures and specific food habits.

The modern caste groups and the tribes appear to share a common ancestry from the initial settlement of the subcontinent between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, Chaubey said.

The claims challenge the conventional view based on linguistic studies that most modern Indian caste populations are the descendants of the Indo-European speakers.

So, whether tribal or upper caste, all Indians share the same genetic ancestry. Genetically, there are no real 100% imported TFTA among us. We may have diverged due to caste stratification, but such divergence is relatively recent. As caste barriers break, we are going to become even more homogeneous again. Even now, we are genetically more similar to each other than to populations outside the Indian subcontinent.

JMT

I haven't seen the study but I too am curious how he arrived at the date of 12,500 years. All of the evidence that I've seen so far does point to two major groups ANI and ASI. This may have happened some 50-60,000 years ago after the eruption of Mt. Toba which created a bottleneck in the human species.

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

^
Per my limited understanding, this limit of 12500 comes from non-genetic and thus external , geological understanding (faulty in my judgement..but then it is a long subject of glaciation and how it affected different parts of the world...the picture is hardly static), i.e. many of these researchers assume that flow between/Europe/India only opened up in recent times after 12500 years (deglaciation) and thus if a uniform or continuous gene pool is found (for a group, tribe, etc.) in India, it is assumed to be not being imported (or interbred) for this long period.

Nilesh Oak wrote:^
Per my limited understanding, this limit of 12500 comes from non-genetic and thus external , geological understanding (faulty in my judgement..but then it is a long subject of glaciation and how it affected different parts of the world...the picture is hardly static), i.e. many of these researchers assume that flow between/Europe/India only opened up in recent times after 12500 years (deglaciation) and thus if a uniform or continuous gene pool is found (for a group, tribe, etc.) in India, it is assumed to be not being imported (or interbred) for this long period.

This is correct. There are some genetics papers that use the term "last glacial maximum" i.e. last ice age. they say that some genetic changes have occurred either before or after the laist ice age.

The last ice age ended about 12,500 to 10,000 years ago. Interestingly no one mentions the fact that evidence of the ice age exists in Europe and North America in the form of rocks that were dragged and scoured by glacial movement. Such evidence does not extend much further than Southern Europe. Europe became relatively depopulated of humans in the last ice age. But not India. India was warm and chugging along merrily.

I have another theory. A brief study of the coast from Gujarat, across Sindh and coastal Iran right up to the gulf shows that the water is very shallow - just 10 meters deep in places.

it is likely that the sea levels were much lower in the last ice age and that these shallow coastal regions were dry land at that time allowing human settlement and migration. Was the sinking of Dwarka an event that marked the end of the ice age?

shiv wrote:

Nilesh Oak wrote:^
Per my limited understanding, this limit of 12500 comes from non-genetic and thus external , geological understanding (faulty in my judgement..but then it is a long subject of glaciation and how it affected different parts of the world...the picture is hardly static), i.e. many of these researchers assume that flow between/Europe/India only opened up in recent times after 12500 years (deglaciation) and thus if a uniform or continuous gene pool is found (for a group, tribe, etc.) in India, it is assumed to be not being imported (or interbred) for this long period.

This is correct. There are some genetics papers that use the term "last glacial maximum" i.e. last ice age. they say that some genetic changes have occurred either before or after the laist ice age.

The last ice age ended about 12,500 to 10,000 years ago. Interestingly no one mentions the fact that evidence of the ice age exists in Europe and North America in the form of rocks that were dragged and scoured by glacial movement. Such evidence does not extend much further than Southern Europe. Europe became relatively depopulated of humans in the last ice age. But not India. India was warm and chugging along merrily.

I have another theory. A brief study of the coast from Gujarat, across Sindh and coastal Iran right up to the gulf shows that the water is very shallow - just 10 meters deep in places.

it is likely that the sea levels were much lower in the last ice age and that these shallow coastal regions were dry land at that time allowing human settlement and migration. Was the sinking of Dwarka an event that marked the end of the ice age?

Sinking of Dwarka (Sudden sea level rise, earthquakes, etc.)

Earthquake records..

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2015/06 ... e-records/

and Sudden sea level rise (not Tsunami...for Tsunami water would recede, this did not)

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2015/05 ... habharata/

A_Gupta wrote:On the Proto-Indo-European Language of the Indus Valley Civilization (and Its Implications for Western Prehistory), in THE SINDHU-SARASVATI CIVILIZATION: NEW PERSPECTIVES (essays in honor of Dr. S.R. Rao) (2014) (peer-reviewed).

http://chicago.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID ... pdf&TYPE=2

Gem of a link. Was not able to open/read the full paper, but the abstract looks very interesting, the death of AIT theory is closer than we think:

On the Proto-Indo-European Language of the Indus Valley Civilization (and Its Implications for Western Prehistory)


Robin Bradley Kar
University of Illinois College of Law

August 4, 2012

The Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization: New Perspectives (Essays in Honor of Dr. S.R. Rao) (2014)

Abstract:
Many of our attempts to understand the basic causes and conditions of legal, social, political and economic development in the West have been shaped by a particular view of human prehistory, which places the origins of certain key traditions in ancient Greece, Rome and Israel. The developments in ancient Greece and Rome are, moreover, typically pictured as phylogenetically distinct from some of the very first human transitions from hunter-gatherer forms of life into larger-scale urban civilizations that have been found in the archaeological record. Although the so-called "Indus Valley" Civilization (a.k.a. the "Harappan" or "Sindhu-Sarasvati" Civilization) represents one of the very first such successful transformations in our natural history as a species, and although the Indus Valley Civilization long predates similar developments in ancient Greece, Rome or Israel, most scholars deem these early developments irrelevant to Western prehistory because of a specific linguistic proposition: they believe that the Indus Valley Civilization spoke a non-Indo-European language and that its traditions are therefore phylogenetically unrelated to the larger family of Indo-European civilizations that show up in the subsequent historical record (first in ancient Persia, Greece, Rome and India - and then much later in Western Europe and Russia). If this traditional linguistic assumption is wrong, however, then many of our modern attempts to understand the basic causes and conditions of Western development are being shaped by a fundamental misunderstanding - and often to their detriment.

This article argues that, despite certain well-known and long-standing controversies over the issue, we are already in a good enough position to conclude - and with a very high degree of confidence - that the Indus Valley Civilization spoke dialects of Proto-Indo-European. My arguments for this conclusion will be new, and will draw upon a body of evidence that has so far been overlooked in these discussions. A growing number of people have, however, begun to acknowledge this possibility, and I will be suggesting that there are sufficient signs now of a coming paradigm shift with regard to our understanding of early human prehistory to warrant serious attention. If - as I believe - we are in the midst of such a paradigm shift, and if this paradigm shift is like any other, then we should also expect many fruitful discoveries to be emerging from this new perspective.

