78 replies to this topic

[Harsh86_Patel]

Indians i.e. Hindus worshipped 'devas' whereas zorastrians worshipped 'asuras/ahura'. Devas and Asuras were enemies and continously in a state of war according to ancient texts.

[the L]

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 January 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Indians i.e. Hindus worshipped 'devas' whereas zorastrians worshipped 'asuras/ahura'. Devas and Asuras were enemies and continously in a state of war according to ancient texts.

What ancient texts?
Maybe Asuras lost war and be forced to mirgate.

[Harsh86_Patel]

the L, on 14 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

What ancient texts?
Maybe Asuras lost war and be forced to mirgate.

In almost all of Hindu Mythology there is a continous struggle between the Daevas and Asuras. With epic battles and Warrior Cheftains on both sides. Asura's losing the war and being forced to migrate is a very credible scenario.

Also the question that if they did migrate could they have gone as far as the South Americas and Australia?
http://timesofindia....ow/18029070.cms


SYDNEY: People from the Indian sub-continent migrated to Australia and mixed with Aborigines 4,000 years ago, bringing the dingo dog with them, according to a study published on Tuesday.

The continent was thought to have been isolated from other populations until Europeans landed at the end of the 1700s.

But researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, reported "evidence of substantial gene flow between Indian populations and Australia about 4,000 years ago".

They analysed genetic variation from across the genome from Australian Aborigines, New Guineans, Southeast Asians, and Indians.

"Long before Europeans settled in Australia humans had migrated from the Indian subcontinent to Australia and mixed with Australian Aborigines," the study said.

It found "substantial gene flow from India to Australia 4,230 years ago ie... well before European contact," it said.

"Interestingly," said researcher Irina Pugach, "this date also coincides with many changes in the archaeological record of Australia, which include a sudden change in plant processing and stone tool technologies... and the first appearance of the dingo in the fossil record.

"Since we detect inflow of genes from India into Australia at around the same time, it is likely that these changes were related to this migration," she said.

A common origin was also discovered for the Australian, New Guinean and Philippine Mamanwa populations who had followed a southern migration route out of Africa begun more than 40,000 years ago.

The researchers estimate the groups split about 36,000 years ago.

Australia offers some of the earliest archaeological evidence for the presence of humans outside Africa, with sites dated to at least 45,000 years ago.



Also i would like to point out that the Mayans followed Venus for their calendar (Asuras are Known to have followed Venus or 'Shukra',and shukracharya was their leader and the daevas followed Jupiter or 'Brihaspati' as their leader).

There are many astounding similarities.The tales of wars between Daevas and Asuras state that the Dominion over the living world was controlled by the Asuras at one point of time after which the Daevas teaming up with the 'Maruts' (Sons of Shiva) defeated the Asuras and forced them to migrate or to put it more in perspective,banished them.

[the L]

Harsh86_Patel, on 15 January 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

In almost all of Hindu Mythology there is a continous struggle between the Daevas and Asuras. With epic battles and Warrior Cheftains on both sides. Asura's losing the war and being forced to migrate is a very credible scenario.

Also the question that if they did migrate could they have gone as far as the South Americas and Australia?
http://timesofindia....ow/18029070.cms


SYDNEY: People from the Indian sub-continent migrated to Australia and mixed with Aborigines 4,000 years ago, bringing the dingo dog with them, according to a study published on Tuesday.

The continent was thought to have been isolated from other populations until Europeans landed at the end of the 1700s.

But researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, reported "evidence of substantial gene flow between Indian populations and Australia about 4,000 years ago".

They analysed genetic variation from across the genome from Australian Aborigines, New Guineans, Southeast Asians, and Indians.

"Long before Europeans settled in Australia humans had migrated from the Indian subcontinent to Australia and mixed with Australian Aborigines," the study said.

It found "substantial gene flow from India to Australia 4,230 years ago ie... well before European contact," it said.

"Interestingly," said researcher Irina Pugach, "this date also coincides with many changes in the archaeological record of Australia, which include a sudden change in plant processing and stone tool technologies... and the first appearance of the dingo in the fossil record.

"Since we detect inflow of genes from India into Australia at around the same time, it is likely that these changes were related to this migration," she said.

A common origin was also discovered for the Australian, New Guinean and Philippine Mamanwa populations who had followed a southern migration route out of Africa begun more than 40,000 years ago.

