It is frustrating to see the threads getting deleted. It is annoying and humiliating to see the threads getting deleted without giving any reasons by the administrator. However I am starting a new thread on Indus Valley Civilization and would like to see what happens if I post articles about Saraswati River and the discoveries about it.

Trade route map of Meluhha and Dilmun.

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7163/ic007.th.jpg (http://img94.imageshack.us/i/ic007.jpg/)

Archeological sites on Saraswathi River ( Ghaggar-Hakra ).
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/273/sarasvatimapcrop.th.jpg (http://img810.imageshack.us/i/sarasvatimapcrop.jpg/)

To the issue that Rig Veda is just from 1200 B.C ( fixed by Max Muller). This is an article from Asko Parpola who provides insight and evidences that point to earlier origins of Rig Veda.

http://www.helsinki.fi/~aparpola/jis16-17.pdf

I agree - let's keep the thread open and have some debate, nothing particularly offensive was said...

^There is no single date for the Rig Veda. Its origins date from deep antiquity all the way into the late Iron Age. Where did you get that date of 1200 BCE?

well I appreciate the interest about IVC in this forum, but I still think there is too much of preoccupation about this in India.

As far as my interest goes, the earliest modern day 'city', and and the shift from hunting gathering to agrarian way of life came into existance and society became more organised a lot later than IVC.

What impacts our way of life, perception of history etc has more to do with recent history. ie. Mughal & Colonial era history, and not the age before that.

While I appreciate the interest in IVC etc I wish more people would turn thier attention towards analysing and studying Mughal and Colonial era history. Thats where 'India' was formed.. out of a sheer violence, turmoil and robbery. Thats when the real big wars were fought, thats when the communities changed identity, thats when false history was ewritten and thats when people lost face and their faith.

^Nothing of that sort happened before the Mughals and the British?

Nayanjot Lahiri is the author of Finding Forgotten Cities:

How the Indus Civilization was discovered

Archaeology is as much about the thrill of discoveries as it is about the exploits of discoverers. Louis Leakey and Mary Leakey who made our ancestors older by several million years, the geologist, Arun Sonakia, who uncovered a hominid skull cap in the Narmada valley, the archaeologist John Marshall who unearthed the splendour of Taxila these names evoke the harvest of riches to be had in pursuing a study of the past. Such explorers and excavators certainly deserve the credit that is accorded to them. But their claim to fame is frequently anchored by people who remain unknown to most of us.

One such story revolves around India's successful recovery of her Indus past in the first five years of independence. Inevitably, it is a story that reminds us of Amalananda Ghosh. An officer of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) who went on to become its director-general, it was Ghosh who in 1950 began a systematic exploration of Bikaner, along the dried up bed of the ancient Sarasvati. Within two months, he found 70 sites, 15 of these yielded the same types of antiquities found at Harappa and Mohenjodaro.

But how did Ghosh's survey take place? How did the ASI an organisation hardly known for speedy implementation have the foresight in this instance to so swiftly undertake this work? And this, at a time when it was grappling with the problems of partition when all kinds of material, from precious antiquities to mundane stock and issue registers about admission tickets, had to be transferred; when the changing options of officers and staff from Pakistan to India and India to Pakistan was still being decided; when the organisation was even being prevented from undertaking the conservation of protected monuments that housed thousands of refugees. In truth, along with Ghosh's contribution, there is another claim to be staked, to the uncovering of the Indus civilisation in Rajasthan. That claim belongs not to an archaeologist but to a scholar administrator: Sardar K.M. Panikkar.

Kavalam Madhava Panikkar can hardly be described as a backroom hero. Born in Kerala in 1894, his remarkable career is well known, mainly as a resident of north India from the time when he became a professor of history at Aligarh in 1919 to the years when he served many princely states like Bhopal and Patiala in different capacities. A prolific historian, Panikkar also wrote Malayalam plays and poems. At the time of Partition, Panikkar was the Dewan of Bikaner, and soon after, he became India's ambassador to China, a role that was to earn him some notoriety in the years ahead.

That Panikkar is being remembered on the editorial page of the Hindustan Times is only fitting because he was its founder editor. This was in 1924. The first issue of HT was released by Mahatma Gandhi, and contained articles by Motilal Nehru, Maulana Muhammad Ali and Jawaharlal Nehru. It was in 1924 again when the discovery of the Indus civilisation was announced to the world. Panikkar's autobiography does not tell us whether this made any impression on him. What we do know is that many decades later he would be instrumental in pushing for the discovery of Indus sites in the desert states of Rajasthan.

In his autobiography, Panikkar describes his life and work in Bikaner in vivid detail. For instance, he expresses as much pride in his role in expanding the number of schools and colleges there, as in the fact that, like him, the Dewans of all the major Rajput States were South Indians. But, curiously enough, he did not consider his proactive interest in pushing Indus research as worth mentioning. What we know about it comes from a few forgotten letters and notes in government files.

It was in March 1948, less than a month before he took over as ambassador to China, that Panikkar wrote to Prime Minister Nehru about the necessity of a survey in the desert area of Bikaner and Jaisalmer. Panikkar had just finished serving Bikaner, as its Prime Minister. Incidentally, it is strange that he had no knowledge about the archaeological exploits of the late Lugi Pio Tessitori there. He had, however, met the famous archaeological explorer, Aurel Stein, who himself had undertaken field work in Rajasthan. Stein had mentioned to Panikkar that if his work was carried forward, it would show that the Indus civilisation originated in that tract. This was something that Panikkar himself wanted to undertake but owing to various difficulties had not found it possible to do so. He was, therefore, writing to Nehru to try and take this scheme forward.

Panikkar urged India's Pm to direct the ASI to explore the possibilities of such research. As he put it, With the separation of the Pakistan Provinces, the main sites of what was known as the Indus Valley Civilisation has gone to Pakistan. It is clearly of the utmost importance that archaeological work in connection with this early period of Indian history must be continued in India. A preliminary examination has shown that the centre of the early civilisation was not Sind or the Indus Valley but the desert area in Bikaner and Jaisalmer through which the ancient river Saraswati flowed into the gulf of Kutch at one time.

Nehru, as we shall see, was enthusiastic about the proposal. Quite apart from his own sense of history, Panikkar's suggestions were usually taken seriously by the PM. In 1947, it was he who had urged Nehru to consider the proclamation of Indian Independence at a midnight session of the Constituent Assembly. In a hilarious aside, Panikkar tells us that when Nehru read his note, he said that while he liked his suggestion, the problem was that two of his cabinet colleagues went to bed promptly at 9 pm. Nehru was referring to Patel and Azad. Panikkar promptly answered in the same vein: I will take care of that and provide two beds for them at Parliament House. The suggestion got cabinet approval within a day, Panikkar was, in fact, invited to the Cabinet committee to finalise the details.

Now, in March 1948, Nehru acted with the same promptness on Panikkar's Indus note. The next day, a letter from his principal private secretary, H.V.R. Iengar, enclosed a copy of the note to the Ministry of Education. The letter strongly underlined that the PM entirely agrees with the suggestion contained in the note and hopes that the Archaeological Department will undertake the explorations suggested, in Jaisalmer and Bikaner.

The proposal was sent to the ASI which suggested that roughly Rs 10,000 be allocated for it. However, the Finance Ministry, as it so often still does, decided to play spoiler, raising questions about why a central department should spend in a native state, especially when there was a general directive from the PM which had urged that avoidable expenditure should be postponed till normalcy returned. It required many missives to make the reluctant mandarins eventually loosen their purse strings. This would have been unlikely if this had not been Panikkar's proposal, supported by Nehru himself.

Finding forgotten Indus sites in India is seen as one of the major achievements of Indian archaeology since 1947, a quest that continues.

It is an accomplishment, though, that owes as much to scholars and statesmen who had the vision to push for such research, as it does to the discerning archaeologists who made the actual discoveries.

Dilip Chakrabarti derides the tendency to reduce historical debates to slogans of 'secularism versus communalism'

The Battle for Ancient India: An Essay in the Sociopolitics of Indian Archaeology
Author: Dilip K Chakrabarti

--------------------------
As water-starved Haryana urges the Oil and Natural Gas Commission for drilling machines to rediscover the paleo channels in which the once-mighty Saraswati may be flowing silently, it may solve one of the most vexatious issues of Indian history. Plagued with water disputes with Punjab and Rajasthan, the State, where Sri Krishna gave the famous command to do one's duty, may soon unravel the truth of a river once hailed as "best of mothers" and more lately mocked as "mythical".

Colonial Indology and its modern avatars may soon face a reality check. Dilip Chakrabarti takes this negative legacy head on in his latest work, deriding especially the tendency to reduce debates to slogans of 'secularism versus communalism'. On the Aryan invasion theory (now Aryan migration theory), he argues that the history of ancient India must be judged in its own terms and no claims of externally inspired diffusion of its cultural development be made unless there is strong supportive evidence and the hypothesis can be justified in clear geographical terms.

Chakrabarti notes that when Dayaram Sahni went to excavate Harappa in 1920, the abundance of pre-historic Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic remains, including Neolithic settlements in the south, and the 'Copper Age' was known. Any perceptive archaeologist would realise India had a pre-historic civilisation before its documented history, especially in view of the occurrence of seals with unknown writings and art-style at Harappa. India had a long history of trade and commerce with different countries, including Egypt, in the second millennium BC. Unfortunately, the theory about Indian 'races' and languages and the myths of Aryan and Dravidian invasions were invented before the Bronze Age Indus civilisation was discovered; hence, the finds at Harappa and Mohenjodaro had to fit into an entrenched paradigm.

In 1924, John Marshall reported that in the third millennium BC or even earlier, the peoples of Punjab and Sind lived in well-built cities with a mature culture, developed arts, crafts and pictographic writing. He was clear this civilisation developed in the Indus Valley itself. He noted its possible religious ambience, mentioning RD Banerji's finding of a tank at Mohenjodaro which he felt was a charanamritakunda, "receptacle for the holy water used for the washing of the sacred image". At Harappa, archaeologists found a small mound suggestive of an image shrine, though it is difficult to say if image worship existed then. Chakrabarti says this is a hint to seek reflection of the Indus religion in prevailing rituals of Hinduism.

RP Chanda created the confusion about the builders of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and the Rig Vedic Aryans. He believed the Indus civilisation was both pre- and non-Vedic. Yet, Chanda also tried to view the Indus civilisation within the framework of Indian tradition by identifying its yogic tradition as the root of one of India's most important spiritual dimensions; he also realised indebtedness of the Buddhist and Jaina traditions to the Indus civilisation. Mortimer Wheeler formalised the Aryan invasion to explain the demise of the Indus civilisation in 1947; the idea acquired hegemonic status in academia, though it was convincingly disputed by BB Lal (1953) and GF Dales (1964).

PV Kane examined the relationship between the Harappan civilisation and Vedic Aryans in his Presidential Address to the Indian History Congress in 1953. He argued that as Mohenjodaro and Harappa were major cities, "the remains of dead bodies would have been found on an enormous scale" in the event of an Aryan attack, and not limited to 26 skeletons at Mohenjodaro! The cities could have been deserted because the rivers on whose banks they stood shifted. Kane compared the internal evidence of the Rig Veda and excavated evidence of Indus settlements and found reverence for water and the Pipul tree in both. Regarding the occurrence of bulls on Indus seals, he noted that the Rig Veda referred to Indra and other gods as Vrishabha (bull). Astronomical references in the Rig Veda and Brahmanical literature suggested that the Rig Vedic people were earlier than the Indus Valley people, but as the evidence was meagre it was best not to dogmatise.

Tackling the festering dispute over the horse, Chakrabarti says horse bones have been identified in and before Harappan contexts by competent professionals like B Nath of the Zoological Survey of India. Moreover, Harappans could have imported horses from Central Asia as Shortughai was on the border.

The Cholistan archaeological survey showed the course of the Ghaggar-Hakra denoted the core area of origin of the Indus civilisation, prompting SP Gupta to coin the term Indus-Saraswati civilisation, as Ghaggar-Hakra denoted the Saraswati riverbed. Scholars challenge the view that the Rig Veda describes only an agricultural-cum-pastoral society. Bhagwan Singh has listed various crafts and professions, navigation, overland trade and commerce, housing and urban centres; while RS Bisht has shown that Dholavira was divided into three distinct parts: Upper, middle and lower, corresponding to the Rig Vedic parama, madhyama and avama.

Chakrabarti argues that as the spread of this civilisation was not limited to the Indus valley, there is no justification to call it the Indus valley civilisation; Marshall called it the Indus civilisation. While Indus-Saraswati civilisation does better justice to its sheer extent and the role of the Saraswati in its genesis, it does not cover the whole territory; hence, he favours Harappan civilisation. Moreover, in the current political context, Indus valley civilisation gives it a Pakistan twist.

Chakrabarti concludes that the archaeological sequence of all areas covered by Indus civilisation sites shows no break in any relevant area, or any evidence of new cultural inroads which cannot be explained geographically with reference to the Oxus-Indus-Pamir-eastern Iran political and economic interaction sphere. He feels the Harappan tradition, tempered with unidentified regional elements, laid the roots of the entire cultural development of the upper Ganga plain, given that the antennae swords of the Gangetic valley copper hoards have been verified as belonging to the Harappan tradition.

All people of the subcontinent are heirs of the Indus civilisation. It links the deep south through the find of a polished celt with incised Harappan script signs near Cuddalore, and several sites with antennae copper swords of the upper Gangetic valley copper hoard type as far as Ramanathapuram in Tamil Nadu and a tea estate in Kerala. Above all, it is not easy to note any non-Indian tradition in the figure of the sramana from Mohenjodaro or any other sculptural relic of this civilisation.

After seeing what barrykul has posted, I think I understand why the mods closed the original thread...

The Cholistan archaeological survey showed the course of the Ghaggar-Hakra denoted the core area of origin of the Indus civilisation, prompting SP Gupta to coin the term Indus-Saraswati civilisation, as Ghaggar-Hakra denoted the Saraswati riverbed.

Evidence?

Two threads have been deleted. Please follow form guidelines before you post( looks like there are some 10 guidelines -see it in the India forums section). If you violate these guidelines you are putting this thread at risk. I have the patience to create the thread again but it is simply humiliating and annoying to get the thread deleted. It is upto the bloggers whether to get the thread deleted or it to be continued for education and awareness of ancient civilization. Fusionist, see how Egypt is preserving its archeological sites ( Valley of Dead, Luxor, Giza ) . These sites have immense importance for historical reasons and for tourism purposes. unfortunately politics and settling scores between political rivalries in India is responsible for the gross negligence of ancient India's history.

^You got that right about gross negligence of India's history - especially criminal is putting India's history in the hands of incompetent fools while shutting out foreign historians from archaeological and historical sites.

Whatever we want to call the disappeared river Saraswati (the word Saras for the Indian Crane is well-known, and a large river that supported rich flora, fauna could appropriately be called the Saras-vati), shown via Satellite images and confirmed by three GOI entities Archaeological Survey of India, Indian Space Research Organisation, ONGC, the practical payoff from the defunct river Saraswati is helping Indian States to rejuvenate underground water resources in order to support agriculture and other water needs of people.

In the images gathered by Indian Remote Sensing Satellites, we see Sarasvati born in the Himalayan glaciers traversing through Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat states and joining the Arabian Sea beyond Rann of Kutch. Total length is 1600 kms. In many segments, ONGC has found groundwater resources and aquifers. In the desert region of Jaisalmer in Rajasthan, when 13 bore wells were construction, at a depth of 35 to 40 metres, groundwater reservoirs were discovered. They have noted by carbon dating, that this water is dated to circa 4000 years before present. The desiccation of River Sarasvati mentioned in the Puranas relates to this period. ONGC has taken this up as a part of its social responsibility and has made available drinking water from 4 such bore wells to the local villages. This ONGC project is also called Sarasvati. It can be said that this discovery has provided the impetus for a series of steps in the project for reborn Sarasvati.

Since 1986, efforts were started by some voluntary organizations for the rejuvenation of River Sarasvati. The initiatives started by Sarasvati Nadi Shodh Sansthan in Haryana have inspired the Government to move ahead with the project. In 2002 when NDA Government was in power, 40 ft. wide, 12 feet deep, 50 km. long Sarasvati Mahanadi Roopanahar (canal) was constructed. Starting from Mohangarh in Rajasthan, work is ongoing to extend the nahar by an additional 100 kms. to reach the waters to Gujarat region. Receiving its share of Narmada waters, one project is for Rajasthan to make available Sutlej waters through this nahar right upto Rann of Kutch. This rebirth of Sarasvati is also a part of the Gujarat Government 2010 Swarnajayanti project. On the upstream stretches, Haryana Government has demarcated the entire ancient channel of River Sarasvati almost across the entire state. They have noted that this Sarasvati Nadi which flows only during monsoon season was once a segment of the Vedic River Sarasvati. Combining with this, Haryana Government has allocated funds for the reborn Sarasvati for a stretch of 250 kms. Project work has started since February (2008). The project is proceeding apace to attain the objective of improved availability of drinking water and water for irrigation and promotion of tourism along the river bank. Archaeology Survey of India has discovered about 1000 ancient archaeological settlements on the Sarasvati River basin. Some of these are sacred pilgrimage sites dating back to the Vedic period. If Sarasvati reemerges as a perennial river (jivanadi), that is in its original state, the benefits of the project will not be restricted to the above-said three states alone. Experts opine that Reborn Sarasvati will act as an impetus for Interlinking of Rivers all over the nation. It is not an easy task to bring a millennia-old river back to life again. Together with clarity of project objectives, support of the people is also required. From the satellite images, it is seen that the width of Sarasvati ranged between 3 to 8 kms. On this river basin, evolved many peoples' settlements of villages. It is a great challenge to re-settle, in some cases, the people whose settlements are superimposed on archaeological sites. For this purpose, Government and non-government organizations are working together to make progress. For the Reborn Sarasvati, many Water Shed Management Projects, Projects for diversions of tributaries into the main stream are in progress. Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat Governments are very enthusiastic about the importance of this project.

Here is background paper from the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru, on the river Saraswati.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct25/articles20.htm

Vedic rites flourished on the Banks of Sarasvati.
4 types of burials are mentioned in Atharvaveda ( Khanda 18 Sutra 2 mantra 34)
a) nikhAta (%{ni4-}) mfn. dug in , buried , fixed in the ground RV. &c. &c. ; dug up , excavated W.
b) Paropta - Bodies immersed in the water
c) Uddhita - leave the dead body for natural consumption.
d) Dagdha - cremating the body.

Burials in different forms were known in India from very early times
as mentioned in Atharaveda 5.30.14 (manu bhumigraho bhuvat) and 18.2.34-
( yo Nikhata ye paroptah ye chauddditah savamsthinagna haa vaha pitrovijeh uttave)
O Agni ! bring all those pitrs here in order that they may partake of the
offering, those (pitrs whose bodies) were buried or cast aside (paroptah) or
burnt with fire (Agni - dagdha) or deposited above (on trees or in caves)
uddhitah.
In Rgveda (VII 89. 1) the sage prays 'O Varuna ! may I not go the Earth
House.
In the Rgveda Samhita and Atharvaveda Samhita we find mention to a
house of earth (bhumigriha) for burial. Burial No. 29 at Kalibangan, where
the body and pots were laid inside the sun-dried brick chamber is an example
of this of Bhumigriha.
But, for the important persons in place of a simple oblong pits, special graves like the brick line one at Kalibangan, a wooden coffin at Harappa in cemetery R.37, made of rose wood and deodar were used.
If we look into the literary evidence we come across in Atharvaveda
Samhita a reference to a burial where the trunk of a tree was used as coffin.
In chapter XVIII 2.250 it is stated "may the tree not oppress them, nor the
great Goddess Earth". This is probably a reference to 'a coffin burial'.

Harappans were very meticulous about the location of the cemetery
area. At Kalibangan it is located on the south-west of the habitation area,
on the left bank of Sarasvati, far away from the living quarters and farthest
from the sacred, religious spot at KLB-3, where large number of fire places
were located.14 It is an open ground where the sun shines directly on it, and
it slopes towards the north. The water flowing from the river and the wind
blowing from north-east passes through the cemetery only after they had
crossed the religious and habitational areas. Being an and land there is high
percentage of salt in the soil which gets deposited in the form of white
patches over the ground.
Satapatha Brahmana prescribes a four corner mound facing south-east,
ground inclined to the north, out of sight of the village, in a peaceful spot
amid beautiful surroundings or on barren ground. In History of Dharmasastra,
Kane describes, "the site of cremation should be surrounded by a thicket of
trees, but it should be so open that the sun shines directly on it at mid-day.
It should be saltish land or land sloping to the north or it may be all level
ground."
All this I have mentioned not because I wish to state that the Harappan
way of disposal of the dead was guided by the norms laid down in the
above mentioned texts, which many scholars still believe to be of late
creations, but to point out that traditions die hard and in India oral traditional
had been traditions, that passed on from generations to generations, from
remote past. While analyzing the results of the excavations we should not
be guided only by the theories propounded by earlier scholars but must
keep our minds open to various oral traditions, ancient texts and present
day practices in the society. With the advancement of research many theories which were taken for granted have proved wrong.

Sign akin to Indus Valley’s found in Kerala

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/09/26/images/2009092661621201.jpg

MALAPPURAM: A rock engraving, similar to a sign of the Indus Valley Civilisation, has been found at Edakkal in Wayanad district of Kerala. A recent exploration at the Edakkal Caves revealed a picture of a man with a jar, a unique sign of the Indus civilisation.

Tangible evidence

Engraved supposedly with a stone-axe in linear style, the sign has proven itself to be a tangible evidence to link it to the Indus culture. It was the first time that an Indus sign is discovered in Kerala.

“But we do not claim that the Indus people reached Wayanad; nor do we argue that Edakkal was a continuity of the Indus civilisation,” said historian M.R. Raghava Varier, who identified the sign during the exploration in August.

He said, “What is striking in the Edakkal sign is the presence of an Indus motif, which has been rare and interesting.”

Man-with-the-jar has been a recurring motif of the Indus Valley signs. Though it uses the Indus motif, the Edakkal engraving has retained its unique style. With linear strokes, the engraver has tried to attain a two-dimensional human figure.

“The ‘jar’ is the same as in Indus ‘ligature.’ But the human figure is slightly different. This is where the influence of the Edakkal style predominates,” said Dr. Varier.
Unique

Though rock art sites are plenty in different continents, the rock engravings at the Edakkal Caves are unique in the world. The Indus Civilisation has been dated between 2,300 BC and 1,700 BC. The Edakkal culture, however, is yet to be identified with any particular time.

Historians say Edakkal represents quite a long period. The figures of ritualistic nature found at Edakkal represent different stages of human development, both historic and pre-historic. “But this one is definitely pre-historic,” Dr. Varier said.

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/09/26/stories/2009092661621200.htm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/20070629000206411.jpg

Mavadaippu is the latest discovery by the team. It had discovered a prehistoric rock art site at Porivarai (2003), and ancient rock paintings at Salekkurai and Sundasingam (2005), near Karikkiyur, about 40 km from Kothagiri in the Nilgiris. In fact, the team was totally unprepared for what awaited it at Porivarai. It turned out to be the largest rock art site in South India with about 500 paintings in an area that is 53 m long and 15 m wide. Experts say the rock paintings at both Mavadaippu and Karikkiyur could be dated to 2000 B.C. to 1500 B.C. How did they stumble upon this treasure trove? The group was at Kothagiri to provide training in arts and crafts to tribal youth at the Don Bosco Community College when it visited Konavakarai, a tribal village, where a rock art site reportedly existed. But the villagers were not aware of its existence. Disappointed, the team returned to the college in Chennai. During a discussion on rock art that evening, an Irula tribal student from Karikkiyur said he had seen such paintings on a rock-shelter in a forest near his village. Chandrasekaran and Gandhirajan lost no time in making it to Karikkiyur. A 7-km trek through an elephant corridor led them to the rock-shelter, locally known as Porivarai.

The paintings in white ochre include a procession of bisons, monkeys clambering up a tree branch, a herd of deer grazing, human beings welcoming one another with outstretched arms, a battle scene with men aiming at each other with bows and arrows, men on horseback engaged in battle, a shoulder-clasping dance after a successful boar-hunt, a man with a mask, the depiction of sun and its rays, a spiral, a tiger fighting another animal, and a man and his dog sleeping.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2412/stories/20070629000206400.htm

Horse in Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization

MEL Mallowan (1965, Early Mesopotamia and Iran, London, Thames and Hudson, p. 123) notes:

"...dating Tepe Hissar IIIB a little before 2000 B.C... in Hissar IIIB the skull of a horse was found and furthermore the horse is alleged to have been domesticated at Shah Tepe much earlier still, thus long anticipating the first appearance of it at Boghazkoy in Central Asia Minor in the early Hittite period...."