The arguments in this article have been split into five sections. Section 1 develops a contemporary model of prehistoric linguistic expansion (the "riverine-agricultural model of linguistic expansion"), which suggests that certain major riverine topographies have played a critical role in producing all of the world's major language families - including the Indo-European language family. This model suggests that, during the height of the Indus Valley Civilization, the languages spoken in this region would have almost certainly represented one of the most important and monumental linguistic phenomena ever to have arisen within our natural history as a species. Section 2 then argues that if we assume (plausibly) that significant pockets of this language family should therefore remain in the northwestern portions of the Indian subcontinent, then the Indus Valley Civilization must have spoken dialects of Proto-Indo-European.

Section 3 then considers the objection that tries to reject this last conclusion by rejecting its guiding assumption (i.e., that significant pockets of the Indus Valley Civilization’s language family should still remain in the northwestern parts of the Indian subcontinent). According to this objection, small groups of Indo-Aryan invaders or migrants from the steppes could have simply eradicated the pre-existing language (or languages) of the Indus Valley Civilization by converting the prior populations to Indo-Aryan languages beginning in about 1500 BC. In order to assess this possibility, Section 3 engages in a comprehensive examination of patterns of linguistic replacement from around the world and over the course of world history. This examination reveals an important fact: once a major linguistic phenomenon has reached equilibrium around a major riverine topography in accordance with the riverine-agricultural model of linguistic expansion, there is not one recorded case anywhere in this extensive world historical record where the language family in question has been completely replaced in one of these riverine regions by a different language family through a process of linguistic conversion. We therefore have strong empirical reasons to reject this objection.

Section 4 discusses another common source of resistance to the claim that the Indus Valley Civilization might have spoken dialects of Proto-Indo-European. This objection is based on the perception that this linguistic claim carries with it certain necessary implications about Indo-European prehistory that can be hard to square with the broader body of evidence relevant to this larger topic. In order to address this concern, Section 4 embeds the linguistic claim within a broader narrative concerning Indo-European prehistory that is - I argue - actually better able to explain (or at least render coherent) this broader body of evidence than its main competitors. Hence, the current linguistic proposal - once properly construed - can be understood as the beneficiary of a much broader and more extensive form of evidentiary support.

Section 5 ends, finally, with a direct response to some of Michael Witzel’s important and influential work, which purports not only to establish that Indo-European languages and cultures were first brought to the Indian subcontinent from the Eurasian Steppes sometime between 1500 to 1200 BC but also to trace with some precision the exact timing and path of the Indo-Iranian groups who (in his view) carried these languages and cultures with them. Witzel is one of the most pre-eminent Indologists alive today, and he has collected an important body of evidence relevant to these topics. I will nevertheless argue that Witzel's evidence ultimately underdetermines the choice between his traditional theory and the newer one developed here. In construing his evidence to support his theory uniquely, Witzel has therefore, in effect, mistaken a failure of theoretical imagination for a set of inferences that are required by his evidence. Once our full theoretical options have been made explicit, Witzel's evidence can, moreover, be seen to slightly favor the current theory. The choice between these two theories will, however, become even clearer once Witzel's evidence is harmonized with all of the other evidence relevant to these topics (including all of the new considerations discussed in this article). Based on this entire combined body of evidence, we now have compelling reasons to think that the Indus Valley Civilization spoke dialects of Proto-Indo-European.

The author being legally trained and not from linguist mafia would be able to construct his arguments logically from existing body of evidence.

http://www.law.illinois.edu/faculty/profile/RobinKar

It is just not language, but precursors to legal and cultural traditions in Western world have origins further east than thought before.
From the same author: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2039502

This Article draws upon and develops these contemporary findings to reconstruct the most plausible genealogical shape of Western legal prehistory. In the process, it reaches a somewhat surprising conclusion. On the traditional view, the most important traditions relevant to the rise of Western law and Western Civilization are said to have originated in ancient Greece, Rome, and Israel. This traditional view is, however, based primarily on historical sources, and the reconstructions in this Article suggest that important precursors of these traditions very likely emerged much earlier and much further to the East. In fact, some of the most important traditions relevant to the emergence of large-scale civilizations with the rule of law in the West would appear to represent just one branch a much richer family of traditions, which began to emerge around 4500 BC in the Eastern-Iran-Bactria-Indus-Valley region. Beginning at this early time, this region began to produce one of the very first ancient civilizations to arise within our natural history as a species (viz., the “Harappan” or “Indus Valley” Civilization), and the people in this region must have therefore developed some of the very first cultural traditions that were specifically adapted to sustaining large-scale civilizations with incipient law. I will be arguing that these ancient developments most likely had a much closer and much more intimate relationship to some of the earliest precursors of Western tradition than has commonly been recognized because these precursors of Western tradition ultimately originated closer to ancient Bactria — which is an area directly adjacent to the Indus Valley but to the east of the Caspian Sea — during this very same time period. The reconstructions developed in this Article will thus allow me to decipher what I take to be the most plausible early genealogical shape of our legal family tree, and to suggest a number of important but underappreciated relationships that obtain between our modern Western traditions and a range of other Eurasian traditions with which the West has typically been contrasted.

Who was Dr. S.R. Rao?

this is what wiki throws up..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikaripu ... anatha_Rao

Shikaripura Ranganatha Rao (Kannada: ಶಿಕಾರಿಪುರ ರಂಗನಾಥ ರಾವ್) (1 July 1922[1] – 3 January 2013), commonly known as Dr. S. R. Rao, was an Indian archeologist who led teams credited with the discovery of a number of Harappan sites including the port ciy Lothal and Bet Dwarka in Gujarat.

Rao (1992)[2] claimed to have deciphered the Indus script. Postulating uniformity of the script over the full extent of Indus-era civilization, he compared it to the Phoenician Alphabet, and assigned sound values based on this comparison. His decipherment results in an "Sanskritic" reading, including the numerals aeka, tra, chatus, panta, happta/sapta, dasa, dvadasa, sata (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 100).

^ thanks for the wiki link.

Strange world of Mahabharata researchers

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2015/07 ... searchers/

gashish wrote:
Gem of a link. Was not able to open/read the full paper, but the abstract looks very interesting, the death of AIT theory is closer than we think:

Try downloading the pdf instead of opening it in the browser.

its the sitting posture which is so familiar in this statue of so called Monkey god in Honduras. They also mention Wind ( Marut) in relation to this statue.How many monkeys were sent to SA to search for Sita in Ramayana?