The researchers estimate the groups split about 36,000 years ago.

Australia offers some of the earliest archaeological evidence for the presence of humans outside Africa, with sites dated to at least 45,000 years ago.



Also i would like to point out that the Mayans followed Venus for their calendar (Asuras are Known to have followed Venus or 'Shukra',and shukracharya was their leader and the daevas followed Jupiter or 'Brihaspati' as their leader).

There are many astounding similarities.The tales of wars between Daevas and Asuras state that the Dominion over the living world was controlled by the Asuras at one point of time after which the Daevas teaming up with the 'Maruts' (Sons of Shiva) defeated the Asuras and forced them to migrate or to put it more in perspective,banished them.

Imagine this. Who would say. So OIT sure did happend, just in what extend?

[jaylemurph]

In your first post, you say (or at least imply) that the linguistic community is solidly behind the Kurgan hypothesis. I pretty solidly support the hypothesis, but it's a gross misrepresentation to say that's the current linguistic consensus. There are several competing theories, of which the Kurgan is only one. And the out of India one is the one with the least critical acceptance.

--Jaylemurph

[TheSearcher]

The article says there was some influence 4000 years ago, granted, but the main migration happened between 30,000 and 45,000 years ago from Africa, also in the article btw.

Besides, the Out Of India Theory is controversial and far from being proven. Several points go right against the grain of this theory.
- The linguistic center of gravity principle states that a language family's most likely point of origin is in the area of its greatest diversity. Only one branch of Indo-European, Indo-Aryan, is found in India, whereas the Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian, and Greek branches of Indo-European are all found in Central-Eastern Europe.
- The Indic languages show the influence of the Dravidian and Munda language families. If the Indo-European origin had been located in India, then it stands to reason that the Indo-European languages should have shown some influence from Dravidian and Munda, yet no other branch of Indo-European does.
- To postulate the migration of PIE speakers out of India necessitates an earlier dating of the Rigveda than is normally accepted by Vedic scholars, meaning you need to adapt established facts to make it work. That's usually a rather bad sign right there.

[the L]

TheSearcher, on 16 January 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

- The linguistic center of gravity principle states that a language family's most likely point of origin is in the area of its greatest diversity. Only one branch of Indo-European, Indo-Aryan, is found in India, whereas the Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian, and Greek branches of Indo-European are all found in Central-Eastern Europe.

Center is switched toward east. Look post 9. Tocharian language.
Also only thing which people use against OIT is that only one branch of Indo-European language is found in India. Which I think is not true.(?)
But Im not philologist.

In India we have Pali, Magadhi, Sauraseni, Maharashtri /Prakrit languages which shares similarities with Indo European languages and not found in Vedic texts. For that languages sceptics use theory of multiple migrations in India. That on waves people migrate in India.

So major question is : Are  Pali, Magadhi, Sauraseni, Maharashtri /Prakrit languages sister languages with Indo Aryan?
If is in India only one brench of Indo european-Indo Aryan that goes on side of sceptics of OIT.
But even then, Tocharian language in China might be evidence that OIT is true.

However, Tocharians might came from Europe or Central Asia which would go agains OIT.

Quote

- The Indic languages show the influence of the Dravidian and Munda language families. If the Indo-European origin had been located in India, then it stands to reason that the Indo-European languages should have shown some influence from Dravidian and Munda, yet no other branch of Indo-European does.

That can be explained with Proto Elamo Dravidian language originate in Mesopotamia  and spread to south India where can still be found. There are indeed similarites betweeb Elamite and Harappan script. Then existence of Brahui language.
http://en.wikipedia....Brahui_language
Brahui is spoken in the southwestern Pakistan, as well as in regions of Afghanistan and Iran that border Pakistan.