Tepe Hissar is a key archaeological site with vivid links to the Sarasvati Sindhu civilization with many seals, motifs, artefacts...

A.K.Sharma, The Harappan horse was buried under the dunes of..., in Puratattva, Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society, No. 23, 1992-93, pp. 30-34]: "At Surkotada the bones of the true horse (equus caballus Linn.) identified are from Period IA, IB and IC. (radiocarbon dates: 2315 B.C., 1940 B.C. and 1790 B.C respectively). With the correction factors, the dates fall between 2400 B.C. and 1700 B.C... In 1938 Mackay (FEM, Vol. I, p. 289) had remarked on the discovery of a clay model of horse from Mohenjodaro. 'I personally take it to represent horse. I do not think we need be particularly surprised if it should be proved that the horse existed thus early at Mohenjo-daro'. About this terracotta figurine Wheeler wrote: (Indus Civilization, Cambridge, 1968, p. 92): 'One terracotta from a late level of Mohenjodaro seems to represent a horse, reminding us that the jaw bone of a horse is also recorded from the same time, and that the horse was known at considerably early period in northern Baluchistan... It is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact all familiar feature of the Indus caravans.'... appearance of true horse from the neolithic sites of Koldihwa and Mahagara in Uttar Pradesh..." (Note: camel is also not depicted on Harappan inscriptions) The identification by Sharma has been endorsed by Prof. Sandor Bokonyi, Director of the Archaeological Institute, Budapest, Hungary (an archaeozoologist); he wrote in a letter dated 13 Dec. 1993 to the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India: 'Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoric settlement of Surkotada, Kachchha, excavated under the direction of Dr. J.P. Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse (equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Since no wild horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoutbtful. This is also supported by an intermaxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a bad habit only existing among domestic horses which are not extensively used for war."

"Perhaps the most interesting of the model animals is one that I personally take to represent a horse.' (Mackay 1938, vol. I, p. 289; vol. II, pl. LXXVIII). Lothal has yielded a terracotta figure of a horse. It has an elongated body and a thick stumpy tail, mane is marked out over the neck with a low ridge. Faunal remains at Lothal yielded a second upper molar. Bhola Nath of the Zoological Survey of India and GV Sreenivasa Rao of the Archaeological Survey of India note (S.R.Rao, 1985, p. 641): 'The single tooth of the horse referred to above indicates the presence of the horse at Lothal during the Harappan period. The tooth from Lothal resembles closely with that of the modern horse and has pli-caballian (a minute fold near the base of the spur or protocone) which is well distinguishable character of the cheek teeth of the horse.' "However, the most startling discovery comes from the recent excavation at Nausharo, conducted by Jarrige et al. (in press). In the Harappan levels over here have been found clearly identifiable terracotta figurines of this animal." (Lal, 1998, opcit., p. 112).

^^...the horses found in the early excavations at Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa do not come from secure levels and such `horse' bones, in most cases, found their way into deposits through erosional cutting and refilling, disturbing the archaeological layers.

Indeed, not one clear example of horse bones exists in the Indus excavations and elsewhere in North India before c. 1800 BCE (R. Meadow and A. Patel 1997, Meadow 1996: 405, 1998). Such `horse' skeletons have not been properly reported from distinct and secure archaeological layers, and worse, they have not been compared with relevant collections of ancient skeletons and modern horses (Meadow 1996: 392). Instead, well recorded and stratified finds of horse figures and later on, of horse bones (along with the imported camel and donkey), first occur in the Kachi plain on the border of Sindh/E. Baluchistan (c. 1800-1500 BCE), when the mature Indus Civilisation had already disintegrated.

Even more importantly, the only true native equid of South Asia is the untamable khur (Equus hemionus, onager/half-ass) that still tenuously survives in the Rann of Kutch. Both share a common ancestor which is now put at ca. 1.72 million years ago (while the first Equus specimen is attested already 3.7 mya.). The differences between a half-ass skeleton and that of a horse are so small that one needs a trained specialist plus the lucky find of the lower forelegs of a horse/onager to determine which is which, for "bones of a larger khur will overlap in size with those of a small horse, and bones of a small khur will overlap in size with those of a donkey." (Meadow 1996: 406).

To merely compare sizes, as Rajaram does following the dubious decades old Harappan data of Marshall, and then to connect the long gone "Equus Sivalensis" with the so-called "Anau horse", resulting in the "Indian country" type, is just another blunder, but Rajaram, the scientist, is not aware of it.

Proper judgment is not possible as long as none of the above precautions are taken, and when — as is often done — just incomplete skeletons or teeth are compared, all of which is done without the benefit of a suitable collection of standard sets of onager, donkey and horse skeletons. Rajaram and his fellow rewriters of history thus are free to turn any local half-ass into a Harappan horse, just as he has already done (see Frontline, Oct./Nov. 2000) with his half-bull.

Further, the archaeologists claiming to have found horses in Indus sites are not trained zoologists or palaeontologists. When I need to get my teeth fixed I do not go to a veterinarian or a beauty salon. Typically, S.P. Gupta (1999) does not add any new evidence, and just repeats palaeontologically unsubstantiated claims that are, to quote Rajaram, "myths and conjectures... through the force of repetition."

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/03/05/stories/2002030500130100.htm

Basically : Sheer Incompetence + Wishful thinking = Wrong Results

Oh and incase you didn't notice - Tepe Hissar is in Iran, not India or Pakistan.

Also, you'd probably want to read this article as well, regarding the hoax perpetrated by S.Rajaram and colleagues in order to prove the existence of horses in the IVC.

Horseplay in Harappa (http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1720/17200040.htm)

excerpts on the "horse skeletons" and "horse seals"

In a paper written with the young Indian scholar, Ajita K. Patel, Meadow argues that not one clear example of horse bones exists in Indus excavations or elsewhere in North India before c. 2000 BCE.3 All contrary claims arise from evidence from ditches, erosional deposits, pits or horse graves originating hundreds or even thousands of years later than Harappan civilisation. Remains of "horses" claimed by early Harappan archaeologists in the 1930s were not documented well enough to let us distinguish between horses, hemiones, or asses.

Once the original was found, and compared over the Internet with his distorted image, Rajaram let it slip that the "horse seal" was a "computer enhancement" that he and Jha introduced to "facilitate our reading." Even now, however, he claims that the seal depicts a "horse." To deny it would be disastrous, since to do so would require rejection of his decipherment of the seal inscription - which supposedly includes the word "horse."

Once you see Mackay's original photo, it is clear that Rajaram's "horse seal" is simply a broken "unicorn bull" seal, the most common seal type found in Mohenjo-daro. In context, its identity is obvious, since the same page contains photos of more than two dozen unicorn bulls - any one of which would make a good "horse seal" if it were cracked in the right place.

Read the entire document though.

^^^From the same "Horseplay in Harappa" document, lets see how the Harappan "unicorn bull" motif was turned into a horse.

This is an intact Harappan seal:
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2329/m595.jpg

This is a broken seal with the same animal and the clay impression of it used by S.Rajaram:

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7796/sealscompared.jpg

A bit of computer "enhancement"....

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6664/twohorses.jpg

...and voila! We have a Harappan Horse seal! Note how the chipped edge of the seal magically becomes the neck and head of the horse.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6645/horseseal.jpg

____

In any case, the presence or absence of domesticated horses is not the sole criterion for proving/disproving a link between the Rigvedic tribes and Harappan settlements. There is an entire cultural "apparatus", evidence regarding which is scarce if not absent.

The Decipherment of Indus script by Natwar Jha and N.S.Rajaram is not accepted by Indus script experts. Nobody is denying that the seal in contention is a fraud ( M-772 A, Seal impression Mackay 453).
Indus valley civilization is not just confined to only two towns ( Mohenjadaro and Harappa). Infact sites like Kalibangan, Lothal, Dholavira, Rakigarh, Surkotoda more or less share similar features to that of Mohenjadaro and Harappa. Any archeological material that is excavated and similar should be considered part of IVC.
We need an impartial judgement and honest assessment of India's ancient history and culture without compromising on truth. This is the only way, all racist theories and fraudulent hypothesis can be exposed. It shouldn't be compromised for pleasing absolutely anybody.

^Very true skganji, we need imparitality from all sides of the debate :). Now if you'd go ahead and respond to my posts, we could continue with the discussion.

^Very true skganji, we need imparitality from all sides of the debate :). Now if you'd go ahead and respond to my posts, we could continue with the discussion.

I have nothing to say about your posts at this time. If I find some material which contradicts your article, I will respond at that time. Every thing should be scrutinized for the solving the Indus puzzle. No European Indologist nor a Harvard sanskritist or a noble prize economic professor will be taken for granted . I am more concerned about the decipherment of Indus script than worrying about whether horse is present or not in IVC.

How are Herr M. Witzel and S. Farmer going to explain the horses depicted in caves near Karikkiyur, about 40 km from Kothagiri in the Nilgiris. The rock paintings depict a battle scene with men aiming at each other with bows and arrows, men on horseback engaged in battle.

There are some other discoveries you have mentioned, specifically the 'horse figurine' at Lothal and the 'horse jaw' at Surkotada.

Of these, the Lothal 'horse figurine' (late mature Harappan phase) is pretty doubtful and not necessarily that of a horse at all, and considering that the native animal of the Kutch region is the khur (wild ass) which shares a common ancestor with the horse, it is far more likely that the seal depicts this animal rather than the horse which is as you know, not a native species in India. There is of course the possibility that the horse was imported via trade routes (sea/land), but this is purely conjectural at this point in time.

Regarding the Surkotada 'horse jaw', the conclusion that the jaw is indeed from a horse is disputed by paleoarcheologists (Meadow, Patel), while Bokonyi did indeed confirm the find. Bokonyi unfortunately died before he could publish a response to the doubts raised by Meadow and Patel, so the matter is still open to debate.

In any case, as I said, the presence or absence of horses alone is not proof of the presence or absence of Vedic aryans in harappan settlements. There is a whole cultural and religious apparatus that is associated with the Rigvedic tribes, and the Harappan way of life is infact quite different from that described in the Rigveda.

How are Herr M. Witzel and S. Farmer going to explain the horses depicted in caves near Karikkiyur, about 40 km from Kothagiri in the Nilgiris. The rock paintings depict a battle scene with men aiming at each other with bows and arrows, men on horseback engaged in battle.

I'm not sure. Its more likely that these are either wild-asses or some other animal that is native to India. As you probably know, wild horses are not found in India and they have had to be imported via land or sea throughout history.
In order to establish that the people depicted in these cave paintings were importing horses from foreign lands in order to conduct warfare, you would have to provide a whole new wealth of evidence with regards to trade routes, evidence of trading posts, artefacts from other civilizations which are known to have domesticated the horse etc. etc.

More importantly, what are the dates given to these paintings? As you know, cave painting is a tradition in India that continues to this day - with many tribes in central and southern India still following these practices. Is there evidence to suggest that these are from the Harappan period?

Also, cave-paintings sites are often from a wide time-scale, with paintings ranging from pre-historic eras to the early modern present in the same cave.

To give an example, some of the cave paintings in Bhimbetka (Madhya Pradesh) which are dated from the medieval period, show people on "horseback" also:

http://www.oocities.com/athens/parthenon/2686/DCP_0649.jpg

hmm ok

general question about underground rivers.

(a) how does a river say go under ground?

(b) How long does it take for an underground river?

(c) Can an underground river be tapped for water for say agriculture.

^Better suited for "Geography discussion thread", don't you think?

^Nothing of that sort happened before the Mughals and the British?

ofcourse there were big issues. But the further we go back in history the less significant it becomes, as they dont affect our lives that much.

I mean millions of 'indians' would have perished when the ica age ended with a meltdown. Do you think it has the same impact as Jalianwala Bagh ?

Jalianwala Bagh affects our lives and shapes our perception a lot more than what happened thousands of years ago. Thats my point.

Well I'm not too keen on colonial-era history. I'm more interested in medieval and ancient India, and that's purely out of interest and not based on how much it supposedly affects the lives of modern day Indians.

Well I'm not too keen on colonial-era history. I'm more interested in medieval and ancient India, and that's purely out of interest and not based on how much it supposedly affects the lives of modern day Indians.

well, I hope you realise there is nothing called 'casual' interest in our lives ? There is always a purpose behind things. The more we see the purpose the more we learn about ourselves. Otherwise the 'information' we gather 'casually' often simply means its a form of escapist mentality. Its a way of lookig from outside, without relating. Such dreaming about history can cause harm, especially when it becomes a political or cultural tool, that helps formulate our sense of identity. Obviously I am not condemning you, but merely trying to explain the reason why I am often against these issues. Nothing personal.

I think it is important thet we dont ignore our recent brutal history, which is where the real issues are. And not waste energy by concentrating on something thats more galmorous or imaginative 'time passing' but has no realistic significance ie. IVC etc.

^If you're interested in colonial history, please open a new thread on that topic. Just because you cannot appreciate the significane or importance of something, doesn't mean that its not "real". Okay?

An excavation report of Kalibangan excavated on the dry river bed of Ghaggar.

http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/17-2/Thapar.pdf

Fire alters can be seen on page 30-31.

At Kalibangan, fire Vedic altars have been discovered, similar to those found at Lothal which S.R. Rao thinks could have served no other purpose than a ritualistic one [18] . These altars suggest fire worship or worship of Agni, the Vedic god of fire. It is the only Indus Valley Civilization site where there is no evidence to suggest the worship of the "mother goddess".

Within the fortified citadel complex, the southern half contained many (five or six) raised platforms of mud bricks, mutually separated by corridors. Stairs were attached to these platforms. Vandalism of these platforms by brick robbers makes it difficult to reconstruct the original shape of structures above them but unmistakable remnants of rectangular or oval kuṇḍas (Kundas) or fire-pits of burnt bricks for Vedi (altar)s have been found, with a yūpa or sacrificial post (cylindrical or with rectangular cross-section, sometimes bricks were laid upon each other to construct such a post) in the middle of each kuṇḍa and sacrificial terracotta cakes (piṇḍa) in all these fire-pits. Houses in the lower town also contain similar altars. Burnt charcoals have been found in these fire-pits. The structure of these fire-altars is reminiscent of (Vedic) fire-altars, but the analogy may be coincidental, and these altars are perhaps intended for some specific (perhaps religious) purpose by the community as a whole. In some fire-altars remnants of animals have been found, which suggest a possibility of animal-sacrifice. [19] .

The official website of ASI reports : "Besides the above two principle [sic] parts of the metropolis there was also a third one-a moderate structure situated upwards of 8O m e. of the lower town containing four to five fire altars. This lonely structure may perhaps have been used for ritual purposes [20] ." Thus, fire-altars have been found in three groups : public altars in the citadel, household altars in lower town, and public altars in a third separate group.

^If you're interested in colonial history, please open a new thread on that topic. Just because you cannot appreciate the significane or importance of something, doesn't mean that its not "real". Okay?

well yes I nevre discussed Colonial era history here did I ?

I did voice my reservations and the continued preoccupation about IVC amongst the tech savy youth nowadays. Its my view. I didnt even ask this thread to be locked or asked anyone not to post. Thats what intrusiveness is. I just made my point. Makes sense ?

On the horse evidence: I posted evidence about IVC symbols found in nearby Kerala. There are quite a few IVC symbols found around India. Horses (they are clearly horses and not asses, since the people were quite sophisticated and certainly would use horses for warfare and not slow moving unpredictable asses) are depicted throughout India in cave paintings. If the horses are not native to India then they might have imported the animals, since there was robust trade with the rest of the world. India through the centuries has had a substantial population compared to the rest of the world. The invasion of others into India is not valid argument and concocting foreign tribes upon horses as distinct from the existing populace is not a valid argument. A sophisticated civilization like the IVC, who had roads, decimal system of measurement, baths, granaries and trade&commerce has the luxury of imbibing any new trends in the world. Horses are certainly not a novel concept in the world they were in. Going after far fetched assumptions like horse has to be native to India is rather moot. These folks could have easily bought a huge stable of horses from other cultures like Mesopotamina/Iraq with whom they had trade relations. We continue to underestimate the ancients and their level of sophistication. Just recently they found a 5000 yr leather shoe with shoe lace for women quite intact in Europe.

This is an intact Harappan seal:
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2329/m595.jpg

This is a broken seal with the same animal and the clay impression of it used by S.Rajaram:
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7796/sealscompared.jpg

If you notice the broken seal symbols deviate from the intact seal.
After the tuning fork/fork like symbol, the next symbol is different. Ostensibly the seals are depicting different things. The intact seal and the broken seal are not the same. Rajaram's seal is a different seal. If you notice the broken seal there is ghost like impression of the rest of the animal.
So Herr Witzel and S. Farmer are once again dabbling in incorrect conclusions. This is a pattern with these Western Scholars. They have no due dilligence, but they make up shit based on their political convictions rather than deep study. If I could find differences, they should have. But no, they make an international ruckus, tar another Indian scholar and call him names. Bozos Herr Witzel and Farmer and their scholarship is really questionable.

On the horse evidence: I posted evidence about IVC symbols found in nearby Kerala.

Those were not "IVC symbols", but a single symbol that "resembled" an IVC symbol after a bit of imagination. That's hardly evidence that the Indus Valley civilization existed in Kerala. You'll need to find proper habitation sites showing different strata before you can prove anything.

There are quite a few IVC symbols found around India. Horses (they are clearly horses and not asses, since the people were quite sophisticated and certainly would use horses for warfare and not slow moving unpredictable asses)

"Sophistication" is not an argument for what the paintings represented, and neither is the suitability of the wild ass for the purpose. For that matter, caves are not "suitable" for painting either.

are depicted throughout India in cave paintings. If the horses are not native to India then they might have imported the animals, since there was robust trade with the rest of the world.

The might have, except that there is no evidence of trade links or for that matter, trading settlements (or settlements of any kind infact)

India through the centuries has had a substantial population compared to the rest of the world. The invasion of others into India is not valid argument and concocting foreign tribes upon horses as distinct from the existing populace is not a valid argument

There are no "invasion" arguments and neither are there any "concoctions". All the theories are based on ample evidence, and if you want to challenge the theories then I suggest that you study the evidence first.

A sophisticated civilization like the IVC, who had roads, decimal system of measurement, baths, granaries and trade&commerce has the luxury of imbibing any new trends in the world. Horses are certainly not a novel concept in the world they were in.

There's no "rule" which says that "sophisticated" civilizations necessarily have domesticated horses. For that matter, the civilizations of Central and Southern America were quite "Sophisticated" even though they never came into contact with horses until the 15th century or later.

Going after far fetched assumptions like horse has to be native to India is rather moot. These folks could have easily bought a huge stable of horses from other cultures like Mesopotamina/Iraq with whom they had trade relations.

Sure, except that neither is there any evidence of widespread use of horses in the Harappan civilization (barring a few questionable and contested claims), and nor is there evidence for trade of the same.

For the record, the horse did not come into Mesopotamia till at least the end of the Bronze Age.

We continue to underestimate the ancients and their level of sophistication. Just recently they found a 5000 yr leather shoe with shoe lace for women quite intact in Europe.

They found a shoe, not a horse ;).

If you notice the broken seal symbols deviate from the intact seal.
After the tuning fork/fork like symbol, the next symbol is different. Ostensibly the seals are depicting different things. The intact seal and the broken seal are not the same.

Nobody claims that the seals are the same. They cannot be same since they are different seals :lol: One is intact and the other is chipped. See?

Nobody claims that the seals are the same. They cannot be same since they are different seals :lol: One is intact and the other is chipped. See?

I knew it MM you would come up with such dumbass contrite stmts. that aint the point. the symbols above, which describe the caption are different. Please don't derail this thread with your arrogance and haughty toity attitude. Brickheads like Witzel/farmer can't even read the symbols properly and you keep singing their praises.

Yes, the symbols are indeed different! Because they are from different seals, so one would not expect them to be the same! :lol:

Could you please tell me what your point is?

Yes, the symbols are indeed different! Because they are from different seals, so one would not expect them to be the same! :lol:

Could you please tell me what your point is?
There you go again with your arrogance. Can you get of lol for a change. Mr Witzel and farmer are once again pissing in the wind so to speak. Their entire assumption that there is no horse in India is really horse pucky/manure. They continue to treat India as some uncultured place when they in fact are the ones uncultured (long history of brutes in their genes). So this grandiose hand waving by them to unequate vedic culture with IVC is another grand standing, hollow rhetoric.

Arrogance? :lol:

All I'm asking is - what is the reason for pointing out that the symbols on chipped and intact seals are different?

The fact that they are different have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Did you even bother to read the "Horseplay in Harappa" article? Clearly you didn't, or else you wouldn't be asking such a question.

Marathaman and Barrykul, please don't waste time and energy on this horse seal controversy. It is simply leading to getting this thread deleted.If need be we should simply get the Archeological survery of India bulletin 23, 1992-1993. This is where horse skeleton is reported . There are other intelligent ways to encounter Steve Farmer or for that matter any european centric Indologists.

^The least Barrykul could do is understand the arguments given by the "opposition" before responding to them. Don't you think?

They continue to treat India as some uncultured place when they in fact are the ones uncultured (long history of brutes in their genes).

Wow. That's that's the n-th racist comment that you've made against Europeans. I wonder how the moderators are tolerating such racism here.

The Rebus way of deciphering some Glyphs. Looks like Rebus method is used in deciphering Egyptian and Sumerian Glyphs.
There is one decipherer who is currently using the Rebus method to decipher the Indus script. It seems he got this hint from Asko Parpola.
Just sharing this info here. I think the Rebus method of decipherment will lead to some success in deciphering some seals, especially the Tin Ingots.
Example of some seals and their intepretation using the Rebus Method.

Tigers'name = cu_l.a; rebus: furnace.
person seated in penance =kamad.ha; rebus: kampat.t.a 'mint'.
Face =mukha; rebus: mu-ha 'ingot'.

The two tin ingots contain glyphs which do not find any parallels in cretan but have concordant glyphs in Indus Script. These pictographic glyphs can be read rebus as related to tin (ran:ku; rebus: antelope ).

On one cylinder seal, a tabernae montana plant is depicted as identifies by Potts. That tabaerna montana is called tagaraka in many Bharatiya (Indic) languages; read rebus: tagara, 'tin'

Where are you getting all this from?

Where are you getting all this from?

We can provide you the source , but I don't want him to be categorized like N.S.Rajaram ( Hindutva agenda ). I am doing my own diligence to test his decipherment based on my knowledge gathered in last 6 months on decipherment. This Rebus method I don't think can be applied to all seals ( Ex. M-1186A ). When Rebus method was applied to M-1186A , the iconography and glyphs simply loose the context and meaning.

One of the major problems in understanding IVC language is that there is no known translation of IVC pictorial writing representation. The Egyptian hieroglyphics were deciphered due to the Rosetta Stone (text in Greek side-by-side). Archaeologists have uncovered about 1,500 unique inscriptions from fragments of pottery, tablets and seals. The longest inscription is just 27 signs long.

Quite naturally all kinds of wild ideas have been proposed to decipher the script. Some have tried to link IVC hieroglyphs to other languages. In 1877, British archaeologist Alexander Cunningham hypothesized that the Indus script was a forerunner of modern-day Brahmic scripts, used from Central to Southeast Asia. Other researchers disagreed. Fueled by scores of competing and ultimately unsuccessful attempts to decipher the script, that contentious state of affairs has persisted to the present.

Among the languages linked to the IVC script are Chinese Lolo, Sumerian, Egyptian, Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Old Slavic, even Easter Island — and, finally, no language at all.

But wait, just when you thought all possibilities are exhausted, two clowns who have very little clue about IVC come up with the inane concept that IVC is, drum roll please...

Indus script was nothing more than political and religious symbols.

Who are these bozos, well they happen to be S. Farmer and M. Witzel, peas in a pod who propose all kinds wierd shit that others who have a normal common sense would say, "What the heck are you talking about".

read these brain farts at your leisure and laugh away....
http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf


But is there a way to say that these clowns are wrong. Well there is. It happens to be good old science, i.e. computer science and Markov Chains.

"The underlying grammatical structure seems similar to what’s found in many languages," said University of Washington computer scientist Rajesh Rao.

Computational analysis of symbols used 4,000 years ago by a long-lost Indus Valley civilization suggests they represent a spoken language. Some frustrated linguists thought the symbols were merely pretty pictures

Rao, a machine learning specialist who read about the Indus script in high school and decided to apply his expertise to the script while on sabbatical in Inda, may have solved the language-versus-symbol question, if not the script itself.

"One of the main questions in machine learning is how to generalize rules from a limited amount of data," said Rao. "Even though we can’t read it, we can look at the patterns and get the underlying grammatical structure."

Rao’s team used pattern-analyzing software running what’s known as a Markov model, a computational tool used to map system dynamics.