Jhujar wrote:its the sitting posture which is so familiar in this statue of so called Monkey god in Honduras. They also mention Wind ( Marut) in relation to this statue.How many monkeys were sent to SA to search for Sita in Ramayana?

No one, in reality went as far as SA in search of Sita.

However, Sugriva claims to have been there, in the past (prior to Rama- Ravana yuddha) many times.

Also Ravana had visited the place before.

Nilesh Oakji, is it uncorroborated that Vanar sena was sent up to Peru?

I have read some blogs which claim Sugriv might have visited this place to know about it before sending the search party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracas_Candelabra

prahaar wrote:Nilesh Oakji, is it uncorroborated that Vanar sena was sent up to Peru?

I have read some blogs which claim Sugriv might have visited this place to know about it before sending the search party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracas_Candelabra

Uncorroboration is same as absence of evidence. And I try my best to protect myself from fallacy of Absence of evidence = evidence of absence.
--
So, to answer your question, ...No, Vanar sena going up to Peru is not uncorroborated. Rather my judgement is based on the following..

(1) The Vanara search party that went to the East returned soon (Valmiki Ramayana states as within a timeline of month set by Sugriva).

(2) No detailed descriptions of how far they (east party) went.
--
On the other hand, to your second point, Sugriva in fact claims that he had been around the world (round the world) many times, so he was familiar with it and his knowledge appears to be based on his first hand experience.

For a minute, assuming that he had his knowledge from some other contemporary sources (equivalent of google earth), still the knowledge appears to be baced on solid information gathering and first hand experience of someone visiting the region.

prahaar wrote:Nilesh Oakji, is it uncorroborated that Vanar sena was sent up to Peru?

I have read some blogs which claim Sugriv might have visited this place to know about it before sending the search party.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracas_Candelabra

And its kind of 2700 miles straight path to Easter Island with inscription in "Yindus"script.

two important genetic studies about migration of humans:

First humans out of Africa were small, scrappy

The most comprehensive dataset ever assembled on our early human ancestors provides evidence that the first humans emerged in South Africa, and that the first humans to migrate out of Africa came from a small-bodied species such as Homo habilis, aka "Handy Man."

The theory is a complete shake-up of the human family tree...

"Homo erectus would then have spread from Asia into Africa, rather than the reverse, which is what the current consensus contends,"

will need to look at actual paper for timelines.

First Americans from Australia, too

the Suruí and Karitiana people of the Amazon had stronger ties to indigenous groups in Australasia—Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders—than to Eurasians

The original Americans: First settlers came from Siberia in a single group more than 23,000 years ago, new study finds
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z3gpZEZN89

( This finding confirms Oppenheimer Map of human migration. Before TAPI pipeline was ever conceived, there was IRSA migration pipeline. AFAIK only India was inhabited by humans in last ice age who could migrate )

The original Americans came from Siberia in a single wave no more than 23,000 years ago, at the height of the last Ice Age.New research says they hung out in the north of the country - perhaps for thousands of years - before spreading in two distinct populations throughout North and South America, according to a new genomic analysis.The findings, which will be reported in the July 24 issue of Science, confirm the most popular theory of the peopling of the Americas, but throws cold water on others, including the notion of an earlier wave of people from East Asia prior to the last glacial maximum.It also discounts the idea that multiple independent waves produced the major subgroups of Native Americans we see today, as opposed to diversification in the Americas.This Ice Age migration over a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska is distinct from the arrival of the Inuit and Eskimo, who were latecomers, spreading throughout the Artic beginning about 5,500 years ago.The findings also dispel the idea that Polynesians or Europeans contributed to the genetic heritage of Native Americans.The analysis, using the most comprehensive genetic data set from Native Americans to date, was conducted using three different statistical models, two of them created by UC Berkeley researchers.The first, developed by the lab of Yun Song, a UC Berkeley associate professor of statistics and of electrical engineering and computer sciences, takes into account the full DNA information available from the genomes in the study.

New paper:
Genetic Affinity of the Bhil, Kol and Gond Mentioned in Epic Ramayana
Gyaneshwer Chaubey 1 *, Anurag Kadian 2 , Saroj Bala 3 , Vadlamudi Raghavendra Rao 4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 127655.pdf

Summary of results:

1. All Indians (that includes Pakis) are connected up by a unique "Ancestral South Indian component"
2. All Indians have an ancestral North Indian component -(now also termed Ancestral North eurasian- ANE) whose admixture dates to a period MORE than 12,500 years ago. It's exact origins are unknown but it was much much earlier than the AMT/AIT date of 3,500 years
3. Even Bhil, Gond and other tribes mentioned in the Ramayana have the same genetic composition

^^^
The whole above paper seems to be based on Bhils, Gonds, and Khols being mentioned in Raamayana. Did the paper give any reference where they are mentioned?(So that, it can be cross-checked).
-----
X-post:

Lets see the various groups that were seen as antagonistic to ancient Hindhus:

- Dhasyus - mentioned in Vedhas.
- Asuras - mentioned in Puraanas, MB, Raamayana and Vedhas.
- Dhaithyas - mentioned in Puraanas, MB, Raamayana.
- Dhaanavas - mentoned in Puraanas and MB.
- Raakshasas - mentioned in Puraanas, MB, Raamayana.
- Pishachas - mentioned in Puraanas, MB, Raamayana.
- Yavanas - mentioned in Puraanas, MB, Raamayana.
- Mlecchas - mentioned in Puraanas and MB. Mostly, the puraanas mention them.

Dhaithyas & Asuras:
Now, Dhaithyas are sons of Dhithi. Asuras are also sons of Dhithi. Most probably, Asuras are same as Dhaithyas. However, initially, Asuras were not seen as opponents. Infact, the ancestors of the famed Puru are Asuras from mother's side. Yayathi married the daughter of Vrusha-parvan and the daughter of Shukra. Vrushaparvan is the the king of Asuras at the time. And Shukra was the priest of Asuras at the time. Asuras were similar to Suras in all aspects. The only problem was political rivalry.

The Assyrians had a god called Ashur i.e. Asura. So, it seems that they were Asuras as far as ancient Hindhus were concerned. So, they were similar to ancient Hindhus in all aspects. There were political differences with them. Except that, all others aspects of culture and civilization were similar. Infact, there were even blood and marital relations.

Dhaanavas:
Dhaanavas are sons of Dhanu. Dhaanavas seem to be a slighly later category than Asuras. Original rivalry was Sura-Asura. Dhaanavas were the allieas of Asuras. Dhaanavas are white and fled to sea. That would put them as nordic or Ionian.