Quote

- To postulate the migration of PIE speakers out of India necessitates an earlier dating of the Rigveda than is normally accepted by Vedic scholars, meaning you need to adapt established facts to make it work. That's usually a rather bad sign right there.

the L, on 13 January 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

According to wiki Rigveda are vedic sanskirt  ten book with hymns which dates from 1700-1100 BC in west India and its one of oldest text in any IE languages according to philological and linguistic evidences. Cultulary and linguisticly looking there are similarites between Iranian Avesta which we often connect with Andronovo and Sintashta Petrovka cultures  of 2200-1600 BC. Sarasvati river is mentioned in all ten books except 4th. It even outnumber mentioning of Indus. It was worshiped as one of three great goddesses which rides swan. Rigveda dont mention Aryans at all. How come if they recoreded how people migrate from India? That realy support OIT.
Sarasvati river was mentioned in Nadistuti hymn in Rigveda between Yamuna and Sutlej. Interestingly Rigveda 10 and sam hymn glorify river Sindhu and from that scholars concluded that already Sarasvati dry out. But that doesnt have to be case since Rigveda 10 was written later then others. Other documents such as Jaiminiya, Tandya and Mahabharata say that it dried up in desert. I search on Internet and information contradicts when that happened. Some say that Satulaj and Yamuna once fed Sarasvati but due some tectonic events (which?) Satluj gone west into Indus and Yamuna east into Ganges.On wiki it said that French satelite SPOT find Sarasvati and that was pre Harappan and start drying from 3500 BC. Number of archaeological sites near shadow river Sarasvati outnumber sites around Indus river. There are 414 sites around Sarasvati and 80% of them dates from 4000 to 2000 BC. Which tell us that river was still there during that period.
It is possible that Rigveda predates Indus valley civilization. Because Rigveda doesnt mention silver. Only bronze and gold. Although we know that Indus valley civilization used silver. Rigveda doesnt speak about brick either and brick was one of main feature of Indus valley civilization.  Rigveda doesnt mention rice or cotton. And rice was used in Indus Valley civilization such as in Mohenjodaro and Lothal. Cotton was also used by Harappans. Rigveda doesnt mention fire altars, tubed drainages large cities, buildings, and so on.

jaylemurph, on 16 January 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

And the out of India one is the one with the least critical acceptance.

--Jaylemurph

Could you developed that.

[jaylemurph]

the L, on 16 January 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

So major question is : Are  Pali, Magadhi, Sauraseni, Maharashtri /Prakrit languages sister languages with Indo Aryan?
If is in India only one brench of Indo european-Indo Aryan that goes on side of sceptics of OIT.
But even then, Tocharian language in China might be evidence that OIT is true.

However, Tocharians might came from Europe or Central Asia which would go agains OIT.

You do understand there is no such thing as a single Indo-Aryan language, right? It's a description for a whole language /family/. And all the languges you mention are well-documented to daughter languages of the Indic pre-cursor.

In fact, that you are using the term "Indo-Aryan" is sort of a sign you're not up-to-date with the most current linguistic information. The term of choice is Indic or Indo-Iranian, depending on what level of relationships your discussing. It's used mostly to separate from people using bunk science from a century or so ago (not to name names, but as a group they were fond of book burning and not fond of Semitic-speaking folks).

So (and forgive me for being blunt), but you seem not only to not be cognizant of current linguistic practices and norms, but you also seem not understand the basic model of how languages relate to each other. It's like you're trying to find a new way to cure hysteria by regulating someone's choler levels. I suppose you could do it if you consulted only enough old texts, but you'd be hard pressed to convince a modern doctor of the need to do so. And you certainly wouldn't be re-writing current medical theory.

Quote

Could you developed that.

No: I can't prove a negative, so I can't prove something /isn't/ a consensus in the linguistic community. If you wish to, however, you might try to prove the out of India theory is that consensus. Although that would be difficult.

--Jaylemurph

[NO-ID-EA]

the L, on 13 January 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

I think we only need to find more proof that Iranians originate from India.

This may be a back to front way of looking at it................But if we know of the language similarities with Avesta , and we know there were large numbers of people from Iran/Persian area moving into India........ But we cant find DNA traces of a large movement of people coming in..............Then a likely reason for this could be that it is the same DNA that is returning to it's origin , so it is not going to show up as an influx ??

[jaylemurph]

NO-ID-EA, on 18 January 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

This may be a back to front way of looking at it................But if we know of the language similarities with Avesta , and we know there were large numbers of people from Iran/Persian area moving into India........ But we cant find DNA traces of a large movement of people coming in..............Then a likely reason for this could be that it is the same DNA that is returning to it's origin , so it is not going to show up as an influx ??

One thing to keep in mind is that genetics and language are two very different things, and the predictive power of one is virtually nil for the other. A society can as a whole change the language it speaks without a major change to its genetic information, and they can keep their language even with major influxes of new genetic data. A good look at reliable information about the Tocharians mentioned earlier would make an example of this. The only time I'm aware genetics is even used in linguistics is when there is no actual linguistic data to go on, as in pre-Historic/pre-written cultures, for languages that are currently dead. This is not the case for a great deal of Indic langauges, especially ones like L has been throwing around (Pakrit, Avestan, et al).