They fed the program sequences of four spoken languages: ancient Sumerian, Sanskrit and Old Tamil, as well as modern English. Then they gave it samples of four non-spoken communication systems: human DNA, Fortran, bacterial protein sequences and an artificial language.

The program calculated the level of order present in each language. Non-spoken languages were either highly ordered, with symbols and structures following each other in unvarying ways, or utterly chaotic. Spoken languages fell in the middle.

When they seeded the program with fragments of Indus script, it returned with grammatical rules based on patterns of symbol arrangement. These proved to be moderately ordered, just like spoken languages.

According to Rao, this early analysis provides a foundation for a more comprehensive understanding of Indus script grammar, and ultimately its meaning.

Thank you science for proving quite comprehensively that S. Farmer and M. Witzel are charlatans who don't have a clue about what they are talking about but come up with outlandish cockamie bs.

There you go again with your arrogance. Can you get of lol for a change. Mr Witzel and farmer are once again pissing in the wind so to speak. Their entire assumption that there is no horse in India is really horse pucky/manure.

Apart from your personal "interpretation" of what a broken seal could possibly represent, there's no proof for your point of view. Just look at the amount of variables, mate - first, there's whether the seal is in fact a horse, which is improbable to begin with based on testament from academics (but their word means nothing compared to opinionated forumers, right? :|). Even if the seal is indeed a horse, how does that prove that there were domesticated horses in the IVC?

They continue to treat India as some uncultured place when they in fact are the ones uncultured (long history of brutes in their genes).

Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

We can provide you the source , but I don't want him to be categorized like N.S.Rajaram ( Hindutva agenda ). I am doing my own diligence to test his decipherment based on my knowledge gathered in last 6 months on decipherment. This Rebus method I don't think can be applied to all seals ( Ex. M-1186A ). When Rebus method was applied to M-1186A , the iconography and glyphs simply loose the context and meaning.

Are you serious? S Rajaram is a fraudster. If this guy is doing genuine work then there's no reason why you shouldn't "reveal the source" :nuts:

Apart from your personal "interpretation" of what a broken seal could possibly represent, there's no proof for your point of view. Just look at the amount of variables, mate - first, there's whether the seal is in fact a horse, which is improbable to begin with based on testament from academics (but their word means nothing compared to opinionated forumers, right? :|). Even if the seal is indeed a horse, how does that prove that there were domesticated horses in the IVC?


The broken seal has in all probability the same animal shown in the intact one. There was a whole bunch of dozens of similar seals found on several Harappan sites with the same mythical beast (often called a unicorn-bull because of its single protruding horn)

http://www.harappa.com/seal/graphics/1.jpg

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/images/harappa.jpg

http://archaeologyindia.com/images/archeology/Krishna%20and%20the%20Unicorn%20of%20the%20Indus%20Seals%20003.jpg

http://www.alamo.edu/sac/vat/arthistory/arts1303/India8.jpg

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2788/3231809498219aefd535.jpg

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3252/96382345.jpg

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4385/h249401.jpg

____

But no horses.

Apart from your personal "interpretation" of what a broken seal could possibly represent, there's no proof for your point of view. Just look at the amount of variables, mate - first, there's whether the seal is in fact a horse, which is improbable to begin with based on testament from academics (but their word means nothing compared to opinionated forumers, right? :|). Even if the seal is indeed a horse, how does that prove that there were domesticated horses in the IVC?


Well so is yours mate - the opinion and its interpretation. These academics treat IVC like some run of the mill civilization. For starters IVC has continuous civilization for 1000s of years. We in the industrial era have not even reached a 1000 yet. Yet these puny minds like M. Witzel and Farmer take two completely different seals with different lettering/symbols, one is half/broken. Then they emphatically assert it ain't a horse (as if they know what the other half could have been), the other side says it could be horse. I don't know who is right either. But to conclude out of thin air that IVC over thousands of years did not see a horse or domesticate one is rather far fetched. Interpretations are opinions and you know everyone has one like they have a rear-end. One claims my shit does not stink but yours does. Go figure.



Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

Ask the same question to the Jews who perished at the hands of Nazi's. One of them (M. Witzel) comes from the same land and his latest tirade against Hindus (mind you I am not one), comes dangerously close to his compatriots who committed the worst genocide.

BTW is Mahratta the same as Marathaman, tis quite confusing?

the other side says it could be horse.

No, S. Rajaram used a scanned pixellated copy of a clay impression of the seal to convert the broken edge of the seal in to the neck and head of a horse :lol:

Wow. After like 3 pages, you still haven't understood the hoax? :nuts:

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6645/horseseal.jpg

Rajaram's 'computer enhancement' of Mackay 453, transforming it into a 'horse seal' (From the book The Deciphered Indus Script, p. 177)



http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1720/17200044.jpg

The original clay impression

No, S. Rajaram used a scanned pixellated copy of a clay impression of the seal to convert the broken edge of the seal in to the neck and head of a horse :lol:

Seriously what is your point.


Wow. After like 3 pages, you still haven't understood the hoax? :nuts:

Congratulations. You have won an award for understanding this. Bravo, Great! Now can we all move on.

^Its you who should win an award for spamming this thread with rubbish without even understand the point :lol:

^Its you who should win an award for spamming this thread with rubbish without even understand the point :lol:

What is your point. You have not answered my question. How do you know it aint a horse?

Then they emphatically assert it ain't a horse

Well of course its not. There isn't A SINGLE intact seal found so far (among hundreds, mind you, across the length and breadth of the civilization) with anything resembling a horse, and yet this one broken seal could be a horse?

Why a horse? Couldn't it also be a wildebeest? Yet I don't see anybody arguing that the seal is a wildebeest. :lol:

Why can't it be a Nilgai (which is btw native to Gujarat)

Are you serious? S Rajaram is a fraudster. If this guy is doing genuine work then there's no reason why you shouldn't "reveal the source" :nuts:
M. Witzel and S. Farmer are Charlatans and Maha Frauds hiding behind their Western Academic fronts.

Well of course its not. There isn't A SINGLE intact seal found so far (among hundreds, mind you, across the length and breadth of the civilization) with anything resembling a horse, and yet this one broken seal could be a horse?

Why a horse? Couldn't it also be a wildebeest? Yet I don't see anybody arguing that the seal is a wildebeest. :lol:
It could be a child's toy for all you care, drawn by a child's imagination of what a horse could be? See it could be anything, it depends on your imagination, or Witzel's or Rajaram or Barrykul's

I have a feeling the MODS are going to lock this thread up since Marathaman has managed to sabotage it because it is not going according to his point of view!

:lol: Well in all probability Children didn't make seals. They were made by people who were likely dedicated to the job.

In any case, no child (unless he's retarded) will create a beautiful seal of a "horse" and yet forget that horses don't have horns :lol:

What you're looking at is a mythical animal, and considering its widespread use on seals and tablets across the civilization, it was probably important in the religious beliefs of these people.

http://www.www.harappa.com/indus5/images/448-h20015001-6.jpg

^^

So far, your contributions have been zilch. The only thing is your arguments which are completely ridiculous and shallow. The only goal you have is to kill threads. Welcome to the world of Marathaman, you contribute nothing but argue for the sake of his beloved teachers M. Witzel and S. Farmer.

Do you even know how seals were made? They were basically punched into squares of wet clay and then baked or dried, i.e. the same technique used for the punch-mark coins of the future.
They were used for trading purposes to "seal" the mouths of jars or bundles containing shipments of goods. They could have been marks of ownership i.e. to indicate the trader or producer of the goods, as well as the items and/or quantities contained in the clay jars.

Well so is yours mate - the opinion and its interpretation. These academics treat IVC like some run of the mill civilization.

Could you please name a "run of the mill" civilization? I'd like to know what it is being compared with.

But to conclude out of thin air that IVC over thousands of years did not see a horse or domesticate one is rather far fetched. Interpretations are opinions and you know everyone has one like they have a rear-end. One claims my shit does not stink but yours does. Go figure.

I'm pretty sure that the IVC over thousands of years never domesticated a Kangaroo either. Does that make their civilization less "sophisticated"?

Are you serious? S Rajaram is a fraudster. If this guy is doing genuine work then there's no reason why you shouldn't "reveal the source" :nuts:

I never posted a single article about N.S.Rajaram in my threads. I don't know why you have to thrash him over and over again . Just leave him alone. So many other scholars are doing somany frauds. Max-Muller's Aryan Invasion theory is now in Shambles. How about Steve Farmer ?. What has he to say about Tamil classic award to Parpola ?. Is he a genuine scholar ?. If he is he wouldn't have created his slides and presentation without understanding the real problem of Indus script. Did he even study the the concordance of the complete Indus script ?. Does he know about the religious atmosphere of ancient India.
The problem is all these so called scholars take what they want and reject other evidences that doesn't suit their ideas and theories. Any genuine work should address all the concerns systematically ( look at the work of James champollian). Even Parpola doesn't match that legendary decipherer.

I already provided the link to his decipherment in the previous thread ( S.Kalyanaraman). It seems that you never care to read some links. Again, I am posting the link to his work. He used rebus method in his decipherment work.

http://sites.google.com/site/induswriting/home

I am currently reading the book "Decipherment of Indus script" by Asko Parpola. He had given a dravidian hypothesis and deciphered few seals( some of them are convincing, especially the fig tree worship on the seals and some parallels of fig tree worship by Hindus in India today) . However, instead of Aryan Invasion theory, he talks about Aryan migration theory ( A seperate chapter on The coming of Aryans). Parpola is awarded Tamil Classic award for his work on Indus script and his Dravidian Hypothesis. I like some of his work , but I don't know when the complete decipherment is not completed, why is the T.N government giving him a Classical award . Dravidian politicians have already created North-South divide .They can use this work to perpetuate Dravidian supremacy.

http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article462079.ece

Max Mueller did not propose the Aryan Invasion theory. That was Mortimer Wheeler, from a time where archaeology itself was nowhere near the level of development and maturity as it is today.

I'm sure if you give a fraction of your time to the research paper by Witzel and Farmer that you are doing for Dr. S Kalyanaraman's attempts, you'll not make these silly accusations. Its quite systematic and thorough. Do give it a read :)

If you provided the link in your previous thread, why were hesitant to disclose his identity in this one?

Max Mueller did not propose the Aryan Invasion theory. That was Mortimer Wheeler, from a time where archaeology itself was nowhere near the level of development and maturity as it is today.

I'm sure if you give a fraction of your time to the research paper by Witzel and Farmer that you are doing for Dr. S Kalyanaraman's attempts, you'll not make these silly accusations. Its quite systematic and thorough. Do give it a read :)

If you provided the link in your previous thread, why were hesitant to disclose his identity in this one?

I accept my mistake in making the statement that Max Mueller proposed the Aryan Invasion theory.
Given the nature of politics involved in the decipherment of Indus script, I was hesitant to disclose his identity.

A point-by-point rejoinder to the Farmer, Sproat and Witzel paper (2004) "no script", illiterate Harappan thesis. Courtesy, Journal of Tamil Studies, December 2009 issue ( #76).pp 69-88.
http://tinyurl. com/3xrt7sz .

^Is he keeping his own identity secret? Does he live in fear of assassination? Are you being paranoid?

Anyways, thanks, but I have read all the rebuttals of Witzel and Farmer's paper some time ago. They failed to convince me unfortunately. Both researchers have of course, responded to the rebuttals with their own clarifications.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Civilt%C3%A0ValleIndoMappa.png

check out wikipedia:

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


:cheers:

I never posted a single article about N.S.Rajaram in my threads. I don't know why you have to thrash him over and over again . Just leave him alone. So many other scholars are doing somany frauds. Max-Muller's Aryan Invasion theory is now in Shambles. How about Steve Farmer ?. What has he to say about Tamil classic award to Parpola ?. Is he a genuine scholar ?. If he is he wouldn't have created his slides and presentation without understanding the real problem of Indus script. Did he even study the the concordance of the complete Indus script ?. Does he know about the religious atmosphere of ancient India.
The problem is all these so called scholars take what they want and reject other evidences that doesn't suit their ideas and theories. Any genuine work should address all the concerns systematically ( look at the work of James champollian). Even Parpola doesn't match that legendary decipherer.

I already provided the link to his decipherment in the previous thread ( S.Kalyanaraman). It seems that you never care to read some links. Again, I am posting the link to his work. He used rebus method in his decipherment work.

http://sites.google.com/site/induswriting/home

I am currently reading the book "Decipherment of Indus script" by Asko Parpola. He had given a dravidian hypothesis and deciphered few seals( some of them are convincing, especially the fig tree worship on the seals and some parallels of fig tree worship by Hindus in India today) . However, instead of Aryan Invasion theory, he talks about Aryan migration theory ( A seperate chapter on The coming of Aryans). Parpola is awarded Tamil Classic award for his work on Indus script and his Dravidian Hypothesis. I like some of his work , but I don't know when the complete decipherment is not completed, why is the T.N government giving him a Classical award . Dravidian politicians have already created North-South divide . With this it will be like a stone in the hands of Mad man . They can use this work to perpetuate Dravidian supremacy.
http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article462079.ece

I want to avoid butting in your scholarly analysis but I can't understand your objections to TN government giving him some award. I can see why he is being awarded by TN - he is proposing a Dravidian hypothesis. The GOI would have done a similar thing to any scholar if they had done any work bringing out the antiquity of Indian civilisation or any kind of contribution to Indian history and culture. In fact, GOI spends millions of dollar for the promotion of Sanskrit and Hindi in universities abroad. Why would you have problems if TN govt did something at a smaller scale involving probably a few thousand rupees. In fact, they have been conducting World Tamil Conference since the sixties and giving awards for contribution to Tamil language. Can you explain what your problems is?

Why would it be a stone in the hands of a mad man? If you had it, would it be a flower in the hands of a priest?

Can you care to support your accusation such as 'They can use this work to perpetuate Dravidian supremacy.'? On the other hand, what we have seen all along is the perpetuation of supremacy of some other group of people all along and you were sitting smug.

Can I request you to confine your analysis based on facts and evidence and refrain from making wild accusations belittling people?

The problem is that both sides have an agenda. Sections of TN government want to link the IVC with the "Dravidian" political ideology, while the "Sindhu-Saraswati" camp wants to link it with Vedic civilization.

How are Herr M. Witzel and S. Farmer going to explain the horses depicted in caves near Karikkiyur, about 40 km from Kothagiri in the Nilgiris. The rock paintings depict a battle scene with men aiming at each other with bows and arrows, men on horseback engaged in battle.


Witzel is an angry rabid anti-Indian bigot. These guys had a good life spewing venemous hatred and now the truth is being exposed.
The bottom line of these "Indologists" is this: Indians are nothing, did nothing and achieved nothing until the British & Euros taught them "civilization". Once you understand their motivation, it becomes clear why they are not interested in honestly examing the evidence.

Have you ever read any academic papers written by said anti-Indian bigots?

I want to avoid butting in your scholarly analysis but I can't understand your objections to TN government giving him some award. I can see why he is being awarded by TN - he is proposing a Dravidian hypothesis. The GOI would have done a similar thing to any scholar if they had done any work bringing out the antiquity of Indian civilisation or any kind of contribution to Indian history and culture. In fact, GOI spends millions of dollar for the promotion of Sanskrit and Hindi in universities abroad. Why would you have problems if TN govt did something at a smaller scale involving probably a few thousand rupees. In fact, they have been conducting World Tamil Conference since the sixties and giving awards for contribution to Tamil language. Can you explain what your problems is?

Why would it be a stone in the hands of a mad man? If you had it, would it be a flower in the hands of a priest?

Can you care to support your accusation such as 'They can use this work to perpetuate Dravidian supremacy.'? On the other hand, what we have seen all along is the perpetuation of supremacy of some other group of people all along and you were sitting smug.

Can I request you to confine your analysis based on facts and evidence and refrain from making wild accusations belittling people?

Ask any body in south except , Tamil Nadu, about how tamil politicians and tamil scholars behave. There is a sense of supremacy in them.
Do you know why Potti Sriramulu fasted to till death. He couldn't see the plight of Telugu language getting a second class treatment in Madras confedaracy especially under Tamils. It is politics and nothing else that is played by TN government to award Tamil classic award to Parpola. They talk about Dravidian language and what importance did they give to other dravidian languages except Tamil. The Dravidian parties have successfully stopped the teaching of Hindi in Tamil Nadu. First of all, the decipherment of Indus script is not yet complete. What is the using of giving award to Asko Parpola for his Dravidian hypothesis which is partially deciphered ?.

Have you ever read any academic papers written by said anti-Indian bigots?

Considering his behavior, emails and statements (especially during the California Textbook anti-Hindu indoctrination), I hardly consider him objective.

I would like to see more Indian historians write about European history.

So I take it that you haven't read his research.

The problem is that both sides have an agenda. Sections of TN government want to link the IVC with the "Dravidian" political ideology, while the "Sindhu-Saraswati" camp wants to link it with Vedic civilization.

I see 'Sindhu-Saraswati' camp indulging in smearing campaign against any and everyone holding a different opinion than their Vedic origin of IVC even if it is academicians with decades of research in indology or other related fields. In addition I see them coming up with their own research to back their claim through funding of untrained and non-academic folks like Rajaram, Frawley, et al. field.

On the other hand what I have seen from the TN government is giving some award and nominal cash award for folks who have done Tamil related research since the sixties. This could be any field related to Tamil like computerisation of the language, development of computer fonts, research work in Tamil, etc. Asko Porpola's research work is just another contribution to Tamil like so many other research papers presented in the World Tamil Conference.

I don't see an agenda in the latter as in the former instance. In the backdrop of GOI giving awards to contributions to Sanskrit or donoting millions of dollars to Sanskrit/Hindi chairs abroad, TN government's award is miniscule. If one would conclude there is agenda in TN government's action, the same would apply to actions of GOI.

One cannot equate the Sindhu-Saraswati agenda with TN governments' actions as TN government is not fabricating or propagating any such agenda. To equate the two would be an error.

So I take it that you haven't read his research.

You mean his propaganda. No I decided not to delve into his colonial imperialist propaganda. Perhaps if he acted a little less bigoted, I could actually take him seriously.

Funny how you drew all those conclusions without even reading his papers.

I see 'Sindhu-Saraswati' camp indulging in smearing campaign against any and everyone holding a different opinion than their Vedic origin of IVC even if it is academicians with decades of research in indology or other related fields. In addition I see them coming up with their own research to back their claim through funding of untrained and non-academic folks like Rajaram, Frawley, et al. field.

On the other hand what I have seen from the TN government is giving some award and nominal cash award for folks who have done Tamil related research since the sixties. This could be any field related to Tamil like computerisation of the language, development of computer fonts, research work in Tamil, etc. Asko Porpola's research work is just another contribution to Tamil like so many other research papers presented in the World Tamil Conference.

I don't see an agenda in the latter as in the former instance. In the backdrop of GOI giving awards to contributions to Sanskrit or donoting millions of dollars to Sanskrit/Hindi chairs abroad, TN government's award is miniscule. If one would conclude there is agenda in TN government's action, the same would apply to actions of GOI.

One cannot equate the Sindhu-Saraswati agenda with TN governments' actions as TN government is not fabricating or propagating any such agenda. To equate the two would be an error.

I'll admit that the TN government is on higher moral and academic ground than the "Sindhu-Saraswati" camp.

Atleast they know the difference between research and tomfoolery :lol:

Funny how you drew all those conclusions without even reading his papers.

http://www.indicstudies.us/Dossier_on_Witzel.pdf

I thought blond hair blue eyed Germans invaded India in 1000 BC and taught Indians civilization.
Isn't that what the Nazi's and the German Oriental Society used to say.

His remarks are quite amusing and I'd say, pretty accurate also :lol:.

But what does all this have to do with his research?

I thought blond hair blue eyed Germans invaded India in 1000 BC and taught Indians civilization.
Isn't that what the Nazi's and the German Oriental Society used to say.

I'm not quite sure what exactly Nazis said about Indian civilization, but what I do know is that no serious historian says that as of today.

[B]Ask any body in south except , Tamil Nadu, about how tamil politicians and tamil scholars behave. There is a sense of supremacy and arrogance in them.

Can you point out any Tamil politician/scholars that has offended you or anybody else instead of just making wild allegations of arrogance and supremacy?

Do you think this arrogance and supremacy is shown only Tamil politicians/scholars and no one else in India or abroad?



Do you know why Potti Sriramulu fasted to till death. He couldn't see the plight of Telugu language getting a second class treatment in Madras confedaracy especially under Tamils.

Potti Sriramulu wanted a separate state and he got it by giving his life by fasting unto death. What has that got to do with your accusations? Even KCR is demanding for Telengana. Are you guilty of suppressing the Telengana folks?

On the other hand, more than 500 Tamils were shot dead and many more injured for opposing imposition of Hindi in Tamilnadu in the sixties when Shastri was PM. Despite that Tamils are not accusing northern politicians of Hindi supremacy or Aryan agenda. Why would you do it to Tamils?

Each state has to promote its language. No one is asking AP or Karnataka to prmote Tamil. I don't understand why you would want to ask TN to promote other languages.

In fact, you should be demanding the same of Government of India to promote all Indian languages instead of one or two favoured ones.


It is politics and nothing else that is played by TN government to award Tamil classic award to Parpola. They talk about Dravidian language and what importance did they give to other dravidian languages except Tamil. The Dravidian parties have successfully stopped the teaching of Hindi in Tamil Nadu. First of all, the decipherment of Indus script is not yet complete. What is the using of giving award to Asko Parpola for his Dravidian hypothesis which is partially deciphered ?.[/

World Tamil Conferences have been conducted since 1966 and various research works related to Tamil have been presented and awarded by many international scholars since then. Here are some details of the conferences:

First World Tamil Conference – Conducted in the City of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in the year of 1966.
Second World Tamil Conference – Conducted in the City of Chennai, Tamil Nadu in the year of 1968.
Third World Tamil Conference - Conducted in the City of Paris, France in the year of 1970.
Fourth World Tamil Conference – Conducted in the City of Jaffna, Sri Lanka in the year of 1974
Fifth World Tamil Conference – Conducted in the City of Madurai, Tamil Nadu in the year of 1981.
Sixth World Tamil Conference - Conducted in the City of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in the year of 1987
Seventh World Tamil Conference – Conducted in Mauritius in the year of 1989.
Eighth World Tamil Conference – Conducted in the City of Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu in the year of 1995.
World Classical Tamil Conference – Planned in the City of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu in June'2010


Only you seem to be playing politics by namin Asko Parpola.

His remarks are quite amusing and I'd say, pretty accurate also :lol:.

But what does all this have to do with his research?

So you agree he is a racist bigot. Now that we know where he is coming from, we know how objective his "research" is.

“The first appearance of thundering chariots must have stricken the local population with a terror,
similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding
Spaniards.”

So these wandering White nomads from central Asia rode chariots through the mountains and entered the Indus Valley. Not to mention, they were nomads, but apparently had enough spare labor to build chariots.

No he's not racist at all. You on the other hand seem to be hell-bent on proving that he is.

“The first appearance of thundering chariots must have stricken the local population with a terror,
similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding
Spaniards.”

So these wandering White nomads from central Asia rode chariots through the mountains and entered the Indus Valley. Not to mention, they were nomads, but apparently had enough spare labor to build chariots.

I'm not sure how you got all this from that single quote.

The horse-chariot was indeed a fearsome weapon, and its no wonder that it became popular among armies all across the world within short period of time.

No he's not racist at all. You on the other hand seem to be hell-bent on proving that he is.

You seem hellbent that he isn't.

"In light of the above discussion, I find this to be an unconvincing
explanation of how IE languages entered the subcontinent. The fact that a significant portion of
the population in these countries possesses blue eyes, fair skin, and brown or even blond hair
(where the environment makes these traits which are more suited to northern latitudes
disadvantageous from the standpoint of survival) would seem to indicate that sizeable numbers if
IE speakers actually did intrude upon the subcontinent and have left not only their linguistic but
their genetic imprint upon it as well.”

Why are these Orientalist Imperialists so obsessed with Blond hair and blue eyes. I can understand now why Nazism took root from these late 19th century theories on Race and "Aryan" being a race. Interesting Witzel's connection with the German Orientalist Society, probably largely responsible for the Nazi movement.

^That quote is not from Witzel, but apparently from someone called "Victor Mair" (guilt by association anyone?) . I cannot seem to access the full paper, so I can't really contextualize that quote.

Nevertheless, I can atleast vouch for the fact that blue eyes and fair skin are indeed genetically "native" to the higher latitudes. Do you have something against fair skin?

Not sure about the "obsession" part. Taking a single paragraph from one out of what may be hundreds of different papers on a variety of subjects can't be called "obsession"

I see 'Sindhu-Saraswati' camp indulging in smearing campaign against any and everyone holding a different opinion than their Vedic origin of IVC even if it is academicians with decades of research in indology or other related fields. In addition I see them coming up with their own research to back their claim through funding of untrained and non-academic folks like Rajaram, Frawley, et al. field.
One cannot equate the Sindhu-Saraswati agenda with TN governments' actions as TN government is not fabricating or propagating any such agenda. To equate the two would be an error.