Raakshasa, Yaksha & Pishacha:
Pishacha:
the word 'Pishacha' seems to be related to Pishitha-Ashana. It is generally translated as meat-eater. But, many groups seem to be eating meat. So, this Pishitha-Ashana seems to mean cannibal who eats all kinds of meat including the meat of human beings. Yakshas, Gandharvas, and Pishachas were ruled by Kubera who has his capital city in Alakapuri which is in himalayas. Kubera is the lord of northern direction. That also shows that these people lived in the north. I think that Pishachas refers to cannibals residing to the extreme north starting from northern Himalayas.

We are told that Paishachi language became extinct by the time of Gunadhya. Gunadhya's story has the mention of Vikrama. Gunadhya wrote his work during Shaathavahana rule in Paishachi. Shaathvahana rule seems to be around 1000 BCE. So, cannibals and their language became extinct in Bhaarath by the time of 1000 BCE. Originally, they seem to reside in the northern areas of Himalayas and further north.

In simple terms, it could means that cannibalism went out of mode by 1000 BCE and those people became civilized. Their outdated language may have become extinct. The language of Paisachi may have developed further into other daughter languages and the older language may have become extinct. The extinction language could also mean migration. But, I think its lesser possibility.


Raakshasa:
The word 'Raakshasa' seems to have been initially a good connotation. Later, it seems to have acquired negative connotations. General depiction is that the Raakshasas live in jungles. Though lanka is the kingdom of Raakshasas. The difference between Raakshasas and ancient Hindhus was: Raakshasas were really really dark. While, ancient Hindhus were slightly dark...dusky, brown, light dark. However, there were many ancient Hindhus who were more darker than others like Raama or Krushna. The word Krushna means black. The word Krushna has been applied to Krushna son of Vasudheva, Krushna Dhwaipayana i.e. Vyasa, Krushna i.e. daughter of of Dhurpadha, ...etc. That means all of them were darker than others. Yet, Krushna son of Vasudheva and Krushna daughter of Dhrupadha were considered very beautiful. So, darkness was not a symptom of uncivilizedness or ugliness. It seems that initially Raakshasas were considered good. So, strictly speaking there really was no racial or religious or political difference between Raakshasas and anceint Hindhus. Infact Raakshashas along with Yakshas were considered part of ancient Hindhu group i.e. Aryan. At some point, Raakshasas seem to have joined hands with Pishachas. That made Raakshasas also as enemies.

Yaksha:
Yaksha and Pishacha seem to be connected with same geography. Both seem to hail from north i.e. really really north. Yakshas were considered beautiful and stylish.

Raakshasas, Yakshas, and Pishachas were led by Kubera. For a brief period, Asuras and Raakshas were together led by Ravana, but it again reverted to Kubera.

Mahabhaaratha's explanation:
MB tells us that Yayathi had 5 sons. And he gave the kingship of his kingdom to Puru who was the youngest son. The other sons had the following fate:

- Yadhu - his descendents/followers did not follow a system of kingship. Yadhu's descendents followed a system of democracy rather than kingship. The followers of Yadhu were also cowherds or shepherds.

- Thurvasu - he became the leader of Yavanas. Yavanas did not follow a marriage system. And they were seen as generally uncivilized(An-Aryan). The word 'Yavana' or 'Javana' means fast which perhaps indicates the horses.

- Anu - he became the leader of Mlecchas. Mlecchas are people who did not worship fire i.e. they did not perform Yagnyas.

- Dhruhyu - he became the leader of Bojas. Bojas supposedly ruled in watery areas.(I don't quite understand this).

Yavanas:
Yavanas did not follow a proper marriage system. Yavanas are described as living in the north-west. Yavanas are described along with Kaambhojas(Iran) and Bahlika(Bactria). So, they seem to belong to nearby geography.

So, what is the geography of Yavanas?
Gaandhara is Afghanisthan. Kekaya is Pakhtunisthan. Sindh is Sindh. Sauvira seems to be Balochisthan. Yavana region is somewhere in between Kekaya, Gaandhara and Bahlika. Either the Yavanas are to the south-east of Gaandhara or to the north-west of Gaandhara.

The Yavanas seem to be nomadic tribes of the north-west with horses. They didn't have any civilization. They didn't have any navy.

Yavanas & Ionians:
Yavanas are generally assumed to be Greeks. The mainstream western historians(who push AIT themes directly or indirectly) seem to suggest that the word 'Ionian' is a corruption of the word 'Yavana'. And that the word 'Yavana' meant greeks because they had 'horses'. I don't think this reasoning is correct.

Firstly, the Ionian civilization was mostly a naval civilization. While, the Yavanas seem to be landlocked. The greeks didn't seem to have many horses because their regions didn't have them. Spain has horses in Europe and Greeks didn't seem to rule spanish areas. Even Romans came to control Spain much later after defeating Carthage. Only then, Romans could field superior cavalry. Until then, Romans had a very inferior cavalry. Generally speaking, Europe doesn't have horses and have traditionally depended on navy and infantry. So, greeks can't be an exception. The greeks fielded Phalanax and hoplites. Both are infantry based army divisions. So, greeks were not famous for their horses. They were famous for their navy and infantry if at all. So, why would they be called 'yavanas'. The only possibility is that the Yavanas of the north-west Bhaarath went to the islands of greece and settled there. This possiblity is more plausible. But, then how did they develop navy? Developing a navy is not easy and requires a lot of tech.

But, there is one interesting thing though: the mycenians were before the Ionians. Later these mycenians became Ionians. Mycenians started off as pirates. Phonicians also seem to have started off with piracy. The question remains if the Yavanas went to the greek islands and settled there, how did they develop the navy?

Mlecchas:
The ancient Hindhus' rivalry with Mlecchas was religious. Because mlecchas did not worship the fire. Their leader was Anu. Asuras, Dhaanavas and Raakshasas cannot be mlecchas because they all seem to perform Yagnyas unlike the Mlecchas.

The category of Mlecchas seems to be slightly later than Asuras, Dhaanavas, Raakshasa, Pishaachas, ...etc. So, mleccha group seems to have come slightly later.

Now, who are this mleccha? I think the crucial clue is: their leader was Anu.

I don't know if anyone had ever made this observation before, but I discovered something amazing. Maybe many people know about it. Anyway here it is: Ancient Babylonia has an epic called Gilgamesh which talks about Anunnaki who are descendents of Anu. They worship Marduk. Marduk's character is not properly understood by the mainstream historians. I think Marduk is related to Maruth i.e. wind god.

So, Mlecchas seem to be Babylonians who worshiped Maruth i.e. wind god.