I might speak Japanese*, and my mother might speak Japanese, but you'd be wrong to assume I have any Asian genetic heritage. By the same token, I know manu Japanese people who routinely speak English, but not one of them had an Angle, Saxon, or Jute (or Briton) in their family tree.

--Jaylemurph

*I am not smart enough to speak Japanese.

[the L]

Jaylemurph

what about Tocharian language?

That you kindly ignored.

Edited by the L, 19 January 2013 - 09:16 PM.

[the L]

NO-ID-EA, on 18 January 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

This may be a back to front way of looking at it................But if we know of the language similarities with Avesta , and we know there were large numbers of people from Iran/Persian area moving into India........ But we cant find DNA traces of a large movement of people coming in..............Then a likely reason for this could be that it is the same DNA that is returning to it's origin , so it is not going to show up as an influx ??

I wonder what genetics say about Iranians and Indians connection. I like your way of thinking. Just in OIT people move from India. As ancient texts say. And none come in India.

[the L]

jaylemurph, on 18 January 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

You do understand there is no such thing as a single Indo-Aryan language, right? It's a description for a whole language /family/. And all the languges you mention are well-documented to daughter languages of the Indic pre-cursor.

How do you know they are daughter and not syster?

[Swede]

the L, on 19 January 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

Jaylemurph

what about Tocharian language?

That you kindly ignored. :tu:

Linguistics is not one of my specialties and would certainly not personally wish to speak for Jaylemurph. His expertise in these matters is well documented. However, you may find the following to be of interest.

So where does Tocharian fit into the IE language family? We might begin by attempting to reconstruct the origin of the Tocharians. Scholars who studied the documents in the early part of this century attempted to link the language with a number of other IE branches, pointing out similarities, some actual and some supposed, with Armenian, Thracian, Phrygian, Celtic, and Hittite. ⁵⁶ From this initial analysis of the material, we have been able to get a rough idea of where the Tocharians came from and how they got where they are today. In the opinion of Lane, the original home of the Proto-Tocharians was somewhere on the steppes of southern Russia. "They were thus bordered on the west and south by the Thraco-Phrygians, the Armenians and the Greeks; on the west and north by the Germans and the Balto-Slavs, in close proximity to the Finno-Ugrians on the east and north." ⁵⁷ Based on the similarities between Tocharian and the Italic and Celtic branches, especially the mediopassive in -r and the subjunctive in -a, he postulates "rather a long period of close contact [between these different IE branches] after the separation of Tocharian from the nearest of kin, Thraco-Phrygian (and perhaps Armenian)." ⁵⁸ However, this does not mean that Tocharian may not have had contact with other IE languages at this time also. Douglas Adams, noting the similar role of PIE n-stems in nouns and adjectives in both Proto-Germanic and Proto-Tocharian, concludes that "both Germanic and Tocharian belonged to a group of Indo-European dialects, including also Latin and Greek, where n-stems came to be productive as 'singulatives' of definites, often with affective meaning, in opposition to other nominal types." ⁵⁹
As the Tocharians began to move east, the last contacts that they had with other Indo-Europeans (before their much later interaction with the Indians and Iranians) was with the Slavs, resulting in some Slavic influence in the lexicon, but no impact on the essential structure of the language. ⁶⁰ However, an alternative analysis by a Slavic linguist, who cites phonological, morphological, and lexical similarities between Tocharian and Balto-Slavic, is that "at some very remote time, the ancestors of the Germanic tribes, the Balto-Slavs, and the Tocharians formed a Northern IE dialect group which split from the common IE at a very early stage and later (probably during the 4th milleium B.C.) dissolved into Germanic-Balto-Slavic and Tocharian." ⁶¹  (Emphasis added).

http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm

.

[the L]

Swede I witness myself that Jaylemurph knew about languages but there are people who think differently then he. He might have outdated stance. Hint-Read my next post.
Your site support Kurgan hypothesis, nevertheless Tocharians are connected with Thracian, Armenian, Hittite and Phrygan. Same as some others language in India and Srilanka.
So they might go otherway around.

Edited by the L, 20 January 2013 - 05:41 PM.