It is not about agendas. It is about facts. I have no problem accepting the antiquity of Tamil language to Sangam literature ( 300 B.C ). I don't even have any problem accepting the fact that 49 generations of kings were mentioned in the ancient tamil text since there migration from Dwaraka.
However, in Parpola's book what are objectionable is that he repeatedly keeps saying that Sanskrit borrowed words from Tamil. I have no clue on how he came to the conclusion. The earlier Sanskrit grammer was composed by Panini way over in 4th century B.C. The works of Rg Veda , Mahabharatha and Ramayana atleast go back to earlier to the eary Sangam literature. There are other issues with the decipherment of Indus script by Parpola. He was able to decipher only few seals using Dravidian compound words. He is clueless on several other seals.
Genuine work is important. One important thing that needs to be considered here is early Dravidian had vedic influence. Some articles were already published on this. Instead of treating Dravidian and Vedic seperate, proposing Aryan migration theory now, I would suggest such a divide should be burried to complete the full decipherment of Indus script.
The Saraswathi-Sindhu camp which you coined has some points too.
Fire alters were discovered in Kalibangan which clearly point to worship of a Vedic god. Parpola needs to explain how does a Rig Vedic god appear in a Dravidian society when he puts the date of Aryan migration at 1500 B.C.
Also, I really don't see Parpola's big contribution to Tamil language. May be I am wrong. If you see his contribution beyond what he has done on IVC script, I will be happy to change my views. The Vedic influence in Tamil Sangam literature can be attested by the following article.

"There is a temple for Devi Sarasvati in a place called Basara
(Vya_sapura) in Adilabad District of Andhra Pradesh, located on the
banks of the Godavari River. The sthala pura_n.a states that the Devi
was installed by Vya_sa by taking three mus.t.is(handfuls) of sand
from the river bed— an extraordinary affirmation indeed of the
integrat link of Sarasvati as devi and Sarasvati as river. The
appended maps indicate the patterns of ancient settlements right from
the foothills of the Himalayas (Ropar) to the Gulf of Khambat (Lothal)
and on the Arabian Sea Coast (Prabhas Patan or Somnath and Dwa_raka).
It is also significant that Sangam literature of the Tamils notes the
claim of the ancient Chera kings that they were the 42nd generation
descendants from the rulers of Dwaraka (Tuvarai) and the sage Agastya
is revered as the ancient Tamil Muni and the author of the earliest
grammatical work in Tamil. Sangam literature is replete with
references to the support provided to the growth of Vedic Culture in
the Tamil-speaking areas. An important article on the antiquity of
relation between Tamil and Sanskrit is: Sharma, K.V. 1983, Spread of
Vedic culture in ancient South India, Adyar Library Bulletin 47:1-1.

"Among the interesting facts that emerge from a study of the
progressive spread of vedic culture from the North-West to the other
parts of India, is its infusion, with noticeable intensity, in the
extreme south of India where, unlike in other parts, a well-developed
Dravidian culture was already in vogue… Tolka_ppiyamwhich is the
earliest available work of the sangam classics, is a technical text in
1610 aphorisms, divided into three sections, dealing respectively,
with phonetics, grammar and poetics…

The other available sangam works are three sets of collected poems,
being, pattu-ppa_t.t.u (Ten idylls), et.t.u-ttokai (Eight collections)
and patineki_r..kan.akku (eighteen secondary texts), which last
appears to pertain to the late period of the saμgam age. The ten poems
are: tirumuruka_r.r.uppat.ai,
porun.ara_r.r.u-ppat.ai,cir.upa_n.a_r.r.uppat.ai,
perumpa_n.a_r.r.uppat.ai, mullaippa_t.t.u, maturaikka_n~ci,
net.unelva_t.ai, kuriñcippa_t.t.u, pat.t.inappa_lai and
malaipat.ukat.a_m. All the above idylls are compositions of individual
poets, and, except for the first, which is devotional and possibly,
pertains to late sangam age, are centred round the royal courts of the
Cera, Cola and Pa_n.d.ya kings, depicting the contemporary elite
scholarly society and youthful life. The second category consists of
Eight collections:nar.r.in.ai, kur.untokai, ainkur.unu_r.u,
patir.r.ujppattu,paripa_t.al, kali-ttokai, akana_n-u_r.u and
pur.ana_n-u_r.u.

All these collections are highly poetic and self-contained stray
verses of different poets put together in consideration of their
contents. The third category consists of eighteen miscellaneous texts,
some of them being collections of stray verses of different poets and
some composed by individual authors. They are: tirukkur.al.,
na_lat.iya_r, par..amor..i, tirikat.ukam, na_n-man.ikkat.ikai,
cir.upañcamu_lam, ela_ti, a_ca_rako_vai, mutumor..ikka_ ñci,
kalavar..i-na_r.patu, initu-na_r.patu, tin.aima_lainu_r.r.aimpatu,
aintin.ai-y-er..upatu, kainnilai, aintin.ai-yanpatu,
tin.aimor..i-y-aimpatu and ka_r.-na_r.patu. The verses in these works
also refer to social customs and local sovereigns. The above works
picture a well-knit and well-developed society having a distinct
identity of its own.

The frequent mention, in sangam poems, of the Cera, Cola and Pa_n.d.ya
kings as the munificent patrons of the poets… and the archaeological
evidence provided by 76 rock inscriptions in Tamil-Bra_hmi script
which corrobate the contents of the sangam works, in 26 sites in
Tamilnadu (Mahadevan, I., Tamil Bra_hmi inscriptions of the Sangam
age, Proc. Second International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies,
I, Madras, 1971, pp. 73-106) help to fix the date of the classical
sangam classics in their present form to between 100 B.C. and 250 A.D…
reference to the Pa_n.d.yan kingdom by Megasthenes, Greek ambassador
to the court of Candragupta Maurya (c. 324-300 B.C.?) are also in
point. On these and allied grounds, the sangam period of Tamil
literature might be taken to have extended from about the 5th century
B.C. to the 3rd century A.D… It is highly interesting that sangam
literature is replete with references to the vedas and different
facets of vedic literature and culture, pointing to considerable
appreciation, and literary, linguistic and cultural fusion of
vedic-sanskrit culture of the north with the social and religious
pattern of life in south India when the sangam classics were in the
making…

The vedas and their preservers, the bra_hmans, are frequently referred
to with reverence (Pur.ana_n u_r.u 6, 15 and 166; Maturaikka_ñci 468;
tirukat.ukam 70, na_n-man.ikkat.ikai 89, initu-na_r.patu 8). The vedic
mantra is stated as the exalted expressions of great sages
(Tolka_ppiyam, Porul. 166, 176). While the great God S'iva is referred
as the source of the four vedas (Pur.a. 166), it is added that the
twice-born (bra_hman) learnt the four vedas and the six veda_ngas in
the course of 48 years (Tiru-muruka_r.r.uppat.ai, 179-82). The vedas
were not written down but were handed down by word of mouth from
teacher to pupil (Kur-untokai 156), and so was called kel.vi(lit. what
is heard, šruti)(Patir.r.ippattu 64.4-5; 70.18-19; 74, 1-2;Pur.a. 361.
3-4). The bra_hmans realized God through the Vedas (Paripa_t.al 9.
12-13) and recited loftily in vedic schools (Maturaikka_ñci 468- 76;
656)… the danger to the world if the bra_hman discontinued the study
of the veda is stressed intirukkur.al. 560. If the sangam classics are
any criteria, the knowledge and practice of vedic sacrifices were very
much in vogue in early south India. The sacrifices were performed by
bra_hmans strictly according to the injunctions of the vedic mantras
(tirumuruka_r.r.uppat.ai 94-96; kalittokai 36). The three sacred fires
(ga_rhapatya, a_havani_ya and daks.ina_gni) were fed at dawn and dusk
by bràhmans in order to propitiate the gods (Kalittokai 119l Pur.a. 2;
99; 122; Kur.iñcippa_t.t.u 225).Paripa_t.al 2. 60-70 stipulates, in
line with vedic sacrificial texts, that each sacrifice had a specific
presiding deity, that pas'us (sacrificial animals) were required for
the sacrifice and that the sacrificial fire rose to a great height.
The vedic practice of placing a tortoise at the bottom of the
sacrificial pit is referred to in Akana_n-u_r.u 361…

Patir.r.uppattu 64 and 70 glorify the Cera king
Celvakkat.unkovar..iya_tan- who propitiated the gods through a
sacrifice performed by learned vedic scholars and distributed profuse
wealth amongst them. Another Cera king, Perum-ceral Irumpor.ai is
indicated in Patir.r.uppattu 74 to have performed the
Putraka_mes.t.hi_ sacrifice for the birth of his son
il.amceralirumpor.ai. The Cola ruler Peru-nar.kil.l.i was renowned as
Ra_jasu_yam ve_t.t.a co_r..an- for his having performed the ra_jasa_ya
sacrifice; another Cola ruler Nar.kil.l.i, too, was celebrated as a
sacrificer (Pur.a. 363; 400). The Cola kings were also considered to
have descended from the north Indian king S'ibi the munificent of
Maha_bha_rata fame (Pur.a. 39; 43). The patronage accorded to vedic
studies and sacrifices is illustrated also by the descriptive mention,
in Pur.a. 166, of a great vedic scholar Vin.n.anta_yan- of the
Kaun.d.inya-gotra who lived at Pu_ñja_r.r.u_r in the Co_r..a realm
under royal patronage. It is stated that Vin.n.anta_yan- had mastered
the four vedas and six veda_ngas, denounced non-vedic schools, and
performed the seven pa_kayajñas, seven Soma-yajñas and seven
havir-yajñas as prescribed in vedic texts. The Pa_n.d.yan kings
equalled the Colas in the promotion of Vedic studies and rituals. One
of the greatest of Pa_n.d.ya rulers, Mudukut.umi Peruvar..uti is
described to have carefully collected the sacrificial materials
prescribed in vedic and dharmašàstra texts and performed several
sacrifices and also set up sacrificial posts where the sacrifices were
performed (Pur.a. 2; 15). Maturaikka_ñci (759- 63) mentions him with
the appellation pal-s'a_lai (pal-ya_ga-s'a_lai of later Ve_l.vikkud.i
and other inscriptions), `one who set up several sacrificial halls'.
The Pa_n.d.ya rulers prided themselves as to have descended from the
Pa_n.d.avas, the heroes of Maha_bha_rata (Pur.a. 3; 58; Akana_n-u_r.u
70; 342)…

God Brahmà is mentioned to have arisen, in the beginning of creation,
with four faces, from the lotus navel of God Vis.n.u (Paripa_t.al8.3;
Kalittokai 2; Perumpa_n.a_r.r.uppat.ai 402-04;Tirumuruka_r.r.uppat.ai
164-65; Iniyavaina_rpatu 1). It is also stated that Brahma_ had the
swan as vehicle (Innà-nàrpatu 1). Vis.n.u is profusely referred to. He
is the lord of the Mullai region (Tol. Akattin.ai 5) and encompasses
all the Trinity (Paripa_t.al13.37). He is blue-eyed (Pur.a. 174),
lotus-eyed (Paripa_t.al15.49), yellow-clothed (Paripa_t.al 13.1-2),
holds the conch and the discus in his two hands and bears goddess
Laks.mì on his breast (Mullaippa_t.t.u 1-3; Perumpa_n. 29-30; Kali.
104; 105; 145), was born under the asterism Tiru-o_n.am (Maturai.
591), and Garud.a-bannered (Pur.a. 56.6; Paripa_t.al 13.4). Of
Vis.n.uite episodes are mentioned his measuring the earth in three
steps (Kali. 124.1), protecting his devotee Prahla_da by killing his
father (Pari. 4. 12-21) and destroying the demon Kes'in (Kali.
103.53-55). S'iva has been one of the most popular vedic-pura_n.ic
gods of the South. According to Akana_n-u_r.u 360.6, S'iva and Vis.n.u
are the greatest gods. He is three-eyed (Pur.a.6.18; Kali. 2.4), wears
a crescent moon on his forehead (Pur.a.91.5; Kali. 103.15), and holds
the axe as weapon (Aka. 220.5;Pur.a. 56.2). He bears river Ganga_ in
his locks (Kali. 38.1; 150.9) and is blue-necked (Pur.a. 91.6; Kali.
142). He is born under the asterism a_tirai (Skt. àrdra) (Kali.
150.20), has the bull for his vehicle (Paripa_t.al 8.2) and is seated
under the banyan tree (Aka. 181). Once, while sitting in Kaila_sa with
Uma_ (Pa_rvati), his consort (Pari. 5.27-28; Par..amor..i 124),
Ra_van.a, the ra_ks.asa king shook the Kaila_sa and S'iva pressed the
mountain down with his toe, crushing Ra_van.a and making him cry for
mercy (Kali. 38). When the demon Tripura infested the gods, S'iva shot
through the enemy cities with a single arrow and saved the gods (Kali.
2; Pur.a. 55; Paripa_t.al 5. 22-28).Pur.ana_n –u_r.u (6. 16-17) refers
also to S'iva temples in the land and devotees walking round the
temple in worship. God Skanda finds very prominent mention in saμgam
classics, but as coalesced with the local deity Murukan-, with most of
the pura_n.ic details of his birth and exploits against demons
incorporated into the local tradition (Paripa_t.al 5.
26-70;Tirumuruka_r.r.uppat.ai, the whole work). Mention is also made
of Indra. (Balara_ma) is mentioned as the elder brother of Lord
Kr.s.n.a, as fair in colour, wearing blue clothes, having the palmyra
tree as his emblem and holding the ;lough as his weapon, all in line
with the pura_n.as (Paripa_t.al 2. 20-23; Pur.a. 56. 3-4; 58.14; Kali.
104, 7-8). Tolka_ppiyam (Akattin.ai iyal 5) divides the entire Tamil
country into five, namely, Mullai (jungle) with Vis.n.u as its
presiding deity, Kur.iñji (hilly) with Murukan- as deity, Marutam
(plains: cf. marusthali_ Skt.) with Indra as deity, Neytal (seashore)
with Varun.a as deity and Pa_lai (wasteland) with Kor.r.avai (Durga_)
as deity…

The sangam works are replete with references to the four castes into
which the society was divided, namely, bra_hman.a, ks.atriya, vais'ya,
and su_dra… bra_hman antan.a primarily concerned with books (Tol.
Mara. 71), the ks.atriya (a-ras'a, ra_ja) with the administration
(Tol. Mara.78) and s'u_dra with cultivation (Tol. Mara. 81)… It is
also stated that marriage before the sacred fire was prescribed only
for the first three castes; but the author adds that the custom was
adopted by the fourth caste also in due course (Tol. Kar.piyal 3)… one
cannot fail to identify in sangam poetry the solid substratum of the
distinct style, vocabulary and versification, on the one hand, and the
equally distinct subject-matter, social setting and cultural traits,
on the other, both of the Tamil genius and of vedic poetry. As far as
the grammar of Dravidian is concerned, a detailed analytical study of
Old Tamil as represented in Tolka_ppiyam, with the vedic s'iks.a_s and
pra_tis'a_khyas, has shown that, `Tolka_ppiyan-a_r clearly realized
that Tamil was not related to Sanskrit either morphologically or
genealogically… that he deftly exploited the ideas contained in the
earlier grammatical literature, particularly in those works which
dealt with vedic etymology, without doing the least violence to the
genius of the Tamil language'. (Sastri, P.S.S., History of Grammatical
Theories in Tamil and their relation to the Grammatical literature in
Sanskrit, Madras, 1934, p. 231)…

It would be clear from the foregoing that during the sangam age there
had already been intensive infusion of vedic culture in south India…
Both the culturescoexisted, the additions often affecting only the
upper layers of society… For novel names, concepts and ideas, the
Sanskrit names were used as such, with minor changes to suit the Tamil
alphabet (e.g. akin-i for agni, vaicikan- for vais'ya, veta for veda,
or translated (e.g. pa_pa_n- for dars'aka, ke_l.vi for s'ruti). When,
however, the concept already existted, in some form or other, the same
word was used with extended sense (e.g. ve_l.vi for ya_ga; ma_l or
ma_yan- for Vis.n.u). Sometimes both the new vedic and extant Tamil
words were used (e.g. ti_ for agni)… It is, however, important to note
that the coming together of the two cultures, vedic and dravidian, was
smooth, non-agressive and appreciative, as vouched for by the
unobtrusive but pervasive presence of vedicism in the sangam works.
The advent of vedic culture into South India was, thus, a case of
supplementation and not supplantation…

it is a moot question as to when vedic culture first began to have its
impact on dravidian culture which already existed in south India… the
age of this spread (of vedic culture) has to be much earlier than the
times of the Ra_ma_yan.a and Maha_bha_rata, both of which speak of
vedic sages and vedic practices prevailing in the sub-continent.
Literary and other traditions preserved both in north and south India
attest to the part played by sage Agastya and Paras'ura_ma in carrying
vedic culture to the south. On the basis of analytical studies of
these traditions the identification of geographical situations and a
survey of the large number of Agastya temples in the Tamil country,
G.S. Ghurye points to the firm establishment of the Agastya cult in
South India by the early centuries before the Christian era (Ghurye,
G.S., Indian acculturation: Agastya and Skanda, Bombay, Popular
Prakashan, 1977)… the considerable linguistic assimilation, in
dravidian, of material of a pre-classical Sanskrit nature, it would be
necessary to date the north-south acculturation in India to much
earlier times."

Also, I really don't see Parpola's big contribution to Tamil language. May be I am wrong. If you see his contribution beyond what he has done on IVC script, I will be happy to change my views.

If the government of TN asks you for your opinion for the award, you can do so or you may want to write to them about your opinion instead of sensationlising it. I am not so keen on it as I am not about so many other award given away by TN government in World Tamil Conference or for any other achievement.

We can avoid some unnecessary arguments if we can avoid sensational outcries of arrogance, or supremacy and just focus on evidence, and research done by scholars.

However, in Parpola's book what are objectionable is that he repeatedly keeps saying that Sanskrit borrowed words from Tamil. I have no clue on how he came to the conclusion.

Are you sure? He couldn't have said that. What he could have said is that Sanskrit has borrowed words from the distant ancestors of Tamil (i.e. the "dravidian" languages that must have existed before the introduction of Vedic Sanskrit)

Genuine work is important. One important thing that needs to be considered here is early Dravidian had vedic influence. Some articles were already published on this. Instead of treating Dravidian and Vedic seperate, proposing Aryan migration theory now, I would suggest such a divide should be burried to complete the full decipherment of Indus script.

It depends on what time period you are talking about. How early is this "early Dravidian"?

The Saraswathi-Sindhu camp which you coined has some points too.
Fire alters were discovered in Kalibangan which clearly point to worship of Agni . Agni is a Rig Vedic god. Parpola needs to explain how does a Rig Vedic god appear in a Dravidian society when he puts the date of Aryan migration at 1500 B.C.

That's actually a highly disputed claim. These "fire altars" are most likely just regular hearths used for various domestic purposes. Although it could be possible that fire-worship was also involved, its not necessary that these were specifically meant for the Vedic Agni. Lots of cultures had traditions of nature worship. Similar hearths are found in a number of different civilizations with no links with the Vedic Aryans. Infact, nearly identical "fire altars" are found in modern villages even today, used primarily for cooking and baking.

We can avoid some unnecessary arguments if we can avoid sensational outcries of arrogance, or supremacy and just focus on evidence, and research done by scholars.
I am just providing you an explaination because you were seeking explaination. There is nothing more than that.

That's actually a highly disputed claim. These "fire altars" are most likely just regular hearths used for various domestic purposes. Although it could be possible that fire-worship was also involved, its not necessary that these were specifically meant for the Vedic Agni. Lots of cultures had traditions of nature worship. Similar hearths are found in a number of different civilizations with no links with the Vedic Aryans. Infact, nearly identical "fire altars" are found in modern villages even today, used primarily for cooking and baking.

Well , Parpola even uses to explain that these are not just meant for ordinary cooking and backing. He clearly gives additional clues that these altars are meant for Dhisnya rituals by the priests. There is a specific picture in the book to explain his point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedi_(altar)

^That quote is not from Witzel, but apparently from someone called "Victor Mair" (guilt by association anyone?) . I cannot seem to access the full paper, so I can't really contextualize that quote.

Nevertheless, I can atleast vouch for the fact that blue eyes and fair skin are indeed genetically "native" to the higher latitudes. Do you have something against fair skin?

Not sure about the "obsession" part. Taking a single paragraph from one out of what may be hundreds of different papers on a variety of subjects can't be called "obsession"

Of course fair skin is related to being in higher latitudes. don't know about blue eyes. East Asians don't have Blue Eyes. What do you have against brown skin? Bringing skin color is very important. All the historical theories about India were done by white imperialists and the white man's burden types. These same scum were responsible for 28 million deaths. Dark skin was a liability and they interpreted fair skin with superiority. Indians need to start writing history of Europe. Seems to me Sanskrit is the origin of many of their languages, unfortunately it dosent fit theories of white superiority.

Witzel is an angry rabid anti-Indian bigot. These guys had a good life spewing venemous hatred and now the truth is being exposed.
The bottom line of these "Indologists" is this: Indians are nothing, did nothing and achieved nothing until the British & Euros taught them "civilization". Once you understand their motivation, it becomes clear why they are not interested in honestly examing the evidence.

Yes. These academicians have made an art out of Indian Origin civilization and their false theories. You question their assumptions and they immediately hide behind their Ivory Tower Academia papers. None of these characters have spent enough time on the ground or understood the culture. They have limited evidence and they come up with wild ass guesses, as if they were there in person witnessing events in the distant past.

Let us restate these vainglorious assumptions made on Indian civilization, thus far.

First came Herr Max Mueller studying Rg Veda. He latches onto one single phrase 'Arya' or 'Sir' and leaps to the gigantic conclusion that it means 'Aryan' the race. This spawned of a huge chase to figure out who these characters were. They assigned them some mythical place in the steppes of Central Asia/Europe. Since the horse was mentioned as sacrifice in Rg Veda they assumed they rode upon these horses. They (Aryans) rode right into the Indian sub-continent and chased away the natives all the way down to the south of India.

Next came R. Caldwell a Brit who started studying Tamil. He latched on to another term ‘dravida’ and converted the term to Dravidian (see the trend here, take any word and convert it to race or group of people) and this was a suitable theory since they had to account for the natives chased by Max Mueller's Aryans. Ergo we have dravidians occupying the south of India.

So far so good. All very nice theories starting from wild ass guesses. Next, since they chased away the natives to the south, the Aryan speaking Sanskrit who composed the Rg Veda had to be tied up to their spoken languages. These Uber race of horseman that invaded India were very knowledgeable and deep in their concepts and thoughts and had an elegant language to express such thoughts. Hence, they made up a grand grouping called Indo European, paying homage to Indo (Aryan Element) and European. Then by using some word/phrase commonality they made up the entire language tree, carefully isolating Sanskrit from some mythical Proto Language. All of this was done with little regard to Indian Sanskrit Scholar Panini who defined the Sanskrit Grammar in terse computer like syntax rules.

Meanwhile IVC was discovered. This ancient civilization was so sophisticated that it put to shame the standard bearers of European civilization. While their grand fore fathers were living like animals in forests, foraging for food and very little for language and communication, here was a civilization with roads, baths, granaries, a democratic system, language, advanced concepts of settlement and living. They used a pictorial form of writing quite similar to Ancient Egyptians. Kind of ironic that today’s modern day computers are reverting back to hierogylphics (cf iPAD from Apple and Microsoft desktop icons).

Then some curious Indians started wondering about the river Saraswati that is mentioned umpteen times in the Rg Veda. Using modern satellites and science they found a dried up river bed starting in the Himalayas and flowing towards the Arabian Sea. Along this river bed were unearthed settlements with IVC seals. All of this evidence was quite unsettling to the group of academics fed on Max Mueller and R. Caldwell. How are they going to explain horse riding Aryans, when the Rg Veda mentions Saraswati and IVC trinkets are being discovered along the dried river bed. Some scientists in the genetic field started studying the DNA of people of India. Center for Cellular Microbiology in Hyderbad and the Indian Insititute of Science collaborated to comprehensively study the DNA of Indian origin people. And lo and behold the conclusions are contrary to the mythical Aryan and Dravidian race. Most Indians are very close to each in genetic terms and the variations are miniscule. Now that we have tons of evidence pointing to IVC in India and Rg Veda/Saraswati in India, Sanskrit and a whole host of other Indian languages all created within the boundary of India, these academics are suddenly feeling left out. They come up with all kinds of laughable theories, one being IVC language was basically like Ads touting religious symbols or political sloganeering and what not. Not that the people of IVC are not capable of such sophistication like religion and political campaigns. They also were adept at trade and commerce, selling their goods in exchange for goods from other cultures.