Dhasharajanya War and Dhasyus:


Dhasha-Rajanya War:

Vedhas talk about a grand war called Dhasha-Rajanya war.

Participants of Dhasha-Rajanya war were:
Alinas - One of the opponents defeated by Sudhaasa at the Dasarajna. They are related to the Purus.
Bhrigus - They are related to the composition of the Atharva Veda. Bhrigus seem to have resided in the Kutch area. Bhrigus were also worshipers of Vishnu. Lakshmi is called Bhaargavi.
Bhalanas - Some scholars have argued that the Bhalanas lived in the Bolan Pass area.
Matsya - are only mentioned in the RV (7.18.6), but later in connection with the Śālva. The Kingdom of Mathsya is one of the Kingdoms in the north-west.
Parshu - Parshu seem to be Parshuraama faction. Parshu-Raama is supposed to be in the Avanthi region.
Paanis: wealthy merchants. The word 'Panya'(i.e. coin) seems to be related to Paani.
Purus: The heros of Rig Vedha. They ruled Kuru-Paanchala.
Druhyus: (RV I 1.126.7).
Anu: The Anus are descendents of Anu i.e. Annunaki.
Turvasas: (RV 7.18) Yavanas.
Shivas: (RV 7.18.6). Worshipers of Shiva.
Yaksuss: (RV 7.18). Either Yaksha or Yadhu.
Aja: he seems to be the ruler of Kaashi-Koshala.

The fight against Sudhaasa took place in the north-west on the banks of Parushini river. Some identify it as Ravi. Most of the kings seem to be from North-west. So, broadly, this seems to be a grand-fight between alliance of the west versus alliance of the east. The east seems to be led by the Purus while the western alliance seems to be led by Anus and Dhruhyus. From priestly class, Purus patronized the Vashishta and Vishwamithra while their opponents patronized Bhrigu.

BTW, the exact details about Sudhaasa are very confused. Different scriptures seem to tell us conflicting lineages.

Dhasha-Rajanya war is important because this seem to have forced certain factions to emigrate from Bhaarath. So, Anunnaki seem to have migrated to Babylonia after this war.


Dhasyu:
RV 7.18 talks about Dhasharajanya war. Then RV 7.19 talks about Dhasyus. Its almost like a continuation. So, I think there is some connection between these two.

The word Dhasyu means 'robber' or 'pirate'. Now, the Dhasyus seem to have been fought after fighting the the Dhasha-rajanya war. So, I think the 'Dhasyus' referred in the 7.19 were robbers in the north-west. The robbers in the north-west would be yavanas. RV 7.18 mentions Thurvasu. MB tells us that Thurvasu was the leader of Yavanas. Then RV 7.19 tells us about Dhasyus.


In summary,

- Asuras were Assyrians, Akkadians, Mesopotamians, ...etc.Ancient Iraq before the babylonian empire. The middle-east continued to have several of these kingdoms, so these groups also continued for a long time. I think this whole group starting from Iraq and upto Syria was considered as Asura.
- Dhaanavas were allies of Asuras. Dhaanavas were white and fled to sea. So, Dhaanavas were nordic or Ionian.
- Pishachas seem to be cannibal tribes residing in the northern himalayas and further north.
- Yakshas and Gandharvas also resided in the himalayan regions.
- Raakshas had become like Pishachas i.e. cannibals.
- Yavanas were the north-western uncivilized tribes with horses.
- Mlecchas were babylonians i.e. Iraq and descendents of Anu. Religious rivalry with them. Mlecchas worshiped Marduk or Maruth unlike fire or Yagnya. Remember that Maruths were accepted later as part of the pantheon. Originally, Maruths were sons of Dhithi(i.e. Asuras) who were accepted later.
- Dhasharajanya war happened in 2000 BCE- 1900 BCE. Dhasharajanya war forced certain factions to emigrate from Bhaarath.
- Dhasyus were pirates or robbers. They seem to be Yavanas led by Thurvasu.

The original MB would have happened around 2300 BCE, if it actually happened. That means that the MB war is older than Dhasha-rajanaya war. By DhashaRajanya war, Shiva was already known.

----
For reference:

JohneeG wrote...

The whole above paper seems to be based on Bhils, Gonds, and Khols being mentioned in Raamayana. Did the paper give any reference where they are mentioned?(So that, it can be cross-checked).

I agree. And even when references are found, it would be not clear what this study would have anything to do with Ramayana, timing or otherwise.
--

Now to another point.. JohneeG mentions...

We are told that Paishachi language became extinct by the time of Gunadhya. Gunadhya's story has the mention of Vikrama. Gunadhya wrote his work during Shaathavahana rule in Paishachi. Shaathvahana rule seems to be around 1000 BCE. So, cannibals and their language became extinct in Bhaarath by the time of 1000 BCE. Originally, they seem to reside in the northern areas of Himalayas and further north.

This is logical fallacy. If broken into pieces...what this is telling us is..

(1) We are told...by whom?
(2) Gunadhya's story mentions xxxx. What does that prove or disprove?
(3)Shaathvahana rules SEEMS to be around XXX BCE.

I am amazed that this info led to following conclusions/assertions?????!!!!

(1)So, cannibals and their language became extinct in Bhaarath by the time of 1000 BCE.

(2) Originally, they seem to reside in the northern areas of Himalayas and further north.
--

I thought this was domain of AIT Nazis and their Indian sepoys.

Nilesh Oak wrote: And even when references are found, it would be not clear what this study would have anything to do with Ramayana, timing or otherwise.
--.

Nothing to do with timing of Ramayana.
Googal gives me this
http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/the-bh ... -warriors/

They are mentioned in the Ramayana and Mahabharata. In the Ramayana, a Bhil king acted as boatsman to Rama in the early part of his exile from Ayodhya.Shabari, the famous devotee of Rama, also belonged to the Bhil community. She lived her life in the expectation that the Avatar would visit her one day – and indeed he did, eating the berries she had collected for him.

I think the mention of these tribes in the paper along with their connection to the Ramayana is significant. It is an acknowledgement of Hindu literature, so often dismissed as trash "non-history" in academic circles. it is also a pointer that it is a very old tribe.

The paper is very clear that in testing the genetic profile of these ancient tribes, they would have expected few, if any admixture genes of those people who like to call themselves Aryan. Once again the paper shows that there are no anciant Aryan genes. Just a mixture of what are called ASI and ANI which represents all Indians with the mixture having occurred more than 12,500 years ago. Bhils, Gonds etc also have this same mix in same proportions. No one has migrated in during the time period 3500 years ago as postulated by the AIT

The paper says:

In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of in-depth genetic studies focussing on the genetic structure of the populations of India, but none of them have related specific tribal populations mentioned in the traditional literatures. Therefore, in the present study, we make an attempt to evaluate two schools of thought emerging from the current scenario. The first school suggests that the tribal people are the ab-original inhabitants, while the later migrants, i.e., the Dravidians followed by the Aryans have pushed them back in to small pockets in South India . According to this school, the caste system was established by the aforementioned later migrants The alterna-tive hypothesis advocates that all the caste and tribal populations of India have Paleolithic roots and share a common origin

Our second question revolved around the three tribal populations mentioned in the ancient epic, their genome composition and affiliation with the surrounding caste and tribal popula-tions. Based on information from Ramayana , we have considered these tribal populations to be ancient inhabitants of India, surviving from the times of the Stone Age. If we assume that their genome carry the signature of peopling of ancient time, the assessment of their genomes and comparison with modern populations would test the scenario of continuity vs. dis-continuity of prehistoric heritage. In case of continuity, we should see largely similar genome composition among contemporary caste and tribal populations of modern India. On the other hand, in case of discontinuity, these tribal populations should show a unique genome composition or they should emerge as an outliers in our cluster based analysis. <technical detail snipped> In conclusion, our high resolution analysis portraying the three ancient tribal populations, strongly rejects any incoming genetic signal of large scale recent (during the post-Neolithic) migration either of the present Dravidian or the Indo-European speaking populations to the subcontinent. We also concluded that the Indian populations preserve strong genetic signatures in support of a common ancestry.

johneeG wrote: The whole above paper seems to be based on Bhils, Gonds, and Khols being mentioned in Raamayana.

Rubbish. You have not read the paper.

>>They worship Marduk. Marduk's character is not properly understood by the mainstream historians. I think Marduk is related to Maruth i.e. wind god. So, Mlecchas seem to be Babylonians who worshiped Maruth i.e. wind god.

Wtf?!!!!!

JohneeG you are repeatedly polluting this thread, started with clear intent, with reams of bullshit... Continue at your own risk. There will be no further warning. Plenty of non-experts road this thread. Start your own blog ... I told you this before. Those who are interested will read. Unless your purpose is to muddy the waters...

JE Menon wrote:>>They worship Marduk. Marduk's character is not properly understood by the mainstream historians. I think Marduk is related to Maruth i.e. wind god. So, Mlecchas seem to be Babylonians who worshiped Maruth i.e. wind god.

Wtf?!!!!!

JohneeG you are repeatedly polluting this thread, started with clear intent, with reams of bullshit... Continue at your own risk. There will be no further warning. Plenty of non-experts road this thread. Start your own blog ... I told you this before. Those who are interested will read. Unless your purpose is to muddy the waters...

I don't even understand what you are objecting to. What does 'wtf' mean? What exactly are you objecting to and why? I am posting some great original research. Ideally, I should be appreciated and rewarded.

And when did you tell me this before? I don't remember you telling me anything, atleast not on this thread.

Ok, since you quoted that part, I am assuming that you are objecting to something about that part.

I don't think you have understood the whole thing. Perhaps, you are not aware of certain points on this issue. So, let me first give some background info:

Gilgamesh is an ancient middle-eastern epic. It talks about Gilgamesh who is a descendent of Anu i.e. Anunnaki. Link to english translation of Gilgamesh

Let me quote Wiki:

Anunnaki
The Anunnaki (also transcribed as: Anunaki, Anunna, Anunnaku, Ananaki and other variations) are a group of deities in ancient Mesopotamian cultures (i.e., Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian).[1]

Etymology

The name is variously written "da-nuna", "da-nuna-ke4-ne", or "da-nun-na", meaning "princely offspring" or "offspring of Anu".[1] According to The Oxford Companion to World Mythology, the Anunnaki: "...are the Sumerian deities of the old primordial line; they are chthonic deities of fertility, associated eventually with the underworld, where they became judges. They take their name from the old sky god An (Anu)."[2]

Wiki Link

So, you see Anunnaki means descendent of Anu.

MB tells us that Anu was a son of Yayathi and brother of Puru. I'll quote the relevant scriptures if you want. Anu, Dhruhyu and Puru are brothers according to MB.

Vedhas tell us that Anu, Dhruhyu and Puru participated in Dhasharajanya war. Anu and Dhruhyu opposed Puru. What happened to Anu? That is not known. All kinds of speculations exist.

That part is clarified by the middle-eastern epic Gilgamesh. It shows that the descendents of Anu went and settled further west after the Dhasharajanya war. What is 'wtf' about this? I have not made any jumps in logic. If you see mainstream history, they make many more assumptions and logical jumps.

About Marduk and Maruth:
Some background info about Maruths first:
Maruths are the sons of Dhithi. Generally, sons of Dhithi are Asuras i.e. opponents of Suras. So, Maruths were also opponents of Suras. And Indhra tried to kill them but later they were co-opted. So, Maruths were opponents first and then became co-opted. This is narrated in Puraanas, Raamayana and MB.

Some background info about Marduk:
Marduk is the diety of Anunnaki. Mainstream historians seem confused about his character. They try to associate him with water or sky or something else depending on their own bias.

I think Marduk is a wind god. I think Marduk is a corruption of the word 'Maruth'.

Here is some wiki:

Tiamat possessed the Tablets of Destiny and in the primordial battle she gave them to Kingu, the deity she had chosen as her lover and the leader of her host, and who was also one of her children. The deities gathered in terror, but Anu, (replaced later, first by Enlil and, in the late version that has survived after the First Dynasty of Babylon, by Marduk, the son of Ea), first extracting a promise that he would be revered as "king of the gods", overcame her, armed with the arrows of the winds, a net, a club, and an invincible spear.

And the lord stood upon Tiamat's hinder parts,
And with his merciless club he smashed her skull.
He cut through the channels of her blood,
And he made the North wind bear it away into secret places.

Wiki Link

One can see that several different types of winds are mentioned by the Gilgamesh epic.

“Thou who hast opened the gates for the herd to escape, for thee the heavens brighten and the animals awaiteth thy rosy light. Let thy bride Aya the fearless remindeth thee to entrust Gilgamesh to the stars, the watchers of the night. May thou maketh the days long and the nights short while Gilgamesh treads the road to the Forest of Cedar. Let him be resolute. Let him pitch camp at eventide. Let thy bride Aya the fearless remindeth thee that on the day Gilgamesh and Enkidu doeth battle with Humbaba that thou shalt unleasheth all the winds, the winds of the south, north, east, and west, the hurricane, the tempest, the typhoon, the gale, the frost-wind, and the devil-wind, the blast and counterblast, and the tornado. Let the thirteen winds darken the face of Humbaba that Gilgamesh might reach him with his weapons! Why thine own flames art kindles, O Shamash, then turn thy face unto thy supplicant! Thy fleet-footed mules shall carry thee; a restful bed shall be thine. The gods, thy brethren, shall bring food for thee. Aya the bride shall dry thy face with her robe.”