So what is happening in the academic circles is to question all the evidence and pooh and pooh them one by one. Oh but how do you know Saraswati mentioned in Rg Veda is not River Rhine, or oh there are no trinkets with horses in IVC, oh current people of India look diverse from North to South (without acknowledging the possiblity of Muslim Invasion or during IVC the current set of people resembled those during IVC or IVC allowed migration of people from the rest of the world to settle along the lush green banks of the Saraswati).

Of course fair skin is related to being in higher latitudes. don't know about blue eyes. East Asians don't have Blue Eyes.

Well its common among Eurasians, not east-Asians. Its related to the lack of the pigment melanin which is necessary to protect against ultraviolet radiation. (I'm guessing that you already know that)

What do you have against brown skin? Bringing skin color is very important. All the historical theories about India were done by white imperialists and the white man's burden types.

Well, considering that there was no established tradition of archaeology in India before the colonial period, its not surprising. Although, you're generalizing the entire gamut of historians as racists and imperialists. That's not true at all. Especially not true for present-day historians.

These same scum were responsible for 28 million deaths. Dark skin was a liability and they interpreted fair skin with superiority. Indians need to start writing history of Europe.

Actually, considering that the now discarded "Aryan Invasion Theory" view suggests that the Harappan civilization was far more "sophisticated" than the supposedly "fair skinned" "indo-aryan" tribes, one would be inclined to think that they wanted to prove the opposite - that the "aryans" were violent, uncivilized "barbarians" who attacked and destroyed the sophisticated cities of the "brown skinned" Harappans.

Of course, nothing of this sort happened at all. The big advantage of the Rigvedic tribes was purely military, which explains how they were able to leave their linguistic imprint in the gangetic plains. Otherwise, there is no evidence to suggest that the people of the Rig Veda were inherently "superior" at all.

I've read that some of the colonial-era historians wanted to draw comparisons between "fall" of the IVC and the "barbarian" invasion of Rome by huns, goths and other tribes from Northern Europe during the first millennium of the common era.

Infact, there is an interesting parallel in present-day Central Asia. Some Uzbeks consider themselves "superior" to other Central-asian ethnicities because they apparently were the first people to settle and build cities, unlike say the Kyrgyz who continued their nomadic lifestyle into a far later period. :lol:


Seems to me Sanskrit is the origin of many of their languages, unfortunately it dosent fit theories of white superiority.

Sanskrit is the origin of many Indic languages, not near-western or European languages. Although they do share a common ancestor.

Well , Parpola even uses to explain that these are not just meant for ordinary cooking and backing. He clearly gives additional clues that these altars are meant for Dhisnya rituals by the priests. There is a specific picture in the book to explain his point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedi_(altar)

Which book are you talking about?

IMO, the only so-called fire altar of real interest is the one discovered at Kalibangan on a series of raised platforms. That could possibly be for purely religious purposes.

Here's an excerprt from "Autochonous Aryans" (Michael Witzel)

What is indeed visible at Kalibangan (photos in Allchin 1982, Lal 1997: plate XXXIIIA,
cf. Banawali pl. XXXVIA)? There are seven(?) fire places, three(?) destroyed by later
construction. They are closely aligned next to each other and face a brick wall. Nothing of this,
including the nearby brick-built bathing places, fits any recorded Vedic ritual, neither that of
the RV nor of the later (Śrauta) ritual. The RV knows only of 1-3 fires, and in Śrauta ritual we
find the three fires arranged in a typical, somewhat irregular, triangular fashion. The seven
dhiya fire altars of the complicated post-rgvedic Soma ritual are additional fires, which are
placed east of the three main fires on the trapezoid Mahåvedi platform (Staal 1983). This
feature, however, is not met with at Kalibangan either. It also does not fit the Vedic evidence,
but that of a regular kitchen, that animal bones are found in some of the supposed fire altars.
Further, Vedic fire altars are not apsidal as the fire places at Kalibangan and Banawali. At best,
these are independent and untypical precursors, in a non-Vedic context, that were adapted
into the later Śrauta ritual as the Soma dhiyas. However, this is entirely impossible to prove.
Such proof would have to come from a study of the (so far hypothetical) interrelations
between certain features of the Indus religion and the Śrauta ritual. The matter underlines
how careful archaeologists should be in drawing conclusions about religion and ritual when
interpreting material remains.
In short, the Kalibangan hearths do not represent Vedic ritual as we know it from the
large array of Vedic texts. They may be nothing more than a community kitchen.

___

There is another point that is frequently overlooked regarding these "fire-altars" - the ones at Kalibangan are dated (by B B Lal who carried out the excavation) around 1650 BC which was at the very end of the late Harappan phase.

It is of course possible that these were some kind of fire-rituals, and it is also possible that this practice of fire-rituals influenced later periods of Indian history, but there is no evidence to prove that these are exactly the same as described in Sanskrit texts. As you know, Vedic and post-Vedic fire rituals were highly precise in their details as described in the corresponding religious texts.

The big advantage of the Rigvedic tribes was purely military, which explains how they were able to leave their linguistic imprint in the gangetic plains. Otherwise, there is no evidence to suggest that the people of the Rig Veda were inherently "superior" at all.


Well, which wazoo did you pull this one from? RigVedic tribes - purely military? I know, this must be the Aryan theory, extended from the other militaristic, assumed Aryan tribe, the Nazi. Great going there Marathaman.


Sanskrit is the origin of many Indic languages, not near-western or European languages. Although they do share a common ancestor.

Another exercise into mythical languages which are pure conjectures with nothing to back them. These are the exercises academics indulge, slip in dubious concept here and there and pretend it is all research, very complicated stuff because while they navigate the language maze there are many unknowns and mystifying things. How to explain them, yes, create a thing called a "Common Ancestor" and palm this of as research.

Well, which wazoo did you pull this one from? RigVedic tribes - purely military? I know, this must be the Aryan theory, extended from the other military assumed Aryan tribe the Nazi. Great going there Marathaman.

Huh? Don't you know that the Rigveda describes wars and battles between various Rigvedic clans. as well as battles between Rigvedic clans and "others"?

Huh? Don't you know that the Rigveda describes wars and battles between various Rigvedic clans. as well as battles between Rigvedic clans and "others"?
Yes, battles. But "Purely"? They did other things, did they not?

We were talking about colonial-era notions of "superiority".

It is not about agendas. It is about facts. I have no problem accepting the antiquity of Tamil language to Sangam literature ( 300 B.C ). I don't even have any problem accepting the fact that 49 generations of kings were mentioned in the ancient tamil text since there migration from Dwaraka.
However, in Parpola's book what are objectionable is that he repeatedly keeps saying that Sanskrit borrowed words from Tamil. I have no clue on how he came to the conclusion. The earlier Sanskrit grammer was composed by Panini way over in 4th century B.C. The works of Rg Veda , Mahabharatha and Ramayana atleast go back to earlier to the eary Sangam literature. There are other issues with the decipherment of Indus script by Parpola. He was able to decipher only few seals using Dravidian compound words. He is clueless on several other seals.
Genuine work is important. One important thing that needs to be considered here is early Dravidian had vedic influence. Some articles were already published on this. Instead of treating Dravidian and Vedic seperate, proposing Aryan migration theory now, I would suggest such a divide should be burried to complete the full decipherment of Indus script.
The Saraswathi-Sindhu camp which you coined has some points too.
Fire alters were discovered in Kalibangan which clearly point to worship of Agni . Agni is a Rig Vedic god. Parpola needs to explain how does a Rig Vedic god appear in a Dravidian society when he puts the date of Aryan migration at 1500 B.C.
Also, I really don't see Parpola's big contribution to Tamil language. May be I am wrong. If you see his contribution beyond what he has done on IVC script, I will be happy to change my views. The Vedic influence in Tamil Sangam literature can be attested by the following article.



So what is your point?

Earlier it was Tamils were sumerians with one of your links and now Sangam kings as Vedic kings (dwaraka and MahaB) generation.

FYKI, Agasthiyar story is considered as a Mythical one.

"Autochonous Aryans" (Michael Witzel)

This weasel called M. Witzel continues to propagate the term "Aryan", when the text description talks about "Vedic". I fervently believe we should actively stamp out the terms Aryan and Dravidian, these are terms used by the Brits and their minions in spreading false notions of race. The term Vedic is more appropriate since the people composed the Vedas and most of the existing knowledge base about Indians and their culture stems from the Vedas. Similarly the term Dravidian needs to go. The GOI should actively take a role in ensuring that neither terms are propagated anywhere including academia. And if people like M. Witzel and S. Farmer continue otherwise they ought to be locked in prison and the keys thrown away.

bla bla bla...:lol:

(but no response to the arguments) :ohno:

Here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalibangan

Fire altars

At Kalibangan, fire Vedic altars have been discovered, similar to those found at Lothal which S.R. Rao thinks could have served no other purpose than a ritualistic one [18]. These altars suggest fire worship or worship of Agni, the Hindu god of fire. It is the only Indus Valley Civilization site where there is no evidence to suggest the worship of the "mother goddess".

Within the fortified citadel complex, the southern half contained many (five or six) raised platforms of mud bricks, mutually separated by corridors. Stairs were attached to these platforms. Vandalism of these platforms by brick robbers makes it difficult to reconstruct the original shape of structures above them but unmistakable remnants of rectangular or oval kuṇḍas (Kundas) or fire-pits of burnt bricks for Vedi (altar)s have been found, with a yūpa or sacrificial post (cylindrical or with rectangular cross-section, sometimes bricks were laid upon each other to construct such a post) in the middle of each kuṇḍa and sacrificial terracotta cakes (piṇḍa) in all these fire-pits . Houses in the lower town also contain similar altars. Burnt charcoals have been found in these fire-pits. The structure of these fire-altars is reminiscent of (Vedic) fire-altars, but the analogy may be coincidental, and these altars are perhaps intended for some specific (perhaps religious) purpose by the community as a whole. In some fire-altars remnants of animals have been found, which suggest a possibility of animal-sacrifice.[19].

The official website of ASI reports : "Besides the above two principle [sic] parts of the metropolis there was also a third one-a moderate structure situated upwards of 8O m e. of the lower town containing four to five fire altars. This lonely structure may perhaps have been used for ritual purposes [20]." Thus, fire-altars have been found in three groups : public altars in the citadel, household altars in lower town, and public altars in a third separate group.

As usual M. Witzel is polishing his own turd of knowledge, without understanding certain recurring themes in Indian culture. He confidently pulls another one from his Wazoo and asserts "Community Kitchen". Pinda/Pindum is a ritual practiced to this day all throughout India and shown in movies, especially to honor the dead. The ritual practices are performed on sacred altars and then there is a makeshift kitchen for cooking, wherein people partake in a meal after the rituals. All perfectly normal. Yet Harvard's pompous prof M. Witzel grandly waves his nazi wand and proclaims from his academic hodgepodge of a paper that it was a community kitchen. So much for scholarship!

So what is your point?

Earlier it was Tamils were sumerians with one of your links and now Sangam kings as Vedic kings (dwaraka and MahaB) generation.

FYKI, Agasthiyar story is considered as a Mythical one.

My point is that there are some loop holes in the Dravidian hypothesis presented by Parpola. Especially the fictious language he coined proto-dravidian and sanskrit borrowed words from Dravidian is not correct.
My apology for putting the link that said Tamils were sumerians. The link may not be Authenitc.
I have not done any research on Agasthiyar story and I don't know if is a mythical or a real one.

Seven fire-altars in a row on the top of a ceremonial platform in the Mature Harappan 'citadel' at Kalibangan. After Thapar 1985 :59.
( Photo taken from the Book "Decipherment of Indus script" by Parpola, Page :222). Witzel may not have scrutinizingly studied these altars.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9109/img1602m.jpg

A thumb nail of The fireplaces of the 'seven sacrificial priests' in the Vedic Soma sacrifice. Ater Caland and Henry 1906: I, pl.4.
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/3527/img1604y.th.jpg (http://img294.imageshack.us/i/img1604y.jpg/)

From Page 221, in the book here are some paragraphs that talk about fire altars.

In the context of the Harappan 'linga stands' and the myth of 'Siva's flaming linga', the finds in the 'citadel' of Kalibangan assume great importance. The southern rhomb of this bipartite structure contained no residential buildings, but at least five ( and probably once eight or none) ceremonial platforms built of mud-brick. A flight of steps led to these platforms from the streets that seperated them from each other. On the top of the platforms was 'a row of seven "fore altars''' ( Thapar 1985:55), partly damaged clay-lined pits containing ash, charcoal, the remains of a clay stele and terracotta cakes (in the above 1st figure). Fire-altars with a clay stele in the middle are known also from the Lower Town of Kalibangan, where one room of many of the dwellings was set aside to house one. Better preserved clay stelae from the Lower Town were cyclindrical or slightly faceted and 30-40 cm high.
Two paragraphs skipped in between.....................
The seven 'fire-altars' at Kalibangan are closely paralleled by the dhisnya hearths of the Vedic Soma sacrifice ( thumbnail) . Six of these hearths are in a north-south row inside the 'sitting-hall' ( the priests sit to the west of them, facing east, as at Kalibangan). They belong to six priests, while one more priest ( the 'fire-kindler') has a fireplace of his own to the north of the others, on the border of the sacricial area. The seven officiating priests who have a special dhisynya are also known as 'the seven sacrificers' ( sapta hotrah).
There are many references to the 'first divine or heavenly sacrificers', seven in number; they are undoubtedly the seven divine sages' in RS 10,130,7, apparently identified with 'human sages, our forefathers' who were the first to perform the sacrifice. They are said to be the sages who won the world of heaven with ascetic practices. Jaimineya Upanisad Brahmana 4,26,12 makes it quite clear that the seven sages are the circumpolar stars of Ursa Major by stating that 'the centre of heaven is where the seven sages are'. The seven sages are involved in the myths concerning the linga worship, which deserve a closer scrutiny.
He goes on to explain that the linga cult worship is involved in the usage of the fire altars ( as in Kalibangan).

deleted the comment. Irrelevant.

^^
- deleted -

As usual M. Witzel is polishing his own turd of knowledge, without understanding certain recurring themes in Indian culture. He confidently pulls another one from his Wazoo and asserts "Community Kitchen". Pinda/Pindum is a ritual practiced to this day all throughout India and shown in movies, especially to honor the dead. The ritual practices are performed on sacred altars and then there is a makeshift kitchen for cooking, wherein people partake in a meal after the rituals. All perfectly normal. Yet Harvard's pompous prof M. Witzel grandly waves his nazi wand and proclaims from his academic hodgepodge of a paper that it was a community kitchen. So much for scholarship!

The point was - do these "altars" correspond to any specific Rigvedic ritual as described in the Rigveda?

The answer? N O. :cheers:

Nothing of this, including the nearby brick-built bathing places, fits any recorded Vedic ritual, neither that of
the RV nor of the later (Śrauta) ritual. The RV knows only of 1-3 fires, and in Śrauta ritual we
find the three fires arranged in a typical, somewhat irregular, triangular fashion.


http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/3527/img1604y.jpg

(Thanks for the photo Skganji. It will help to explain the point better)

The seven dhiya fire altars of the complicated post-rigvedic (from the Shatapathabrahmana) Soma ritual are additional fires, which are
placed east of the three main fires on the trapezoid Mahåvedi platform (Staal 1983). This
feature, however, is not met with at Kalibangan either.

Further, Vedic fire altars are not apsidal as the fire places at Kalibangan and Banawali.

At best, these are independent and untypical precursors, in a non-Vedic context, that were adapted
into the later Śrauta ritual as the Soma dhiyas. However, this is entirely impossible to prove.
____

Specificity and detail is very important for this. The platforms were built to exacting standards in terms of the dimensions of the Trapezoidal altar (36-24-36) as well as the positions of these altars on the Mahavedi platform (in the case of the Soma ritual)

My point is that there are some loop holes in the Dravidian hypothesis presented by Parpola. Especially the fictious language he coined proto-dravidian and sanskrit borrowed words from Dravidian is not correct.
My apology for putting the link that said Tamils were sumerians. The link may not be Authenitc.
I have not done any research on Agasthiyar story and I don't know if is a mythical or a real one.

Every language has borrowed words from other language, in that Sanskrit also included. Like any other language it also came from cave men, tribes etc., So how sure you are that Sanskrit never borrowed any words from other language family namely Tamil or proto-dravidian.

If you have not done enough research, then there is no point is posting such a long post on Sangam literature works. The story goes like Siva sent Agasthiyar to present day TN for creating Tamil language and it also says along with 42 or 72 Aryan Kings came to present day TN and then civilized the cave men/tribes in South India. As per that story all the kings were aryans in TN and un-civilized cave men/tribes were dravidians. The highlight of this story is Agasthiyar is considered as Aryan rishi and he created the dravidian language Tamil:lol: This story was created by Hindutva nationalist.

^What story are you talking about?

What do you think that Dravidian politicians are doing ?. completely reject Hindi in T.N when other south Indian states like A.P , Karnataka and Kerala had accomodated the national language Hindi. I have nothing against Tamil, but this alien attitude towards Hindi is not in good spirits. Also a special case in one northern district of T.N, where there is a large number of Telugu people and their demand for preservation of their mother tongue requesting Telugu in their ciriculam ( I read it in one telugu newspaper) , the politicians of T.N had turned a blind eye.

Now you turned this thread as language war debate. Now I can understand your allegation on T.N, Tamil language or its history. Is it because TN went against Hindi imposition? :lol: national language :lol:

Enough discussion were done on languages in chaibar, continuing with this will derail the thread for sure.

http://www.textbooksonline.tn.nic.in/Std8.htm

TN gvt has liberal language policy in state borders for education. Schools in AP borders have Telugu language as medium same goes with KL/KA. Read some Telugu language Tamilnadu gvt books available in online for respective standards.

And TN gvt is never imposed other mother tongue holders not to use their language. Few people turn blind to some blind news paper, that is how media runs in this great nation.

The point was - do these "altars" correspond to any specific Rigvedic ritual as described in the Rigveda?

The answer? N O. :cheers:


Once again your reading and comprehension skills are abysmal. I am talking about Herr Weasel grand conclusion...

In short, the Kalibangan hearths do not represent Vedic ritual as we know it from the large array of Vedic texts. They may be nothing more than a community kitchen.

Kalibangan was performing rituals unlike Herr Weasel's conclusion. I don't know why we have to deal with this incompetent nutcase called Weasel. There are enough Indian Authors who can comprehend things like Pinda/Pindum. Yet we keep talking about utter trivial nonsense like whether altars are community kitchens.

Maybe the RV simplified things from IVC, since the people were subject to devastation. I don't know what the big deal is whether rituals conform to RV in IVC exactly. The fact that Pinda/Pindum is still an underlying theme is enough to prove continuity in thinking. I believe there is no other culture in the world which has Pinda/Pindum (i could be wrong on this).

Small request to the Tamil followers, please start a separate thread to discuss antiquity of Tamil. I think it merit its own thread and we could all learn from the discussions.

Once again your reading and comprehension skills are abysmal. I am talking about Herr Weasel grand conclusion...

I believe he used the word "may", and the preceding para talked about the possibility that it may have been for some pre-vedic ritual :lol:. I'm afraid that you need to learn to read properly.

Here's the sentence in the proper context:

At best, these are independent and untypical precursors, in a non-Vedic context, that were adapted
into the later Śrauta ritual as the Soma dhiyas. However, this is entirely impossible to prove.
Such proof would have to come from a study of the (so far hypothetical) interrelations
between certain features of the Indus religion and the Śrauta ritual. The matter underlines
how careful archaeologists should be in drawing conclusions about religion and ritual when
interpreting material remains.
In short, the Kalibangan hearths do not represent Vedic ritual as we know it from the
large array of Vedic texts. They may be nothing more than a community kitchen.

Maybe the RV simplified things from IVC, since the people were subject to devastation.

But you claim that the IVC people were the same as the Rigvedic people don't you? Where does the 'devastation' come in then? :lol:

I don't know what the big deal is whether rituals conform to RV in IVC exactly. The fact that Pinda/Pindum is still an underlying theme is enough to prove continuity in thinking.

What "theme" are you talking about? Do you have any specific Rigvedic ritual that corresponds to these "pinda" (never mind that the word is from Sanskrit while the IVC people didn't even speak that language)

I believe there is no other culture in the world which has Pinda/Pindum (i could be wrong on this).

Such "fire-pits" are found in many archaeological sites. The most ubiquitous use is obviously for cooking food, and there is no specific evidence to indicate a correspondence with Rigvedic rituals.

Every language has borrowed words from other language, in that Sanskrit also included. Like any other language it also came from cave men, tribes etc., So how sure you are that Sanskrit never borrowed any words from other language family namely Tamil or proto-dravidian.


I know this is a habit and this is what a nebulous concept "before Tamil what language" is called i.e. Proto-Dravidian concocted by misguided language theorists. However this term should be dropped since the term Dravidian is wrong and connotes some mythical race which has no proof, DNA included. I would suggest Proto-Tamil or Proto Brahmi not Proto Dravidian.

I believe he used the word "may", and the preceding para talked about the possibility that it may have been for some pre-vedic ritual :lol:. I'm afraid that you need to learn to read properly.

Here's the sentence in the proper context:

[B][I]At best, these are independent and untypical precursors, in a non-Vedic context, that were adapted
into the later Śrauta ritual as the Soma dhiyas. However, this is entirely impossible to prove.


So a lot of speculation with the caveat emptor thrown in for good measure to cover your ass (CYA).. Impossible to Prove. Bravo. This is what that sentence connotes. Any thing else we need to know, genius?


But you claim that the IVC people were the same as the Rigvedic people don't you? Where does the 'devastation' come in then? :lol:


IVC preceded Rigvedic people. The devastation is the River Saraswati drying up.


What "theme" are you talking about? Do you have any specific Rigvedic ritual that corresponds to these "pinda" (never mind that the word is from Sanskrit while the IVC people didn't even speak that language)

It ain't the language, tis the concepts, like offerings to your ancestors under the fire altar.

So a lot of speculation with the caveat emptor thrown in for good measure to cover your ass (CYA).. Impossible to Prove. Bravo. This is what that sentence connotes. Any thing else we need to know, genius?

Uh? He's listing out what is possible to prove and what isn't. You seem to be making rather strange conclusions about his motives. :lol:

Anyways, none of this has anything to do with proving your point.:cheers:

Here's the rest of the para btw:

Such proof would have to come from a study of the (so far hypothetical) interrelations
between certain features of the Indus religion and the Śrauta ritual. The matter underlines
how careful archaeologists should be in drawing conclusions about religion and ritual when
interpreting material remains.

IVC preceded Rigvedic people. The devastation is the River Saraswati drying up.

So...the Rig Vedic ritual dates from the post-Harappan phase? Weren't you claiming that the Rigveda is "much older" ?


It ain't the language, tis the concepts, like offerings to your ancestors under the fire altar.

Well its totally possible of course, but how will you prove it conclusively? Its equally possible that they were used for cooking or simply for keeping warm in winter.

And what was that about "Simplification" of the IVC rituals? So the IVC rituals were "simplified" because of "devastation"? That is a quite a big logical leap right there.

I know this is a habit and this is what a nebulous concept "before Tamil what language" is called i.e. Proto-Dravidian concocted by misguided language theorists. However this term should be dropped since the term Dravidian is wrong and connotes some mythical race which has no proof, DNA included. I would suggest Proto-Tamil or Proto Brahmi not Proto Dravidian.

Are you the authority here on matters related to history whether linguistic or cultural? You deny voices of academics but put forth your own thesis without basis as paramount.

Nobody is saying that Dravidian is a race in this thread as far as I know except probably yourself. If you think that there is no proof, then stop using the term to denote race.

As far as its use to denote language or people speaking a language, it has been attested to in several Sanskrit works of antiquity which was already discussed.

Can you share your wisdom as to why it should be called Proto-Tamil or Proto Brahmi and not Proto Dravidian? What if a nut case objects to it and comes with a different term than the one you suggested?

You would do well to follow your own advice in not dragging Tamil into this thread so others will not have to answer you.

^The word's origins can be traced to early Buddhist texts, but it has changed considerably in pronunciation over the centuries. Apparently the word "Tamil" and the word "Dravida" could have the same origins.

But IMO people are making too much fuss over this. Various names have been used for different regions of the subcontinent throughout history. "Utkala" for the Orissa region - for example.

There's this map on wikipedia which uses place-names from the Mahabharata(s) and Ramayana(s) and matches them with the popular myths about their locations. Highly speculative and unscientific, nonetheless, interesting:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/EpicIndia.jpg

Uh? He's listing out what is possible to prove and what isn't. You seem to be making rather strange conclusions about his motives. :lol:

Anyways, none of this has anything to do with proving your point.
Here's the rest of the para btw:

Such proof would have to come from a study of the (so far hypothetical) interrelations
between certain features of the Indus religion and the Śrauta ritual. The matter underlines
how careful archaeologists should be in drawing conclusions about religion and ritual when
interpreting material remains.


Sorry, I have not learned one thing from the convoluted writing of Herr Witzel your favorite teacher. He brings no new understanding on the subject at hand, except to point to some obtuse trivial junk and coming up with cautionary notes and caveat emptor. This is like your mother/grandmother warning about things. His perspective is strictly from reading the Rg Veda. He is not competent to comment on civilization, archealogy, Indian history. These are not his area of expertize but he constantly steps into such stuff and throws up imaginary bs about what you should conclude. Thanks but no thanks.:cheers:


So...the Rig Vedic ritual dates from the post-Harappan phase? Weren't you claiming that the Rigveda is "much older" ?


Boss, don't put imaginary tale telling into my hands. I am not the one peering into the distant past and coming up with authoritative conclusions like you or Witzel. I have no fu!king clue about When the Rg Veda was composed or for that matter when IVC started. All I know is that there was an ancient civilization much much older than any contemporary civilization, the people were advanced and that we Indians are the descendents of such people. We also have traditions like the chanting of Vedas and Sanskrit is our heritage. This our collective heritage and the Brits/Germans/others try to pooh pooh this and belittle Indians compared to their not so glorious heritage/culture.


Well its totally possible of course, but how will you prove it conclusively? Its equally possible that they were used for cooking or simply for keeping warm in winter.

Yes all possible. But there is this small thing called terracotta pinda stuff at the altars.


And what was that about "Simplification" of the IVC rituals? So the IVC rituals were "simplified" because of "devastation"? That is a quite a big logical leap right there.

Well this is one possible explanation other than the radical concept that states that IVC is different race and Rg Veda "Aryans" are horse riding central asia/europe Sanskrit chanting folks who drove the IVC down south, since the DNA study proves otherwise.

^What story are you talking about?

Agathiyar and his mythical story.

Sorry, I have not learned one thing from the convoluted writing of Herr Witzel your favorite teacher. He brings no new understanding on the subject at hand, except to point to some obtuse trivial junk and coming up with cautionary notes and caveat emptor. This is like your mother/grandmother warning about things. His perspective is strictly from reading the Rg Veda. He is not competent to comment on civilization, archealogy, Indian history. These are not his area of expertize but he constantly steps into such stuff and throws up imaginary bs about what you should conclude. Thanks but no thanks.:cheers:

You should first read his papers which deal specifically with Vedic rituals :lol:

Boss, don't put imaginary tale telling into my hands. I am not the one peering into the distant past and coming up with authoritative conclusions like you or Witzel. I have no fu!king clue about When the Rg Veda was composed or for that matter when IVC started.

Wow! You seem to have forgotten all your posts from previous threads. Damn...if only they hadn't been deleted. :ohno:

All I know is that there was an ancient civilization much much older than any contemporary civilization, the people were advanced and that we Indians are the descendents of such people. We also have traditions like the chanting of Vedas and Sanskrit is our heritage. This our collective heritage and the Brits/Germans/others try to pooh pooh this and belittle Indians compared to their not so glorious heritage/culture.

....


Well this is one possible explanation other than the radical concept that states that IVC is different race and Rg Veda "Aryans" are horse riding central asia/europe Sanskrit chanting folks who drove the IVC down south, since the DNA study proves otherwise.

For god's sake! This must be like the 20th time. :lol: Nobody is claiming anything of this sort.

Are you the authority here on matters related to history whether linguistic or cultural? You deny voices of academics but put forth your own thesis without basis as paramount.

Quite laughable that I am denying voices of academia! I like the importance you have given me, danke shoen, Sir/Arya Arasu who speaks Proto Dravidian err Tamil.


Nobody is saying that Dravidian is a race in this thread as far as I know except probably yourself. If you think that there is no proof, then stop using the term to denote race.
As far as its use to denote language or people speaking a language, it has been attested to in several Sanskrit works of antiquity which was already discussed.


There is subtle difference, if you follow English language. The term used in Sanskrit is "Dravida" and not "Dravidian". The former is area/geography as per Sanskrit usage. It is not used in the context of people. In fact, the southern political entities have used the term "Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam" not "Dravidian Munnetra Kaghagam".



Can you share your wisdom as to why it should be called Proto-Tamil or Proto Brahmi and not Proto Dravidian? What if a nut case objects to it and comes with a different term than the one you suggested?


The wisdom is not to use the English usage of the term Dravidian which was clearly derived from Dravida by R. Caldwell. Of course the nutcases who would object are the ones who came up with the term Proto Dravidian.


You would do well to follow your own advice in not dragging Tamil into this thread so others will not have to answer you.

Err, I am not the one who dragged Tamil into this discussion. It was SKGanji and Arul Murugan. Thank you.

Wow! You seem to have forgotten all your posts from previous threads. Damn...if only they hadn't been deleted. :ohno:


Thanks to you they were deleted. Anyways, the business of history is filled with so many uncertainties that anyone coming up with definite stuff is next to impossible. We can only go on hard evidence, like a rock that had stone carving with dates that we can comprehend.

The Brits/Herr Max Mueller sold us a bill of goods which was all false. They continue to perpetuate the same bs even to this day. Herr Witzel is continuing in their tradition and so S. Farmer. They keep coming up with wild ass guesses as if it is gospel truth and you keep buying this bs and propagating this bs in this forum.

There is subtle difference, if you follow English language. The term used in Sanskrit is "Dravida" and not "Dravidian". The former is area/geography as per Sanskrit usage. It is not used in the context of people. In fact, the southern political entities have used the term "Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam" not "Dravidian Munnetra Kaghagam".

Err, I am not the one who dragged Tamil into this discussion. It was SKGanji and Arul Murugan. Thank you.

America - American
India - Indian
Harrapa - Harrapan
Maya - Mayan
Dravida - Dravidian
Tamil-Tamilan

endless... these "an" "ese" "li" suffix just denote that it belongs to respective place. If south Indian term was popular during language classification, they might have named it as "proto south Indian language" or still it is spoken in parts of Pakistan, in NI it might have got collective and common term "proto dravidian language". It simply denotes the language family and the people who had common language thousands of years ago.

FYKI, it was Skganji dragged Tamil in this thread, I was silent reader of Marathaman's post. :cheers:

America - American
India - Indian
Harrapa - Harrapan
Maya - Mayan
Dravida - Dravidian
Tamil-Tamilan

endless... these "an" "ese" "li" suffix just denote that it belongs to respective place. If south Indian term was popular during language classification, they might have named it as "proto south Indian language" or still it is spoken in parts of Pakistan, in NI it might have got collective and common term "proto dravidian language". It simply denotes the language family and the people who had common language thousands of years ago.



I would tend to agree with your analysis. But the history of the term is not what you make it out to be. Dravidian became a race at least in the minds of Brits/Germans and others. So was the term Aryan and Aryan has enough evidence of abuse by the Nazi in Germany. Many people to this day continue such usage. I am quite positive that an average joe when asked about the term Dravidian would conclude a race. Proto Dravidian as term was concocted by the same racists theorists - Brits/Germans and others in academia. The connotation of race was a given during its initial conception.

Thanks to you they were deleted. Anyways, the business of history is filled with so many uncertainties that anyone coming up with definite stuff is next to impossible. We can only go on hard evidence, like a rock that had stone carving with dates that we can comprehend.

The Brits/Herr Max Mueller sold us a bill of goods which was all false. They continue to perpetuate the same bs even to this day. Herr Witzel is continuing in their tradition and so S. Farmer. They keep coming up with wild ass guesses as if it is gospel truth and you keep buying this bs and propagating this bs in this forum.

Buddy, you haven't managed to substantiate any of your claims, and now you claim that you didn't many any claims in the first place :lol:

There's another whole family of languages in India that is mostly overlooked - the Munda languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_languages) - which are not related to either Indo-Aryan or Dravidian.

These are possibly the descendants of the oldest languages spoken on the subcontinent. They are considered to be from the Austro-Asiatic family - same as some South-East Asian languages spoken in places like Vietnam and Thailand.

The term Dravida was used in Sanskrit to denote Tamil.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5384/tamilr.png

You can see in the actual quote the words 'dravida bhasayam' being used and the author explains why it is Tamil and not any other language that 'Dravida' means.

I had quoted Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi's work ' The Dravidian Languages' in which this explanation is found in page 2.
'

^The preceding para on the same page:

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6043/dr1km.jpg

There's another whole family of languages in India that is mostly overlooked - the Munda languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_languages) - which are not related to either Indo-Aryan or Dravidian.

These are possibly the descendants of the oldest languages spoken on the subcontinent. They are considered to be from the Austro-Asiatic family - same as some South-East Asian languages spoken in places like Vietnam and Thailand.

Not only these languages but also peoples who had been living in this country who are completely ignored and even marginalised and denigrated. A few people want to keep all the name, fame and glory of the history, culture, civilisation and make it look there was no contribution from any other peoples. There are still people living in hills and forests who are definitely from times earlier than any of the people making noises here. They are completey ignored. If some body spoke for them one can learn how they contributed to the culture and civilisation of this country. It could not be all the knowledge and culture is vested with a small group of people. What vaingloriousness!

and the next page....

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7481/dr2j.jpg

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9894/dr3z.jpg

The term Dravida was used in Sanskrit to denote Tamil.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5384/tamilr.png

You can see in the actual quote the words 'dravida bhasayam' being used and the author explains why it is Tamil and not any other language that 'Dravida' means.

I had quoted Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi's work ' The Dravidian Languages' in which this explanation is found in page 2.
'

Sorry this is not enough to prove dravida is tamil. This is one opinion. If we assume that dravida == tamil then why are languages like Kannada clubbed under "Dravidi-an". The speakers of Kannada claim antiquity and beg to differ from Tamil This actually is a can of worms that I don't want to bring up in this thread and it is OT. Nevertheless, your so called evidence is rather hollow it cross cites each other and there is no definitive conclusion.

^^ I wanted to prove your statement that 'Dravida refered to geography' wrong. YOur statement is quoted below:

There is subtle difference, if you follow English language. The term used in Sanskrit is "Dravida" and not "Dravidian". The former is area/geography as per Sanskrit usage. It is not used in the context of people. In fact, the southern political entities have used the term "Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam" not "Dravidian Munnetra Kaghagam".

No more arguments with you on this on whether my statements are shallow or some where else something is shallow.

^^ I wanted to prove your statement that 'Dravida refered to geography' wrong. YOur statement is quoted below:

No more arguments with you on this on whether my statements are shallow or some where else something is shallow.

Sorry I think you are wrong. We will agree to disagree then!

Santali is one of the major Munda languages. Although, the speakers of this langauge didn't manage to develop a script. Nevertheless, a script was developed for it in 1925.

^^ I wanted to prove your statement that 'Dravida refered to geography' wrong. YOur statement is quoted below:

It ( as well as its many variations) have been used to denote language, region, groups of people, kingdoms etc. through history.

For example, Adi Shankara (born Kaladi, Kerala) apparently referred to himself as a "son of Dravida" (Dravida shishu)

Saars, why are we bringing Dravida etc into Indus Valley Civilization thread. This is complete OT and should be in another thread.

Saars, why are we bringing Dravida etc into Indus Valley Civilization thread. This is complete OT and should be in another thread.

Point. :)

We should keep away Dravida, Tamil, Sanskrit, Vedas, Vedic culture, Saraswati etc., out of this thread and discussion should run only on IVC.

Deleted...

If you have not done enough research, then there is no point is posting such a long post on Sangam literature works.
Even though I haven't done enough researh , I didn't see any thing wrong in posting that also. I have come across this kind of migration story more than once. I had posted it because I received that article in my personal correspondance with S.Kalyanaraman .

Every language has borrowed words from other language, in that Sanskrit also included. Like any other language it also came from cave men, tribes etc., So how sure you are that Sanskrit never borrowed any words from other language family namely Tamil or proto-dravidian
The literary evidence and the vast volume of the sanskrit literature and its antiquity itself proves that it has no need to borrow words from Dravidian language which is not even established as a contemparary language or a older than sanskrit . Your caveman assumption of the origin of sanskrit is questionable. I believe in Oral tradition ( from a teacher to a student) of passing this language from one generation to another generation.

The point was - do these "altars" correspond to any specific Rigvedic ritual as described in the Rigveda?
The answer? NO.
Nothing of this, including the nearby brick-built bathing places, fits any recorded Vedic ritual, neither that of
the RV nor of the later (Śrauta) ritual. The RV knows only of 1-3 fires, and in Śrauta ritual we
find the three fires arranged in a typical, somewhat irregular, triangular fashion.
The seven dhiya fire altars of the complicated post-rigvedic (from the Shatapathabrahmana) Soma ritual are additional fires, which are
placed east of the three main fires on the trapezoid Mahåvedi platform (Staal 1983). This feature, however, is not met with at Kalibangan either.
Further, Vedic fire altars are not apsidal as the fire places at Kalibangan and Banawali.
At best, these are independent and untypical precursors, in a non-Vedic context, that were adapted into the later Śrauta ritual as the Soma dhiyas. However, this is entirely impossible to prove.


What was your point ?. Your point was that these altars were meant for community cooking ( Witzel). I didn't believe with this comment that they are meant for community cooking. I posted this to illustrate that they are not meant for ordinary cooking . I am questioning if these are not meant for ordinary cooking than what exactly are they used for ?.

"Quixotic quips", "quixotic questions" - What do you call this ??. Arrogance and self imposed superiority.... Who is asking you to answer my questions ?. Are you my guru ?. What qualification do you have to put yourself in a superior position than me. ?.I am not a fool to buy these dravidian centric stories of you and your patrons like Mahadevan and Parpola ( when their are some loop holes in these stories) . We will see how far these great scholars will go in deciphering the Indus script ?. Indian courts are notorious for giving contradictory judgements and that topic is out of scope in this thread. I am not taking a sentimental approach towards T.N government like you since you may be from that state and it is quite natural for you to take that position. I am not from that state and don't expect me to take a sympathetic position or an affinity towards T.N.government and its decisions or actions. It is you who jumped to the rescue of T.N government and started defending it and attacking me by coming out with strange questions and statements ( "Man suffering from delirium and tilting and windmills") to my comments.



Who are these Parpolas or Mahadevans? Mahaanji Ganjiji, an expert that you are on the puranas, you can very well go ahead and build your own modern puranas. Nobody in their right senses will object to you. Not that these objections would matter to you to deter you anyways.

The literary evidence and the vast volume of the sanskrit literature and its antiquity itself proves that it has no need to borrow words from Dravidian language which is not even established as a contemparary language or a older than sanskrit . Your caveman assumption of the origin of sanskrit is questionable. I believe in Oral tradition ( from a teacher to a student) of passing this language from one generation to another generation.

Classical Sanskrit does contain words which have non-Indoeuropean roots, and were presumably borrowed from "dravidian" or "munda" terms.

Even Rigvedic Sanskrit has a small number of words that seem to have been borrowed from a "dravidian" language - words like kulāya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daṇḍa "stick", kūla "slope", bila "hollow", khala "threshing floor"...

I'm putting dravidian in quotes because these words were borrowed from the existing languages of the Punjab and Gangetic plains, and not those from South India, although they were presumably from the "dravidian" language family.

What was your point ?. Your point was that these altars were meant for community cooking ( Witzel). I didn't believe with this comment that they are meant for community cooking. I posted this to illustrate that they are not meant for ordinary cooking . I am questioning if these are not meant for ordinary cooking than what exactly are they used for ?.

My point is that they don't correspond with any known Vedic ritual. This is especially important because Vedic rituals are notorious for being very exact in their details - things like number, position, direction etc. are considered sacred and any variation is considered undesirable.
Other than that, it may have been for some religious purpose, and it may have influenced Hinduism just like other aspects of IVC religion (ritual bathing, yogic postures, worship of images etc. etc.)

My point is that they don't correspond with any known Vedic ritual. This is especially important because Vedic rituals are notorious for being very exact in their details - things like number, position, direction etc. are considered sacred and any variation is considered undesirable.
Other than that, it may have been for some religious purpose, and it may have influenced Hinduism just like other aspects of IVC religion (ritual bathing, yogic postures, worship of images etc. etc.)

You said it was meant for cooking purpose . I disagreed with you on the point and to elaborate more , I showed you the pictures.

^It could have been for cooking :dunno: The fact that the number of "altars" is 7 seems to be the basic argument that is being put forward by those who consider them to have been used for religious purposes.

What rights do you have to denigrate a democratically elected state government over its policies that are completely legal and within the framework of the constitution? What rights do you have to take potshots at TN government when you treat the minorities the same way you allege TN government?
You accused TN govt. of not extending Telugu language study which Arul Murugan proved wrong. But have you ever blamed state governments that turned the other side when their citizens were killed because they spoke a minority language or practised a minority religion? No, you wouldn't because they follow your favourite hindutva philosophy. That is what I called 'quixotic tilting at windmills'.

Who are these Parpolas or Mahadevans? Mahaanji Ganjiji, an expert that you are on the puranas, you can very well go ahead and build your own modern puranas. Nobody in their right senses will object to you. Not that these
objections would matter to you to deter you anyways.

Just because a government is democratically elected it doesn't mean that no body can question them. Which minorities are you speaking about ?. I don't represent any government . So your accusation that I am treating minorities is simply your concotion. Just because I support Sanskrit it doesn't automatically mean that I am having a Hindutva agenda. Regarding the rights, I am just questioning the hypothetical theories that are perpetuated by european Indologists. Even Parpola is perpetuating some wild theories like proto-dravidian language and taking people for granted.
Again it is not Hindutva agenda, I am trying to perpetuate here. It is very important that a correct representation of India's ancient history is presented and a successful decipherment of Indus script is completed soon to expose different wild theories perpetuated by European Indologists.

^^ As you seem to have deleted the original comments, I have deleted/modified mine calling your statements quixotic.

^It could have been for cooking :dunno: The fact that the number of "altars" is 7 seems to be the basic argument that is being put forward by those who consider them to have been used for religious purposes.

You are skating on thin ice manufactured by Herr Witzel. This guy Witzel is becoming senile. IVC Kalibangan site unearths ritual altars. The altars have very clear evidence that they are being used for ritual practices, they have terracotta pinda/pindums. Indian historians point to the remarkable continuity of similar practices that are even today practiced by devout Hindus to honor their dead ancestors. What does Herr Witzel do, he comes up with a paper full of Rg Veda practices and then he remarks some obtuse junk like "It is impossible to prove" and finally he pulls one from his wazoo and concludes quite dramatically that it could be community kitchen fire. Wah re Wah, Harvard scholarship at its finest. Why does Harvard keep such idiots on its payrolls, I wonder. Just to annoy Indians and their civilization perhaps?

One day they might see the incineration of a Nuclear Plant in San Luis Obispo County, California and conclude oh shucks the "Americans/Red Indians had a community kitchen in El San Luis Obispo to roast salmon and whales" - M. Witzel Jr 33rd, Citing American Rg Veda, Sarah Palin magnum opus, "I can see the Russia from Alaska, and what do you think would happen when Putin comes flying over...zzz...".

^Weren't you trying to prove that the "altars" were used to worship the Rigvedic "Agni" :lol: ?

(oh wait, that was Skganji)

^^ Wow, now you are going senile too?

Ah, the Terracotta cakes. That's what you've been going on about. Well, those "pindams" are used today also. For holding the cooking utensil :lol:

Although, there seems to be one particular Terracotta cake with an illustration of "a goat being led by a rope". Interesting.

^Weren't you trying to prove that the "altars" were used to worship the Rigvedic "Agni" :lol: ?

(oh wait, that was Skganji)
I wasn't trying to prove that it was being used to worship Agni. I just thought it may be some vedic ritual. I did say that it may be agni.

At Lothal , too, ritual fireplaces have been discovered in Mature Harappan layers, from the earlierst (IIA) to the latest (IV).
'A terracotta ladle found in close proximity to the altar in street 9 and bearing smoke marks... suggests that it was used in pouring a liquid into the fire' ( Rao 1979 : 1, 216-18). The 'posthole' discovered in this altar suggests the use of wooden parallels for the clay stele at Kalibangan. The libation of liquid on such a heated stake recalls the ablutions of Siva's linga with the five products of cow ( milk, sour milk, melted butter, uring and dung) and sacred water mixeed with bilva leaves in the present-day Hindu cult.

^^ As you seem to have deleted the original comments, I have deleted/modified mine calling your statements quixotic.
Thanks..

I wasn't trying to prove that it was being used to worship Agni. I just thought it may be some vedic ritual. I did say that it may be agni.

At Lothal , too, ritual fireplaces have been discovered in Mature Harappan layers, from the earlierst (IIA) to the latest (IV).
'A terracotta ladle found in close proximity to the altar in street 9 and bearing smoke marks... suggests that it was used in pouring a liquid into the fire' ( Rao 1979 : 1, 216-18). The 'posthole' discovered in this altar suggests the use of wooden parallels for the clay stele at Kalibangan. The libation of liquid on such a heated stake recalls the ablutions of Siva's linga with the five products of cow ( milk, sour milk, melted butter, uring and dung) and sacred water mixeed with bilva leaves in the present-day Hindu cult.

What is the source of this para?

Ah, the Terracotta cakes. That's what you've been going on about. Well, those "pindams" are used today also. For holding the cooking utensil :lol:

Although, there seems to be one particular Terracotta cake with an illustration of "a goat being led by a rope". Interesting.

More fabrication from you? I believe will see a paper from computer graphics dept of Harvard, with Goat, M. Witzel (quoting the Rg Veda, Soma in hand) and Sarah Palin soon too, right?

The literary evidence and the vast volume of the sanskrit literature and its antiquity itself proves that it has no need to borrow words from Dravidian language which is not even established as a contemparary language or a older than sanskrit . Your caveman assumption of the origin of sanskrit is questionable. I believe in Oral tradition ( from a teacher to a student) of passing this language from one generation to another generation.

Again, this point has been discussed much about which is older/later, don't your remember the one Satishanu made his point? If Vedas are placed some where before 3000B.C by Hindutva nationalist, Tamil nationalist have also placed some myths like Kumari Kandam to counter that. The truth is both are mythical. And real dates of Tholkapiyam or Vedas are not yet official known or declared. So how come you came to a conclusion that Sanskrit is older?

Let it be oral tradition! every language has it own uniqueness. Tamil language written form came much before Sanskrit language written form, in this way Tamil language got much advanced than Sanskrit. Should I say Tamil does not have any Sanskrit words? It is a crap.. every language have observed words from other language in timeline, no one can claim that any language is 100% pure and mother or sister or father or grandpa or mother-in-law to other language. This fits both for Tamil and Sanskrit. It is much known that Sanskrit has observed words from proto- dravidian language (It is Tamil+Kannada) and vice versa too.

Even though I haven't done enough researh , I didn't see any thing wrong in posting that also. I have come across this kind of migration story more than once. I had posted it because I received that article in my personal correspondance with S.Kalyanaraman .


The literary evidence and the vast volume of the sanskrit literature and its antiquity itself proves that it has no need to borrow words from Dravidian language which is not even established as a contemparary language or a older than sanskrit . Your caveman assumption of the origin of sanskrit is questionable. I believe in Oral tradition ( from a teacher to a student) of passing this language from one generation to another generation.

I really pity you skganji. There are many probabilities that Sanskrit could have borrowed words from Old classic Tamil. What literary evidence you have here to chew about Sanskrit? Just don't go by your heart, go by your mind as well.

Here is the proof from the Archeological Survey of India, that Old Classical Tamil is the oldest language in India till date as per the literary evidence what they have found out. This information has been sought using RTI by S. Arun Kumar.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9676/page1uz.jpg

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2906/page2sp.jpg


Indus scripts has not yet been deciphered successfully which is universally acceptable. Scholars link them with Sanskrit and Tamil and other languages, but not established so far. If at all any scholar has made, it is purely hypothetical.

As per the evidence collected, Sanskrit belongs to 1st century BC, but Tamil belongs to 4th-3rd Century BC. Hope this is clear.

This is regarding the first surviving epigraphs - i.e. inscriptions, and not the age of the language itself.

^^ EPigraph is some piece of writing or inscription. Age is calculated by the written evidence of a language. For argument sake one can say, a language was not written or inscribed but was spoken several centuries, but that does not hold enough.

Whatever we have got, till date Tamil is oldest written language. Something from Sanskrit or any other Indian Language may be hiding, but not unearthed yet.

And I have put that here just to let Skganji to know Sanskrit is not heavenly and it must have borrowed some words from other languages.