Link

This is very similar to different types of fires mentioned by Hindhus. That shows that they worshiped Winds while Hindhus worshiped fire. After some time, Maruths i.e. wind gods were accepted into the pantheon by Hindhus.

“Then I let everything go out unto the four winds, and I offered a sacrifice. I poured out a libation upon the peak of the mountain. I placed the censers seven and seven, and poured into them calamus, cedar-wood, and sweet incense. The gods smelt the savour; yea, the gods smelt the sweet savour; the gods gathered like flies around the sacrificer. But when now the lady of the gods (Ishtar) drew nigh, she lifted up the necklace with precious jewels which Anu had made according to her wish (and said):

Link

Anyone who knows about Maruths would immediately recognize the seven and seven reference. This is a meme that is found in Maruth story also.

Indhra cut the Maruths in the womb of Dhithi into seven parts. Then, Maruths started crying. Then, Indhra cut them further into seven parts each of those seven. Thus, they became 49. Seven and seven is a meme for fire and wind. The fire is worshiped by Purus and wind was worshiped by Anu. Later, wind gods became part of Hindhu pantheon.

I am not muddying the waters. On the contrary, I am clearing up waters which have been muddied from long back.

Anyway, even if you don't accept my arguments, I still don't understand why you are accosting me. This thread has many different hypothesis and arguments. Mainstream historians would probably not agree with this entire thread itself. I don't see how my posts are 'muddying the waters' anymore than others' posts on this thread.

Nilesh Oak wrote: Now to another point.. JohneeG mentions...

We are told that Paishachi language became extinct by the time of Gunadhya. Gunadhya's story has the mention of Vikrama. Gunadhya wrote his work during Shaathavahana rule in Paishachi. Shaathvahana rule seems to be around 1000 BCE. So, cannibals and their language became extinct in Bhaarath by the time of 1000 BCE. Originally, they seem to reside in the northern areas of Himalayas and further north.

This is logical fallacy. If broken into pieces...what this is telling us is..

(1) We are told...by whom?
(2) Gunadhya's story mentions xxxx. What does that prove or disprove?
(3)Shaathvahana rules SEEMS to be around XXX BCE.

I am amazed that this info led to following conclusions/assertions?????!!!!

(1)So, cannibals and their language became extinct in Bhaarath by the time of 1000 BCE.

(2) Originally, they seem to reside in the northern areas of Himalayas and further north.
--

I thought this was domain of AIT Nazis and their Indian sepoys.

I think you misunderstood, or maybe I gave the wrong impression. I didn't mean to say that cannibals existed all over the country till 1000 BCE. On the contrary, I meant to say that there were small pockets of cannibals around the time of 2000 BCE in the extreme northern himalayan regions based on the narrative of texts. Those small pockets seem to have given up cannibalism by 1000 BCE. You may say that 1000 BCE is very late. I am being conservative.

This particular analysis is based on identifying Pishaachas as cannibals based on the etymology: Pishitha Ashana. Some translate Pishitha-Ashana as meat eater. I think it means all kinds of meat eater which including human meat which would make them cannibals. The reason for my understanding is a general tradition of depicting Pishaachas as demons in Bhaarath. That can only be true if Pishaachas were cannibals. If they were just another meat-eating group, then they wouldn't be seen demonic.

>> (1) We are told...by whom?
>>(2) Gunadhya's story mentions xxxx. What does that prove or disprove?

Its part of Gunadhya's story. Gunadhya wrote his story in extinct Paishaachi language during Shaathavahana rule. It mentions Vikramarka.

Wiki:

The earliest reference to Vikramāditya is traced in the lost Brihatkatha. Guṇāḍhya could have flourished during the reign of a Satavahana dynasty king of Paithan who ruled in the first half of the first century BCE or during the reign of the Satavahanas of the third century of the Common Era. Guṇāḍhya describes the great generosity, undaunted valour and other qualities of Vikramāditya, whose qualities are also mentioned by Satavahana king Hāla or Halavahana, a predecessor of Gautamiputra Satakarni in his Gaha Sattasai; Guṇāḍhya and Hāla lived close to the time of Vikramāditya.[3]

Wiki Link

That means Paishaachi was extinct by the time of Shaathavahana rule.

Now, when was Shaathavahana rule?
Mainstream historians give a date of:

Satavahana dynasty

The Sātavāhana Empire was an Indian dynasty based from Dharanikota and Amaravati in Andhra Pradesh as well as Junnar (Pune) and Prathisthan (Paithan) in Maharashtra.[1] The territory of the empire covered much of India from 230 BCE onward. Although there is some controversy about when the dynasty came to an end, the most liberal estimates suggest that it lasted about 450 years, until around 220 CE.

Wiki Link

This date is arrived at by all kinds of distortions. It assumes AIT to be more or less true. That means its gives a date of 1500 BCE to Vedhas. It gives a date of 320 BCE to Mauryas based on sheet anchor theory of Jones. Several such huge assumptions are made to arrive at this date.

Bhaagavatham gives a date of around 950 BCE. I am going by the date given by Bhaagavatham.

Link to post on Shaathavahana date

shiv wrote:

johneeG wrote: The whole above paper seems to be based on Bhils, Gonds, and Khols being mentioned in Raamayana.

Rubbish. You have not read the paper.

The paper starts with the declaration that Bhils, Gonds and Khols are mentioned in Raamayana. The whole paper is based on that point. So, I searched the paper to see if they gave any reference to the declaration. I didn't find it. If you find it, please post it. I saw a reference to 'Tribal origins of Hinduism' in the paper and that put me off. I think the paper starts with the assumption which it wants to prove.

As far as I know, Raamayana has two tribal characters: Guha and Shabhari. They are just general tribal characters. Exactly which tribe they belong to is not clearly mentioned unless I have missed something. This paper seems to be heavily dependent on specifically identifying Bhils, Gonds and Khols as being mentioned in Raamayana.

This paper is unnecessarily trying to connect their study to Raamayana. Thats my objection. If they find that all Bhaarathiyas have same genes mostly, then they should say so. But, trying to connect it to Raamayana and giving it a spin is wrong.

Gunadyha was minister for Hala the Satavahana king.

Sabari is supposed to be living near Sabarimalai, Kerala.

johneeG garu,

excellent mapping based on substantial inferences!