^^ EPigraph is some piece of writing or inscription. Age is calculated by the written evidence of a language. For argument sake one can say, a language was not written or inscribed but was spoken several centuries, but that does not hold enough.


No its not. There's a whole subject called linguistics, dedicated to the study and evolution of languages. Vedic Sanskrit has its roots going back atleast to the early 2nd millennium BCE.

Mate in that case, Second Tamil Sangam established by a Pandya King started circa 6087 BC (7th Millenium BC). Unless roots can't be traced no one is there to believe us. This can be got from untrusted source wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC)
Then think about first Tamil Sangam.

My point, unless you have any evidence we cannot trust any theory. Government of India knows this as well, thats why they don't believe these.

^:lol: You're joking rite? Please go and learn something about the subject before commenting on it. What else? Ancient Tamil kings invented the aeroplane in 10,000 BC?

You're talking about Neolithic period here. Whatever language people spoke back then, it would have been so different from present-day Tamil that unless some expert in languages analyzed the two, it would be difficult to find any similarities at all.

The Sangam period is normally dated between 3rd century BC and 3rd century AD.

What is the source of this para?

Source : "Deciphering the Indus script", Asko Parpola, Page 221.

I really pity you skganji. There are many probabilities that Sanskrit could have borrowed words from Old classic Tamil. What literary evidence you have here to chew about Sanskrit? Just don't go by your heart, go by your mind as well.

Here is the proof from the Archeological Survey of India, that Old Classical Tamil is the oldest language in India till date as per the literary evidence what they have found out. This information has been sought using RTI by S. Arun Kumar.
As per the evidence collected, Sanskrit belongs to 1st century BC, but Tamil belongs to 4th-3rd Century BC. Hope this is clear.

I can contest this in two ways. First of all the oldest Telugu inscription is not from 4th century A.D as this ASI officer is certifying. The Bhattiprolu inscription is considered the oldest Telugu inscription ( before 100 BCE).

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

Next the oldest Sanskrit usage in any inscriptions come from the Tamra Shasana ( Mauryan around 380 BCE). This is a Prakrit inscription. Prakrit uses lot of sanskrit words and the relationship is deep.

http://www.haryana-online.com/sanskrit.htm

^Prakrit is not one language. It may refer to any of several ancient non-Sanskrit Indo-Aryan languages, i.e. the ancestors of present-day IA languages like Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi etc. etc.

It is much known that Sanskrit has observed words from proto- dravidian language (It is Tamil+Kannada) and vice versa too.

Can you give me the list of words that you think sanskrit had borrowed from proto-dravidian language ?.

^:lol: You're joking rite? Please go and learn something about the subject before commenting on it. What else? Ancient Tamil kings invented the aeroplane in 10,000 BC?

You're talking about Neolithic period here. Whatever language people spoke back then, it would have been so different from present-day Tamil that unless some expert in languages analyzed the two, it would be difficult to find any similarities at all.

The Sangam period is normally dated between 3rd century BC and 3rd century AD.

There is nothing to laugh at, as myself stated that it is an untrusted source. Like these you may have n number of theories and propaganda going on based on their nature of interest. I do know Sangam literature belong to circa 3rd century. But based on Right to Information Act, what we got from Government of India is what you see on the image. If you can't believe RTI what else you'll believe??

I can contest this in two ways. First of all the oldest Telugu inscription is not from 4th century A.D as this ASI officer is certifying. The Bhattiprolu inscription is considered the oldest Telugu inscription ( before 100 BCE).

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

Next the oldest Sanskrit usage in any inscriptions come from the Tamra Shasana ( Mauryan around 380 BCE). This is a Prakrit inscription. Prakrit uses lot of sanskrit words and the relationship is deep.

http://www.haryana-online.com/sanskrit.htm

Sorry boss, bit of arrogance is what I can see from you. You must have proved this to GoI via Archeological Survey of India. Nobody is there to trust source from Wikipedia, as it is updated by guys like you and me.

Can you give me the list of words that you think sanskrit had borrowed from proto-dravidian language ?.
You must have read few of those put by Marathaman already, don't you?

^Prakrit is not one language. It may refer to any of several ancient non-Sanskrit Indo-Aryan languages, i.e. the ancestors of present-day IA languages like Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi etc. etc.

Could be. However, 4 Apabhramsas were popular, I believe. Ardhamagadhi is one of them. Bengali, Gujarati, Hindu each has its own Apabhramsa predecessor or they may share a common ancestor.

There is nothing to laugh at, as myself stated that it is an untrusted source. Like these you may have n number of theories and propaganda going on based on their nature of interest. I do know Sangam literature belong to circa 3rd century. But based on Right to Information Act, what we got from Government of India is what you see on the image. If you can't believe RTI what else you'll believe??



Sorry boss, bit of arrogance is what I can see from you. You must have proved this to GoI via Archeological Survey of India. Nobody is there to trust source from Wikipedia, as it is updated by guys like you and me.

This is what I see from you inspite of being given the Classical language status to Telugu. Do you think that GOI just give classical language status to Telugu without any sufficient evidence ?. I have read it clearly in several newspapers that Telugu scholars have used Bhattiprolu inscription to argue their case to get Classical language status for Telugu.

There is nothing to laugh at, as myself stated that it is an untrusted source. Like these you may have n number of theories and propaganda going on based on their nature of interest. I do know Sangam literature belong to circa 3rd century. But based on Right to Information Act, what we got from Government of India is what you see on the image. If you can't believe RTI what else you'll believe??

The RTI question was regarding the oldest dated epigraphs, and not the language itself.

I'm not sure if I want to believe everything that the ASI says either, given that it is subject to political interference by various vested interests.

Also, please note that proto-Dravidian =/= Tamil. Tamil is the specific language that evolved in present day Tamil Nadu.

You must have read few of those put by Marathaman already, don't you?

According to the linguist Kuiper, approximately 4% of the Rigvedic vocabulary is of non-IA origin - i.e. Dravidian/Munda.

Anyways, lets get back to the Indus "script"/language. This para is from a paper by Witzel in 1999 (Note that it was written before he came to the conclusion that the Indus "script' was not in fact a script at all.)


As we can no longer reckon with Dravidian influence on the early RV (see immediately below), this means that the language ofthe pre-Rigvedic Indus civilization, at least in the Panjab, was of (Para-)Austro-Asiatic nature. This means that all proposals for a decipherment of the Indus script must start with the c. 300 (Para-)Austro-Asiatic loan words in the RV and by comparing other Munda and Austro-Asiatic words. (For the Indus script see Fairservis 1992: 14, Parpola 1994:137 sqq., Possehl 1996b). The decipherment has been tried for the past 35 years or so mainly on the basis of Dravidian. Yet, few Indus inscriptions have been “read” even after all these years of concerted, computer-aided attempts, and not yet in a fashion that can be verified independently (cf. a summary of criticism by Zvelebil 1990). Perhaps that is not even attainable, due to the brief nature of the inscriptions (7 signs on average and hardly more than 20). Yet, Kuiper’s ‘300 words’ could become the Rosetta stone ofthe Indus script.


http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/0501ART.PDF

Can you give me the list of words that you think sanskrit had borrowed from proto-dravidian language ?.

Not me.... But I know these people will get Tamil nationalist tag here in this discussion :lol:

"n" no. of discussion/articles available about this. Dravidian language includes every thing right from Bruhai till Tamil eelam, you have problem in accepting these "proto-Dravidian" because you view it as Tamil.

Thomas Burrow compiled a list of approximately 500 foreign words in Sanskrit that he considered to be loans predominantly from Dravidian. Later in his career, he has revoked a substantial number of them

Thomas Burrow (29 June 1909 - 8 June 1986) was an Indologist and the Boden Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Oxford from 1944 to 1976. His work includes Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, The Problem of Shwa in Sanskrit and The Sanskrit Language.

Kuiper identified 383 Ṛgvedic words as non-Indo-Aryan—roughly 4% of its vocabulary— borrowed from Old Dravidian, Old Munda, and several other, lost languages.

However, post-Vedic words such as nāraṅgaḥ "orange" (first attested in the Sushruta Samhita, ca. 4th century AD) are often taken to be straightforward loans from Dravidian into Sanskrit. Since they belong to a later period, they are unsuited to establish the origin of the loans in Rigvedic Sanskrit.

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

I wonder how people consider one language might have grown without absorbing words from other language through the time line of civilization. :nuts:

^Thomas Burrow is positively ancient. His work has been long superceded by Kuiper, Parpola, Witzel etc. etc.

Arul, the linguistic history of India is insanely complicated like everything else. If you have time, please read the Witzel (1999) paper regarding the substrate languages of Indo-aryan here (http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/0501ART.PDF).

The RTI question was regarding the oldest dated epigraphs, and not the language itself.

I'm not sure if I want to believe everything that the ASI says either, given that it is subject to political interference by various vested interests.

Also, please note that proto-Dravidian =/= Tamil. Tamil is the specific language that evolved in present day Tamil Nadu.

I clearly have mentioned that Tamil is the oldest written language as per the evidences we have got and not the language itself. It may be still or may not be. FYI, RTI question was not about Epigraphs, it was about what is the oldest script or inscription found on Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu and Kannada till date.

Old classical Tamil is not the present day Tamil. Proto-Dravidian may be Oldest Classical Tamil itself. Again may be. But till date whatever the proofs we have on hand is the truth from RTI.

If you can't believe the ASI officer who else you would believe. Else use RTI to know more truth.

I clearly have mentioned that Tamil is the oldest written language as per the evidences we have got and not the language itself. It may be still or may not be. FYI, RTI question was not about Epigraphs, it was about what is the oldest script or inscription found on Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu and Kannada till date.

Fine, but inscription and epigraph is the same thing.

Old classical Tamil is not the present day Tamil. Proto-Dravidian may be Oldest Classical Tamil itself. Again may be. But till date whatever the proofs we have on hand is the truth from RTI.

You can't have it both ways :). If you define Tamil in the current way, then you cannot call proto-dravidian as " Old Tamil". In that case, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu etc. would also have to be classified as "dialects of Tamil". Of course this is difficult to do because they are separate languages.

If you can't believe the ASI officer who else you would believe. Else use RTI to know more truth.

No thanks, I can simply read the sources used by the ASI via the internet. :)

All this is just to show skganji not to underestimate other languages when having passion for one's language. Sanskrit in any case must have borrowed words not only from old tamil but also from other languages.

^Thomas Burrow is positively ancient. His work has been long superceded by Kuiper, Parpola, Witzel etc. etc.

Arul, the linguistic history of India is insanely complicated like everything else. If you have time, please read the Witzel (1999) paper regarding the substrate languages of Indo-aryan here (http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/0501ART.PDF).


Bhadriraju Krishnamurthy contests Witzels contention that the words are para Munda and not Dravidian. I remember reading it in his 'The Dravidian Languages' book on the internet. I can look for it and provide the reference later.

You can't have it both ways :). If you define Tamil in the current way, then you cannot call proto-dravidian as " Old Tamil". In that case, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu etc. would also have to be classified as "dialects of Tamil". Of course this is difficult to do because they are separate languages.


I meant Old classical Tamil is not exactly the same what we presently have just for the words but the core grammar, rules and the usage is the same even today unlike other branches came from proto-dravidian aka oldest classical tamil.

Bhadriraju Krishnamurthy contests Witzels contention that the words are para Munda and not Dravidian. I remember reading it in his 'The Dravidian Languages' book on the internet. I can look for it and provide the reference later.

Its possible :dunno: This is mostly recent cutting-edge stuff and is yet to crystallize as accepted fact.

But IMO as research progresses further, we'll find that things will get a lot more complicated than the standard Indo-Aryan/Dravidian binary.

All this is just to show skganji not to underestimate other languages when having passion for one's language. Sanskrit in any case must have borrowed words not only from old tamil but also from other languages.

I have never under estimated any language. I perfectly know that ancient settlements under the sea near port cities of T.N are found and I wonder what language they may have spoken .
We need to go by the facts and not passion as you mention. The reason I was reluctant about sanskrit borrowing words is because all the great epics like MBH, Ramayana and Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads are composed long time back before the sangam literature .
Also the number of dravidian ( Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam) words in Sanskrit is neglible ( presumably from works created in last 2000 years) . However, I see more sanskrit words in dravidian languages. Sanskrit language has rich vocabulary and became standardized ( Panini 4th Century BCE) way before the Sangam literature.

Looks like the Indus Valley Civilization has amazingly morphed into Sanskrit vs Tamil with Proto Dravidian (there was a discussion about dravida == tamil forgetting languages like Kannada, Telugu, Tulu, Malayalam, etc) resurrected from the ghosts of R. Caldwell and his racist pals.

here we go again...you're like a broken record :lol:

Looks like the Indus Valley Civilization has amazingly morphed into Sanskrit vs Tamil with Proto Dravidian (there was a discussion about dravida == tamil forgetting languages like Kannada, Telugu, Tulu, Malayalam, etc) resurrected from the ghosts of R. Caldwell and his racist pals.

Dravida originally (millenium ago) used to refer to Tamil/Tamils. Later, it acquired the meaning of southern region. And still later was used to refer to the languages of the South.

Words go through such changes in meanings. I think words like India or Bharath are also such terminologies which initially refered to the land adjoining the Indus river or country ruled by the king Bharath respectively but later came to signify the entire country as it is known today. In fact, Pakistan would be more suitable to be called India as the major portion of the river flows through it. One can question the logic of naming the country based on these meanings but who wants to engage in such conversations?

In fact, Pakistan would be more suitable to be called India as the major portion of the river flows through it. One can question the logic of naming the country based on these meanings but who wants to engage in such conversations?

The Brits have managed to screw up the entire world with their arbitrary decisions. Almost all the current areas with conflicts happen to be erstwhile Brit ruled provinces. The Middle East countries were British lines in the sand drawn countries. Pakistan is similar. The sad part is that the denizens of Pakistan have some misguided notion that they are Arabs/Turks/Persians when they are predominantly descendants of Indus Valley Civilization.

India of course was pillaged to the nth degree by the Brits whilst they came up with crazy classifications such as Aryan and Dravidian. Perfect paradigm for divide and conquer. They relegated Sanskrit to the dust heaps while promoting English (Lord McCauley). However, Herr Max Mueller comes up with Indo-European Language group from which German and English are derived. Go figure this one.

Dravida originally (millenium ago) used to refer to Tamil/Tamils. Later, it acquired the meaning of southern region. And still later was used to refer to the languages of the South.


According to your Krishnamurthi, Dravida is the Sanskritization of Damila , which is also the origin of Tamil.

So Damila -> Tamil and Damila -> Dravida

The Brits have managed to screw up the entire world with their arbitrary decisions. Almost all the current areas with conflicts happen to be erstwhile Brit ruled provinces.

There were no conflicts in India before the Brits?

According to your Krishnamurthi, Dravida is the Sanskritization of Damila , which is also the origin of Tamil.

So Damila -> Tamil and Damila -> Dravida


Like Dravida is the Sanskritization of Damila, Damila is prakritization (if I may use such a term) of Tamil.

Others may have mispronounced or were confused about how to call Tamil but Tamils always knew their language to be Tamil.

In the famous 4th centuray BC Panini's grammar Ashtadhyayi, the word Sanskrit is not used even once because the word Sanskrit is a later invention. However, in the 3rd century BC Tamil grammar Tolkappiam, the word Tamil is used more than a hundred times. The language prevalent at that time was even classified into two categories Senthamizh - pure or literary Tamil and Kodunthamizh - spoken or colloquial Tamil. That is not only an indication that Tamils knew what language they spoke but also is a pointer to centuries if not millenia of prior development.

I find it unconvincing that Tamils took the name from languages that didn't have a specific name at that point for themselves.

There were no conflicts in India before the Brits?

Oh sure, the ones created by the Muslim onslaught of India. The marathas were constantly in battles with the muslim rulers. in the waning period of muslim rule the marathas would have ruled over india, however the brits beat them.

Are you sure that the exact word "Tamil" was used? I don't think so.

Are you sure that the exact word "Tamil" was used? I don't think so.

Oh, yes.

Oh sure, the ones created by the Muslim onslaught of India. The marathas were constantly in battles with the muslim rulers. in the waning period of muslim rule the marathas would have ruled over india, however the brits beat them.

What about the Sikhs? Rajputana? Madurai Nayakas? Ahoms? Travancore? etc. etc

You're making a gross oversimplification as always.

According to your Krishnamurthi, Dravida is the Sanskritization of Damila , which is also the origin of Tamil.

So Damila -> Tamil and Damila -> Dravida

I am not sure how far reliable krishnamurthi's assertion of Dravida came from Damila. However, the MBH map you posted clearly points to Dravida is a region of south India.

^As I said earlier the word seems to have been used in a number of different contexts.

I am really clueless on why there were no archeological sites or inscriptions after the collapse of the IVC and before the Mauryan dynasty when we actually started seeing inscriptions on edicts, coins on several media. Why is this vacuum ?.

I think the major disruption could have been due to tectonic plate shift. Remember that the Indian subcontinent actually drifted away from Africa and abutts the Asian plate thus causing the Himalayas. Many disruptions can happen due to violent earthquakes. The source of the River Sarasvati was choked due the shifts. This could cause floods in other areas. A river drying up can cause major disruption in people's lives.

People migrate to other areas where there is water. I think (this is my theory) that the people disruption, caused the adoption of learning/chanting of valuable knowledge as a means of preservation. Thus the creation of Sanskrit chanting.

Since there is not much of archeological discovery covering the period from the fall of IVC to the Muaryan period, I found this list which will help us understand the picture of ancient India in this period.

However, no sufficient evidence to prove the historicity of this claim. However, these rulers are mentioned in the Hindu texts, Buddhist texts and Jaina texts.

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

Reign of Magadhan Kings (Brihadratha Dynasty)
Emperor Reign start (According to Modern Historians) Reign end (According to Modern Historians) Reign start (According to Aryabhatta) Reign end (According to Aryabhatta)
Brihadratha ? ? ? ?
Jarasandha 1760 BC 1718 BC ? ?
Sahadeva 1718 BCE 1676 BC ? ?
Somapi 1676 BCE 1618 BCE 3009 BCE 2951 BCE
Srutasravas 1618 BCE 1551 BCE 2951 BCE 2884 BCE
Ayutayus 1551 BCE 1515 BCE 2884 BCE 2848 BCE
Niramitra 1515 BCE 1415 BCE 2848 BCE 2748 BCE
Sukshatra 1415 BCE 1407 BCE 2748 BCE 2740 BCE
Brihatkarman 1407 BCE 1384 BCE 2740 BCE 2717 BCE
Senajit 1384 BCE 1361 BCE 2717 BCE 2694 BCE
Srutanjaya 1361 BCE 1321 BCE 2694 BCE 2654 BCE
Vipra 1321 BCE 1296 BCE 2654 BCE 2629 BCE
Suchi 1296 BCE 1238 BCE 2629 BCE 2561 BCE
Kshemya 1238 BCE 1210 BCE 2561 BCE 2533 BCE
Subrata 1210 BCE 1150 BCE 2533 BCE 2473 BCE
Dharma 1150 BCE 1145 BCE 2473 BCE 2468 BCE
Susuma 1145 BCE 1107 BCE 2468 BCE 2430 BCE
Dridhasena 1107 BCE 1059 BCE 2430 BCE 2382 BCE
Sumati 1059 BCE 1026 BCE 2382 BCE 2349 BCE
Subhala 1026 BCE 1004 BCE 2349 BCE 2327 BCE
Sunita 1004 BCE 964 BCE 2327 BCE 2287 BCE
Satyajit 964 BCE 884 BCE 2287 BCE 2207 BCE
Biswajit 884 BCE 849 BCE 2207 BCE 2172 BCE
Ripunjaya 849 BCE 799 BCE 2172 BCE 2122 BCE

Emperor Reign start (According to Modern Historians) Reign end (According to Modern Historians) Reign start (According to Aryabhatta) Reign end (According to Aryabhatta)
Pradyota 779 BCE 776 BCE 2122 BCE 2119 BCE
Palaka 776 BCE 752 BCE 2119 BCE 2085 BCE
Visakhayupa 752 BCE 702 BC 2085 BCE 2035 BCE
Janaka 702 BCE 681 BCE 2035 BCE 2014 BCE
Nandivardhdhana 681 BC 661 BCE 2014 BCE 1994 BCE

^^ Which modern historians have given these dating for these kings? We don't have proper dates and history for kings who ruled during centuries AD leave alone those who ruled around 2000 BC, if at all they had kings those days.

^^ Which modern historians have given these dating for these kings? We don't have proper dates and history for kings who ruled during centuries AD leave alone those who ruled around 2000 BC, if at all they had kings those days.

Don't know. However, to scrutinize the data we can look to Jaina and Buddhist texts since some people doubt Hindu texts. The Srilankan Buddhist records may give a picture of the kings those who ruled prior to Maurya dynasty , especially the Magadha dynasty ( Before 600 BC). I don't think there is much confusion about the historicity of the kings who ruled India after C.E , though there may be some missing gaps.

I am really clueless on why there were no archeological sites or inscriptions after the collapse of the IVC and before the Mauryan dynasty when we actually started seeing inscriptions on edicts, coins on several media. Why is this vacuum ?.

What? :lol:

Painted Grey Ware culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_Grey_Ware_culture)

Cemetery H culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery_H_culture)

Northern Black Polished Ware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Black_Polished_Ware)

Infact, B B Lal identified one Painted Gray Ware site as the location of Hastinapur from the Mahabharata in the 60s.

I never came across one even after doing some preliminary research. I haven't seen anybody posting any material either in the archeological thread. I am specifically looking for inscriptions and edicts. Nothing of this sort has been reported.

^Thomas Burrow is positively ancient. His work has been long superceded by Kuiper, Parpola, Witzel etc. etc.

Arul, the linguistic history of India is insanely complicated like everything else. If you have time, please read the Witzel (1999) paper regarding the substrate languages of Indo-aryan here (http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/0501ART.PDF).

thanks for the link. Let me go through it fully when I get time. But people will tag such paper as anti-sanskrit or pro-tamil nationalist or pro nazi as they are not from India.:)

Skganji - Well considering that the writing came from the Achaemenid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_empire#Achaemenid_kings_and_rulers)(Persian) empire during its contact with what is now western Pakistan, that is not surprising. Kharosthi and Brahmi script was atleast partially developed from the Aramaic script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_script)

I have never under estimated any language. I perfectly know that ancient settlements under the sea near port cities of T.N are found and I wonder what language they may have spoken .
We need to go by the facts and not passion as you mention. The reason I was reluctant about sanskrit borrowing words is because all the great epics like MBH, Ramayana and Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads are composed long time back before the sangam literature .
Also the number of dravidian ( Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam) words in Sanskrit is neglible ( presumably from works created in last 2000 years) . However, I see more sanskrit words in dravidian languages. Sanskrit language has rich vocabulary and became standardized ( Panini 4th Century BCE) way before the Sangam literature.

Again please spare some time in this line

Kuiper identified 383 Ṛgvedic words as non-Indo-Aryan—roughly 4% of its vocabulary— borrowed from Old Dravidian, Old Munda, and several other, lost languages.

Rigveda contains old dravidian words, no one is claiming it as"classical Tamil of Sangam literature"

More Sanskrit words in dravidian languages is highly attributed to Hinduism nothing else.

Again please spare some time in this line

Kuiper identified 383 Ṛgvedic words as non-Indo-Aryan—roughly 4% of its vocabulary— borrowed from Old Dravidian, Old Munda, and several other, lost languages.

Rigveda contains old dravidian words, no one is claiming it as"classical Tamil of Sangam literature"

More Sanskrit words in dravidian languages is highly attributed to Hinduism nothing else.

Need to Review this material. Old Dravidian ???. How is this any different from Classic Tamil or Sangam Tamil?. Why can't they just say classic Tamil instead of Old Dravidian ?.
4% is still small.

"Old Dravidian" is a generalized term. What they mean is proto-Dravidian. Also, it has very little to do with present day Tamil Nadu. These words were borrowed from the Greater Punjab+Gangetic plains region.

§ 1.6. Dravidian in the Middle and Late Rgveda

As has been repeatedly mentioned, there are no traces of Dravidian language in the Panjab until
c. 1500 BCE, not even ofthe supposedly Dravidian speaking traders and rulers ofthe Indus
civilization; however, Drav. loan words suddenly appear in the RV texts oflev el II (books 3, 7,
8.1–66 and 1.51–191) and oflev el III (books RV 1.1–50, 8.67–103, 10.1–854; 10.85–191). These
include personal and tribal names, as well as cultural terms.
For comparisons, we are limited to Burrow-Emeneau’s DEDR, and a few lists from old Tamil
texts, but scholars usually work directly with Tamil, Kannada, Telugu (etc.) comparisons; a
reconstruction ofProto-Dra v. forms is but rarely given.
To begin with, many words that have been regarded as Drav., are now explained as coming
from Munda or another substrate language, for example, may¯ura ‘peacock’ whose correspondence
in Munda *ma-ra’ still has an appellative meaning, ‘crier’; (PMunda *ra’k ‘to cry,’ Pinnow 1959:
76 § 57). However, this is not so for the Drav. designation, where ‘peacock feather’ is reconstructed
at a level earlier than ‘peacock’ itself. Indeed, many of the 26 words attested in the RV that Burrow
(1945, 1946, 1947, 1947–48, 1955, cf. Southworth 1979 sqq.) originally listed as Drav., as well as
those added by Southworth (1979) and Zvelebil (1990) cannot be regarded as early Dravidian loans
in Vedic....