Marduk ← Marut

However I have a few issues:

1. Maruts are always spoken in the plural. Marduk is in singular. Accepted that winds are in plural, and as such Maruts would also be in plural. Yet Marduk is in singular. Speaking of it, Vayu too is singular. However Marduk derives from Marut, as per your opinion, and not from Vayu.
2. One still needs to find some references in Sumerian/Babylonian/Akkadian/Assyrian texts where Marduk and winds are spoken of together. This would be pretty simple.
3. As KLP Dubey ji has ordained, mortals are not supposed to play around with Vedas.
   Maruts, Indra, Vayu, etc. are nouns mentioned in the Vedas, and various ruling dynasties may have adopted one of these names as their kula-devta. One can't just say, that Vedic terms are based on some Babylonian icons, which came about just 5000 years ago, whereas Vedas is eternal and aparausheya.

RajeshA wrote:johneeG garu,

excellent mapping based on substantial inferences!

Marduk ← Marut

However I have a few issues:

1. Maruts are always spoken in the plural. Marduk is in singular. Accepted that winds are in plural, and as such Maruts would also be in plural. Yet Marduk is in singular. Speaking of it, Vayu too is singular. However Marduk derives from Marut, as per your opinion, and not from Vayu.
2. One still needs to find some references in Sumerian/Babylonian/Akkadian/Assyrian texts where Marduk and winds are spoken of together. This would be pretty simple.
3. As KLP Dubey ji has ordained, mortals are not supposed to play around with Vedas.
   Maruts, Indra, Vayu, etc. are nouns mentioned in the Vedas, and various ruling dynasties may have adopted one of these names as their kula-devta. One can't just say, that Vedic terms are based on some Babylonian icons, which came about just 5000 years ago, whereas Vedas is eternal and aparausheya.

RajeshA saar,
thanks so much for your encouragement.

The most important point in this whole affair is that Anu are clearly established in the middle-eastern history. And Anu are mentioned in the Bhaarath's history. So, it establishes the OIT as emphatically as possible. This is it.

Now, about the Marduk and Maruth:
The actual facts about Marduk seem to be scarce and therefore, there are many assumptions made by the mainstream historians to fill the gaps. And those assumptions are based on their own bias.

The scarce accounts of ancient middle-eastern history seem to show that Marduk used winds as weapons. Further, they seem to have several different types of winds showing that they placed great importance on winds. They seem to sacrifice to the winds.(The mainstream historians seem to put it to the sky. But, I think it is the winds).

The origins of Maruths is clearly from the Dhaithya i.e. sons of Dhithi. They were accepted into pantheon. Originally, they were meant to kill the Indhra. Further, the whole group was one which was divided into seven and again into further seven. Its one but many, sort of.

The other such gods who were accepted into the Hindhu pantheon are Ashwins. Ashwins are the sons of Sun. But, the Ashwins seem to have been accepted pretty early.

So, 33 Gods were :
12 Adhithyas
11 Rudhras
8 Vasus
2 Ashwins

12+11+8+2=33.

Now, there is no mention of Maruths in this whole scheme. And the portrayal of Maruths seems to be confused or evolving in the Bhaarath. Some times Maruths are listed as seven. Sometimes as seven of seven...etc. Later, the Maruths were added to Rudhra as the followers. And Vaayu was made the leader of Maruths. Vaayu was already the leader of Vasus. So, Maruths as a group seem to have caused some confusion or evolution in Hindhu scriptures.

Anyway, the whole things shows that Anu are Bhaarathiyas who went to middle-east and settled there.

I think the Melanesians are the oldest ethnic group of people in the world. I also think they populated most of Asia, the Pacific and South America before anybody else came along. I think as more DNA testing occurs especially in Asia, the out of Africa theory will be confirmed.

>>I don't even understand what you are objecting to. What does 'wtf' mean? What exactly are you objecting to and why? I am posting some great original research. Ideally, I should be appreciated and rewarded.

That is why I'm saying start your own blog. What you are doing is speculating wildly (Marduk is not properly understood by mainstream historians?) Associating this out of India thing with Gilgamesh, and then quietly slipping this in: "The original MB would have happened around 2300 BCE, if it actually happened". This is what I mean by muddying the waters.

Repeatedly quoting wiki and making random connections, "it seems" and "probably" is mentioned so often that no one notices later on when you start talking about the same stuff as fact. I repeat, there are non-experts reading these threads.

Everybody can, with a little bit of thinking, sit down and create such connections - we'll even find some link to Geronimo for heaven's sake... It's a bit like numerology. Fine, do it, but do it on you own blog an then link it if you wish... You can then judge from the interest how powerful your case is. On BRF, you have become like the guy shouting at a dinner table so long and so often that everything else is drowned out. At least for politeness sake make succinct posts.

>>And when did you tell me this before? I don't remember you telling me anything, atleast not on this thread.

I've told you before not to write these humongously long posts that take up the entire thread. Such advise is not meant only for one thread. Hence the blog recommendation again. People will read, you can link off here if you wish. Then you will see whether it has value. You might even be appreciated and rewarded.

I am not going to sit down and refute every single leap of logic you are making here, there are too many. But here are a couple for illustrative purposes (i.e. I'm not going to indulge in a back and forth about it):

>>"So, you see Anunnaki means descendent of Anu. MB tells us that Anu was a son of Yayathi and brother of Puru".

So? Who says it is the same Anu...you will note that "anu" was pronounced in many different ways in the Sumerian tongue.

>>"I'll quote the relevant scriptures if you want. Anu, Dhruhyu and Puru are brothers according to MB."

Please don't.

>>Vedhas tell us that Anu, Dhruhyu and Puru participated in Dhasharajanya war. Anu and Dhruhyu opposed Puru. What happened to Anu? That is not known. All kinds of speculations exist.

Hmmm...

>>That part is clarified by the middle-eastern epic Gilgamesh. It shows that the descendents of Anu went and settled further west after the Dhasharajanya war. What is 'wtf' about this?

Everything is WTF about this!!! It is neither "clarified", no does it "show" the "descendents of Anu went and settled further west after the "Dhasharajanya" war... This is storyline and sequence you have created with the flimsiest of back-up.

>>The scarce accounts of ancient middle-eastern history seem to show that Marduk used winds as weapons.

Not just winds. You have just selected it out of Marduk's arsenal to make your case about the Maruths, about whom you later add: "Maruths as a group seem to have caused some confusion or evolution in Hindhu scriptures"... Really? As far as my limited knowledge on the subject goes, there is very little confusion about who the maruts are in our scriptures.

Create your own blog. It's easy. Those on BRF who are interested in being enlightened by you can then refer to it, link useful parts off it and nitpick if they wish.