(read on please)

Originally Posted by Marathaman View Post

Arul, the linguistic history of India is insanely complicated like everything else. If you have time, please read the Witzel (1999) paper regarding the substrate languages of Indo-aryan here.

So we are back to perpetuating the myths of languages of "Aryan" people. Another racist paper by Witzel, why bother when the premise clearly connotes that there is a distinct people alien to India spouting a language alien to India. All his scholarship is naught.

Old Dravidian ???. How is this any different from Classic Tamil or Sangam Tamil?. Why can't they just say classic Tamil instead of Old Dravidian ?.

Good point SKGanji. These papers slip in "Proto Dravidian" which is an abyss for I don't know where the origin of the word came from, must have been local to India. If that is the case we can trace it to multitude of languages in India. We can for example say word x came from Telugu or word y came from Tamil or word z came Tulu or.. But no. These scholars talk in a tower of babel. If a word did not come from any Indian language then it must be foreign word, that is all there is to it.

huh? :lol:

Slowly the Indus Valley Civilization thread is turning into a spectacle of M. Witzel's deranged writings and his ardent student Marathaman. Also it is the cacophony of Proto Dravidian or is its Old Dravidian (linguist make up any old willy nilly term based on R. Caldwell's failed hypothesis/racist term of Dravidian). Same old churn of Aryan and Dravidian ad nauseum. :ohno: :nuts:

When Indian states have changed their old capital's name e.g. Madras to Chennai, Bombay to Mumbai, Calcutta to Kolkatta, etc. I don't see what the big deal is to completely change/eradicate Aryan/Dravidian from the lexicon. Only those who want to perpetuate the divide and benefit from the politics cling onto these terms.

Well that's just too bad. Maybe you should avoid this polluted/racist thread in the future ;) I'm sure you can find another forum where your views will be welcomed with open arms.

Well that's just too bad. Maybe you should avoid this polluted/racist thread in the future

Wow, thanks for agreeing with me, that this is turning into a racist/polluted thread. And much of this is due to you. Kya magnanimity yaar!

If folks think that M. Witzel is writing sense in his scholarly works ... read this

in his recent discussion about the etymology of "Chamundi" he was not able to fathom the meaning of the word. It was interesting and intriguing that he saw the word "charma" and "chamadi" as related to this word revealing his unconscious morbid preoccupation with skin color and racist views based upon the color of the skin. In reality there is no relationship at all and with all his profound scholarship he could not present a correct etymology. However, by associating a sacred image of the Hindus with an array of morbid and bizarre words he showed utter disrespect for Hindus.


M. Witzel savaged and excoriated
Gyaneshwer, the geneticist student of Human Evolutionary Biology working with Prof. Toomas Kivisild

Int J Hum Genet, 8(1-2): 41-50 (2008)

Language Shift by Indigenous Population: A Model Genetic
Study in South Asia

Gyaneshwer Chaubey1,2*, Mait Metspalu1, Monika Karmin1,
Kumarasamy Thangaraj2, Siiri Rootsi1, Juri Parik1, Anu
Solnik1, Deepa Selvi Rani2, Vijay Kumar Singh2, B. Prathap
Naidu,

Alla G. Reddy2, Ene Metspalu1, Lalji Singh2, Toomas
Kivisild1,3 and Richard Villems1

1. Department of Evolutionary Biology, Institute of
Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu and
Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia 2. Centre for Cellular
and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India 3. Leverhulme
Centre of Human Evolutionary Studies, The Henry Wellcome
Building, University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Street,
Cambridge, CB2 1QH, UK

KEYWORDS Mushar; language shift; mtDNA; Y-chromosome

ABSTRACT Language shift is a phenomenon where a new
language is adopted by a population with virtually no
influence on its genetic makeup. We report here the results
of a case study, carried out on the Mushar populations,
which is thought to have undergone language shift from
Munda (an Austro-Asiatic language) to Hindi (an Indo-
European language). We compared the mtDNA and Y-chromosomal
phylogenies of this population with those of the
neighbouring Indo-European and Austro-Asiatic speaking
populations, standing at similar social status. The results
revealed much closer genetic affinity of the Mushar people
to the neighbouring Austro-Asiatic (Mundari) populations,
than to the neighbouring Hindi-speaking populations. This
example shows that the language shift as such is not
necessarily a signal for a rapid genetic admixture, either
maternally or paternally.

Hum Hered 2008;66:1-9 DOI: 10.1159/000114160

Maternal Footprints of Southeast Asians in North India

Kumarasamy Thangaraj a Gyaneshwer Chaubey a, b, n Toomas
Kivisild b, c Deepa Selvi Rani a Vijay Kumar Singh a
Thanseem Ismail a Denise Carvalho-Silva d Mait Metspalu b
L.V.K.S. Bhaskar aAlla G. Reddy a Sarat Chandra e Veena
Pande f B. Prathap Naidu a Niharika Adarsh gAbhilasha Verma
h Inaganti Amara Jyothi i Chandana Basu Mallick j Nidhi
Shrivastava k Ragala Devasena l Babita Kumari m Amit Kumar
Singh n Shailendra Kumar Dhar Dwivedi n Shefali Singh n
Geeta Rao n Pranav Gupta n Vartika Sonvane o Kavita Kumari
m Afsar Basha p

K.R. Bhargavi i Albert Lalremruata q Arvind Kumar Gupta j
Gurukamal Kaur r K.K. Reddy s A. Papa Rao s Richard Villems
b Chris Tyler-Smith d Lalji Singh a *

a Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad,
India; b Estonian Biocentre and Tartu University, Tartu,
Estonia;c Leverhulme Centre of Human Evolutionary Studies,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, d The Wellcome
TrustSanger Institute, Hinxton Cambs, UK; e Nagaland
University, Nagaland, f Kumaun University, Nainital, g BIMR
College ofLife Science, Gwalior, h Bundelkhand University,
Jhansi, i JJ College of Arts and Science, Pudukottai, j APS
University,Rewa, k GGD University, Bilaspur, l DS College
of Arts and Science for women, Perambalur, m TM Bhagalpur
University,Bhagalpu r, n VBS Purvanchal University,
Jaunpur, o BarkatUllah University, Bhopal, p St. Josph's PG
College, Kurnool,q Loyola College, Chennai, r Guru Nanak
Dev University, s S. V. University, Tirupati, India

Abstract

We have analyzed 7,137 samples from 125 different caste,
tribal and religious groups of India and 99 samples from
three populations of Nepal for the length variation in the
COII/tRNA Lys region of mtDNA. Samples showing length
variation were subjected to detailed phylogenetic analysis
based on HVS-I and informative coding region sequence
variation. The overall frequencies of the 9-bp deletion and
insertion variants in South Asia were 1.9 and 0.6%,
respectively. We have also defined a novel deep-rooting
haplogroup M43 and identified the rare haplogroup H14 in
Indian populations carrying the 9-bp deletion by complete
mtDNA sequencing. Moreover, we redefined haplogroup M6 and
dissected it into two well-defined subclades. The presence
of haplogroups F1 and B5a in Uttar Pradesh suggests minor
maternal contribution from Southeast Asia to Northern
India. The occurrence of haplogroup F1 in the Nepalese
sample implies that Nepal might have served as a bridge for
the flow of eastern lineages to India. The presence of R6
in the Nepalese, on the other hand, suggests that the gene
flow between India and Nepal has been reciprocal.

lol. Hindutva nuts are getting really desperate.

lol. Hindutva nuts are getting really desperate. Why every thing should be tied to Hindutva ?. What is wrong on in scrutinizing all the absurd theories perpetuated by European/Western Indologists ?. Let us go back to the original AIT profounded by European Indologists. Inorder to fit their european centric theories, Max Muller translated Rig Veda. It is clear in so many of his interpretations . In one interpretation to fit Rig Veda at 1200 B.C, he arbitrarly assign the list of Kings at the end. Now based on this AIT and the latest generation of European Indologists create some linguistic groups ( Dravidian, Indo-European, Iranian etc. etc) to fit languages. This tree is not constant. Its keep changing every day . It is like a moving target. How can some body even come to a conclusion based on this mess of absurd and hypothetical theories ?.

You have no idea what you're talking about, Skganji! You're writing nonsense.

Barry - how can anyone take you seriously with your ridiculous posts filled with cheap personal attacks lifted from god knows where. that "Chamundi" nonsense probably refers to a discussion on the Yahoo Indology group : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/5788

lol. Hindutva nuts are getting really desperate.

Dude if you don't remove this comment I am going to report you to mods. First and foremost I am not a Hindu. Next you use religion to besmirch me. Get of your silly comments.

You're going to report me? :lol: Considering that nearly every one of your posts has some personal attack or the other?

Stop crying already and post something useful for a change.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that "Language shift" thingy.

Barry - how can anyone take you seriously with your ridiculous posts filled with cheap personal attacks

Why do you care about M. Witzel, are you his personal hand maiden or what? Oooh M. Witzel gets parodied for his Nazi theories and good ole marathaman cries bucketful of tears and is personally affronted! You have become a political billboard for M. Witzel's deranged nazi originated writings. Shame on you Marathaman.

"Language shift" thingy.

Language Shift is real science backed by genetics. Unlike M. Witzel's flailing in the wind about etymology and language and aryan and dravidian nonsense.

Why do you care about M. Witzel, are you his personal hand maiden or what? Oooh M. Witzel gets parodied for his Nazi theories and good ole marathaman cries bucketful of tears and is personally affronted!

okay....:lol:


Language Shift is real science backed by genetics. Unlike M. Witzel's flailing in the wind about etymology and language and aryan and dravidian nonsense.

So what conclusion are you drawing based on "language shift"? :)

So what conclusion are you drawing based on "language shift"? :)

Since you have a picture of a Lady, I would say Ladies First. So what is yours Lordship/Ladyship?

Nothing at all. It doesn't really prove or disprove anything of what we've been discussing here. I presume that since you posted it, you must have thought of something :lol:

Why getting personal guys? Cool down. Please post something useful and helpful. If not, better to delete this thread. I miss to see decorum on here.

Nothing at all. It doesn't really prove or disprove anything of what we've been discussing here. I presume that since you posted it, you must have thought of something :lol:

I don't have to say anything. Tis science, i.e. genetics, things that are provable. Does not matter whether Witzel, Marathaman or Barrykul do the science, the results would be same. Now how about that for a change. Provable concepts not some Wild-Ass-Guess (wag of the finger) theories. No aryan, no dravidian. just plain old indians of austric/munda background who can adapt to any spoken language or create a new one from scratch. The diversity of languages in India should give you a clue. We don't need to go to foreign pastures, horse riding invaders, proto-blah, proto-blah stuff, don't have to concoct 'Arya' as 'Aryan' or 'Dravida' as 'Tamil' or as 'Dravidian'. Science explains the phenomenon. No need for Rg Veda study from Herr M. Witzel either, no community kitchens instead of altars for rituals. IVC, Sarasvati are all in India and the people of India are direct descendants of such culture.

I'm sorry Barry, but you seem confused. There were no "Horse riding invaders". That's the 22nd time that I've mentioned this fact in the last one week :lol:
Also, you can't simply dismiss the whole subject of lingustics just because you can't digest the terms that are being used, and can't dissociate them from racial connotations in your own mind.

...

I am very sorry for you marathaman for clinging on to linguistic bs. Science trumps everything. You don't need to go through a morass of convoluted writings of a deranged Nazi like M. Witzel or Brain Farter S. Farmer or Herr Max Mueller or R. Caldwell. These are all yesterday's technology. Today we have DNA, lasers, precise spectrometry, provable results. You can tell all the falsehoods you want, but DNA will find the truth. Why do think they use them to find criminals and solve rape cases and other crime cases. Precision my friend. You cant pull the wool over entire audiences. For a very long time Brits/Germans/Western Linguists have been babling nonsense about India, its culture, its history its tradition its accumulated knowledge base. Now the truths will come out slowly but surely.

But seriously, what conclusions are you drawing regarding IVC from the study of the adoption of Hindi language by Mushar peoples?

The study itself seems quite comfortable with terms like "Indo-European" , "Austro-Asiatic" and "Munda" :)

There seems to be no relationship between the stuff you're pushing and this study that you're quoting, at all.

The other study is about some gene flow from SE Asia via Nepal into Northern India. Again, completely unrelated to anything that we are discussing here.

You have no idea what you're talking about, Skganji! You're writing nonsense.

I am not talking non-sense. I am not interested in wasting any body's time. We need to question and scrutinize all the hypothetical theories proposed by european Indologists. I am seriously questioning the dating of Rig Veda to 1200 B.C by Max-Muller. With this faulty premise, Parpola starts the first chapter in his bookOfcourse, he may have changed his opinion now ( from his article on Asvin Gods). However, it is not official and his decipherment book needs serious revision.

Why do you care about M. Witzel, are you his personal hand maiden or what? Oooh M. Witzel gets parodied for his Nazi theories and good ole marathaman cries bucketful of tears and is personally affronted!

M.Witzel - Pro Nazi. :lol: Much expected comment.

M.Witzel - Pro Nazi. :lol: Much expected comment.
Dude, What is your point other than being another hand maiden of M. Witzel. I was accused of being a Hindutva when I am not Hindu.

Need to Review this material. Old Dravidian ???. How is this any different from Classic Tamil or Sangam Tamil?. Why can't they just say classic Tamil instead of Old Dravidian ?.
4% is still small.

Take your own time. It is widely accepted one rig vedas have dravidian words.

small or big. Without knowing this fact you were trying to speak on air.

Tamil reached classical stage only during 300B.C as per so far archeology/historical findings. But Tholkappiyum dates have not yet formulated exactly which will still put back the classical stage of Tamil status back to 300 B.C

It is widely accepted one rig vedas have dravidian words.


There is no such thing as "Dravidian", this is cockamamie bs by R. Caldwell. Where is the proof for such grand statements? M. Witzel's deranged writings are not proof, they are mere conjectures. His sense of root Indian words is way of.

Dude, What is your point other than being another hand maiden of M. Witzel. I was accused of being a Hindutva when I am not Hindu.

I don;t want to reply to your next post if your post have any stuff of personal calling.

This is nothing before when you accuse, wrote un-parliamentary words on no. of archeologist, historians etc., Hand maiden? what to whom/organization should we attribute you as hand maiden?

Your post runs in such a way that you impose your views on others. Let this be my last post to you. Bye

This is nothing before when you accuse, wrote un-parliamentary words on no. of archeologist, historians etc.

Why? are you the general protectorate of these archeologists, historians. I am attacking their faulty premise, assumptions and conclusions. This is fair game, especially when they have very little proof for such nonsense. The real proof is genetics, not linguistic assertions nor out of thin air concepts like 'Aryan', 'Dravidian', 'Proto Dravidian', 'Proto Indo-European' and other hogwash.


Your post runs in such a way that you impose your views on others. Let this be my last post to you. Bye
Dude I am honored that I can by my writings 'impose views on others' must be the power of my concepts and ideas. Danke Shoen, dude.

Take your own time. It is widely accepted one rig vedas have dravidian words.

small or big. Without knowing this fact you were trying to speak on air.



I am not speaking on air and I don't think you are an expert in Rig Veda to make a judgement that it contained dravidian words. I am doing my own study on Rig Veda and by god's grace I hope I will go indepth into this ancient wisdom.

I have no faith in european scholars who are making this judgement either. They may say it 4%, if scrutinized thoroughly it may be much more less also. Who knows.

I am not talking non-sense. I am not interested in wasting any body's time. We need to question and scrutinize all the hypothetical theories proposed by european Indologists. I am seriously questioning the dating of Rig Veda to 1200 B.C by Max-Muller. With this faulty premise, Parpola starts the first chapter in his bookOfcourse, he may have changed his opinion now ( from his article on Asvin Gods). However, it is not official and his decipherment book needs serious revision.

Then please scrutinize the theories, not the Nazis. I'd love to know your "revised date" for the Rigveda and your reasons for selecting that date. :)

Dude, What is your point other than being another hand maiden of M. Witzel. I was accused of being a Hindutva when I am not Hindu.

Veer Savarkar was an atheist ;). Hindutva is more about politics and less about religion. But that's besides the point. I wasn't talking about you personally but the people who write those unsourced quotes that you love to copy and paste here.

I am not speaking on air and I don't think you are an expert in Rig Veda to make a judgement that it contained dravidian words. I am doing my own study on Rig Veda and by god's grace I hope I will go indepth into this ancient wisdom.

I have no faith in european scholars who are making this judgement either. They may say it 4%, if scrutinized thoroughly it may be much more less also. Who knows.

Please go ahead and do your "research". Be sure to publish your "results" so that the professionals can analyze it thoroughly. I'll look forward to that. :cheers:

^^ One would do well to keep an open mind while doing research otherwise it will be wasted efforts. Doing research with preconceived notions and preset mind would again lead to selective cherry picking of data and arriving at wrong conclusions.

Though, skganji may have his reasons, notions like RV belong to 3000 BC or RV cannot have Dravidian loan words, etc at the very start of your research, may not augur well. Such statements must be made after the conclusion of research.

Kind of ironic that “researchers” during the British Rule of India were researching the Rg Veda and other Indian Languages with not so quite an open mind. They did all the research and came up with conclusions not supported by fact, kind of like surgery is success but patient dead type results, or multiplying two numbers but off by several orders of magnitude. Antiquity of texts and civilizations were mere conjectures. Identification of who could have written these tomes became a racial divide. All kinds of non-intuitive judgments were made, meanings were given to seemingly innocuous words like ‘Sir’ or ‘Arya’.

The false results were taken as axioms, unquestioned for a very long time and became the lingua franca of classification. Indian civilization was a parody in western minds and doubts were sown amongst Indians. Indian Politicians used the mayhem to game the system towards their own ends. In the book Principia Mathematica, Bertrand Russell questions all the axioms of arithmetic, Peano’s axioms are questioned, even the notion of what 1 is compared to 2 is questioned. Bertrand also points out Godel’s elegant proof of having certain facts within a system derived from axioms that cannot be decided whether it can be true or false. A quite fascinating look at seemingly simple things like counting and what we take for granted as arithmetic numbers. Similarly the results of false classification, wrong results and conclusions must be re-examined from all possible angles. Fortunately, the conclusions of linguists and “researchers” during the British Rule of India can be subject to a more exact science, genetics, DNA study. In today’s research there is so much data available from various different sciences and the Internet has made it next to impossible to go unquestioned for any assumption you make. If you can’t back it up by concrete evidence then you are toast, like pseudo science researcher M. Witzel is finding out.

Why don't you actually disprove something rather than keep repeating the same accusations and promises about how things 'need to be re-examined'? :lol:

None of your "DNA studies" are even remotely related to the topic of discussion, and none of the your favorite "reseachers" have managed to overturn or change anything.

^^ more hot air and sour grapes, eh. :lol: :cheers: RIP M. Witzel.

A little bit on Herr M. Witzel...

Michael Witzel, a German by birth, moved to Harvard from Europe, its Department of Sanskrit and India Studies has been in a state of turmoil. He was forced to step down as department chairman in 1995, following student complaints about his conduct. Enrica Garzilli, whom Witzel had brought in as a faculty member was fired by Harvard as unqualified. She sued the university. Witzel himself threatened to sue a student for asking some questions. Witzel holds the Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard. Positions like the one Witzel holds were created during the colonial era to serve as interpreters of India. They have lost their relevance and are disappearing from academia.


The politics of Aryan-ism

While the defeat of Nazi Germany put an end to its political influence, it has survived in various guises in Western academia under the umbrella of Indo-European Studies. This was the point raised by scholars like Stefan Arvidsson. Central to Indo-European Studies is the belief it is no more than a belief that Indian civilization was created by an invading race of Aryans from an original homeland somewhere in Eurasia or Europe. This is the Aryan invasion theory dear to Witzel and his European colleagues. According to this theory there was no civilization in India before the Aryan invaders brought it a view increasingly in conflict with hard evidence from archaeology and natural history.

Given the Aryans importance to their worldview, it is extraordinary that after two hundred years of voluminous outpourings, these scholars are unable to identify them. Originally they were claimed to be a race related to Europeans but science has discredited it. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, scholars avoid overtly racial arguments but the basic idea of an invasion by Europeans bringing civilization to India is retained even if they acknowledge that ancient Indian records know nothing of any such invasion. All we have are dogmatic assertions of their central belief. According to the late Murray Emeneau, a leading figure in Indo-European linguistics:

At some time in the second millennium B.C., probably comparatively early in the millennium, a band or bands of speakers of an Indo-European language, later to be called Sanskrit, entered India over the northwest passes. This is our linguistic doctrine which has been held now for more than a century and a half. There seems to be no reason to distrust the arguments for it, in spite of the traditional Hindu ignorance of any such invasion.

This is typical of the field, with arguments closer to theology than to science. Aryans are needed because there can be no Aryan invasion without the Aryans and also no Indo-European Studies. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Scientists had long ago dismissed the idea of the Aryan race. As far back as 1939, Sir Julian Huxley, one of the great biologists of the twentieth century wrote:

In England and America the phrase Aryan race has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature. In Germany, the idea of the Aryan race received no more scientific support than in England. Nevertheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who made it appear very flattering to local vanity. It therefore steadily spread, fostered by special conditions.

These special conditions were the rise of Nazism in Germany and British imperial interests in India. Its perversion in Germany leading eventually to the Nazi horrors is well known. The fact that the British turned it into a political tool to make their rule acceptable to Indians is not generally known. A recent BBC report acknowledged as much (October 6, 2005):

It [Aryan invasion theory] gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier.

That is to say, the British presented themselves as new and improved Aryans that were in India only to complete the work left undone by their ancestors in the hoary past. This is how the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin put it in the House of Commons in 1929:

Now, after ages, the two branches of the great Aryan ancestry have again been brought together by Providence By establishing British rule in India, God said to the British, I have brought you and the Indians together after a long separation, it is your duty to raise them to their own level as quickly as possible brothers as you are

All this makes abundantly clear that theories based on the Aryan myth are modern European creations that have little to do with ancient India. The word Arya appears for the first time in the Rig Veda, India's oldest text. Its meaning is obscure but seems to refer to members of a settled agricultural community. It later became an honorific and a form of address, something like Gentleman in English or Monsieur in French. Also, it was nowhere as important in India as it came to be in Europe. In the whole the Rig Veda, in all of its ten books, the word Arya appears only about forty times. In contrast, Hitler's Mein Kampf uses the term Arya and Aryan many times more. Hitler did not invent it. The idea of Aryans as a superior race was already in the air in Europe, not India.

^^ Interesting. More of them with source please.

Well, good that you've finally realized there is nothing called 'Aryan race' :lol:. (After being told the same more than two dozen times)

Anything more to add?

There is no such thing as "Dravidian", this is cockamamie bs by R. Caldwell. Where is the proof for such grand statements? M. Witzel's deranged writings are not proof, they are mere conjectures. His sense of root Indian words is way of.

The “Tramiradeha Sangatana” and Kharavela Inscription: A reference found in the Kharavela inscription is “Tramiradeha Sangatana”. It has interpreted differently, however, a consensus arrived at that it refers to the defeat of a Dravidian Confederacy. The inscription has been hitherto read differently and the date of the “Dravidian confederacy” arrived at as follows:



K. A. Nilakanta Sastri10: “The famous Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela (first half of the second century B.C) mentions a league of Tamil states that was 113 years old at the date of the inscription and had beem for some time a source of danger to the Kalinga kingdom”.

The rendering of the inscription by different scholars are reads as follows:

N. K. Sagu11: Janapada bhavanam cha tersa vasa sata katam bhidati Tramira deha samghatam| (Pali version)

Janapadha bhavanam cha trayodhasha varsha sata krutam bhinatti dhramila desha sangatam| (Sanskrit version)

(In the eleventh year….) Also (His Majesty) shattered the territorial confederacy of the Tamil States having populous villages, that was existing since thirteen hundred years (English rendering)

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

These inscription clearly says that Tramira, dhramila all denotes Tamil. And it has to be noted that root cause of the word Dravida is from Dramila.

Now the common term Dravidian is used, I don't know why you claim there is nothing called "Dravida" It simply denotes the people and nothing else. What is your problem in using words like Dravida?