78 replies to this topic

[the L]

Does anyone knows why IVC fall?

[Everdred]

the L, on 26 January 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

Thisonly indicate that you didnt read what I wrote in this thread. In post 3 I said where I from. In post 9 (among others) I presented why Tocharians are important.

To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure what your point was with the Tocharians.

Were you focusing on the fact that they were spread so far East, or that they're the only Eastern Centum branch?

Neither of these ideas seem to favor a particular urheimat.  The Eastward spread isn't particularly special--Iranic tribes managed to get all the way to Mongolia, for example (ignoring here the Indic branch as it's the basis of the argument).  For the Centum, I think Swede earlier quoted a fine explanation.  Under the usual assumption of an early West-East split, It simply requires that the Tocharians branched off Westward with the larger Centum group, then split off and headed East while the rest continued West.

[the L]

Everdred, on 26 January 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Under the usual assumption of an early West-East split, It simply requires that the Tocharians branched off Westward with the larger Centum group, then split off and headed East while the rest continued West.

Centum explaination provided by Swede is Kurgan theory explaination.

Can you explain upper statement, please develop what you think. I dont understand probably because language barrier (mine).


Tocharians proove us that  linguistic center of gravity isnt in Central Asia and Europe. It switched foward east.
You must add to that Prakrit language as syster IE language .

Also as map in post 9 indicates could it be that from Central Asia they spread west and east and that way they evolve similar as those in europe, while core of IE language (satem) is maintained in Iran and India.(Thats my suggestions)

Edited by the L, 26 January 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[the L]

This is what wiki said:


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.However, the existence of the Tocharian language family in Western China would shift the center of gravity eastward. Some scholars argue that the various language families in Central and Eastern Europe evolved fairly recently, which implies that there was less diversity in the western side of the Indo-European language family during the 2nd millennium BCE at a time contemporaneous with Vedic Sanskrit...


Furthermore,


If Shrikant Talageri,Thomas Oberlies and Kenneth Roy Norman are right then it realy change picture of all.
And people who support kurgan theory invented new explaination.

Multiple migration/invasion in India from South Russia.

And we very well know that there is NONE evidence that we have had ONE migration into India, before Persians and Greeks.
On another hand there are evidence of out of India theory. Historical records.
We have genetic proof. we have "recent" example of gypsies.
We have archaeological records of their homes...Proto IVC...So...

Edited by the L, 26 January 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[the L]

Jay btw many things originate from India. Such as zero, chess, and plastic surgery. Sushruta and Charak medical books from 6 th century BC is testemony to that. Their work was translated trough Arabs all the way to Europe. So Branca family of Sicily and Gaspare Tagliacozzi from Bologna were familiar with Plastic surgery from India (Sushruta book). People like Joseph Constantine Carpue study surgery for 20 years in Indiaand he finally in 1815 done his surgery. Ayurveda doctors have their own college in India. There is college in London too.
This is what wiki say about Sushruta

The Sushruta Samhita contains 184 chapters and description of 1120 illnesses, 700 medicinal plants, 64 preparations from mineral sources and 57 preparations based on animal sources.[1] The text discusses surgical techniques of making incisions, probing, extraction of foreign bodies, alkali and thermal cauterization, tooth extraction, excisions, and trocars for draining abscess draining hydrocele and ascitic fluid, the removal of the prostate gland, urethral stricture dilatation, vesiculolithotomy, hernia surgery, caesarian section, management of haemorrhoids, fistulae, laparotomy and management of intestinal obstruction, perforated intestines, and accidental perforation of the abdomen with protrusion of omentum and the principles of fracture management, viz., traction, manipulation, appositions and stabilization including some measures of rehabilitation and fitting of prosthetics. It enumerates six types of dislocations, twelve varieties of fractures, and classification of the bones and their reaction to the injuries, and gives a classification of eye diseases including cataract surgery.


I think that few examples what I presented here are more then enough to conclude that they were highly sophisticated civilization before USA and UK or England existed. Or Russia.

Edited by the L, 26 January 2013 - 05:09 PM.

[the L]

Everyone who know about Zoroastrianism knows that fire play key role in their beliefs . Also read what wiki said about it:

Zoroastrianism was founded by the Prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) in ancient Iran. Exactly when he lived is debated,[by whom?] as estimates range from 1700 BCE[34] to 500 BCE.[35] The precise date of the founding of Zoroastrianism is uncertain. An approximate date of 1500–1200 BCE has been established through archaeological evidence and linguistic comparisons with the Hindu text, the Rig Veda. However there is no way of knowing exactly when Zoroaster lived, as he lived in what, to his people, were prehistoric times.[36]
Zoroaster was born in either Northeast Iran or Southwest Afghanistan. He was born into a Bronze Age culture with a polytheistic religion, which included animal sacrifice[37] and the ritual use of intoxicants. This religion was quite similar to the early forms of Hinduism in India. The name Zoroaster is a Greek rendering of the name Zarathustra. He is known as Zarathusti in Persian and Zaratosht in Gujarati. Zoroaster's birth and early life are little documented. What is known is recorded in the Gathas—the core of the Avesta, which contains hymns thought to be composed by Zoroaster himself. Born into the Spitama clan, he worked as a priest. He had a wife, three sons, and three daughters. Zoroaster rejected the religion of the Bronze Age Iranians, with their many gods and oppressive class structure, in which the Karvis and Karapans (princes and priests) controlled the ordinary people. He also opposed animal sacrifices and the use of the hallucinogenic Haoma plant (possibly a species of ephedra) in rituals, but held the rooster as a "symbol of light"[38] and associated the c*** with "good against evil"[39] because of his heraldic actions.

Did  Zarathustra originate from India? Everyone who wants I can upload Rooster Bronze age statues from Afghanistan. Vedic script mention „yajnas“ fire sacrifices and „vedish“ –fire altars. Same as in Zoroastrianism.  Braj Basi Lal, archaeologists found Vedish at  Kalibangan which dates from 3rd millenium BC. We also find fire altars in many cities in IVC such as Harappa.

There is none evidence of Aryan invasion/migration yet we used it explaination of Indo Aryan language in India. Aryan came with horses and iron. Iron was not find in Indus Valley yet some Kurgan theorist proposed idea that Aryans came on horses and iron weapon. And they link word „ayas“ from Vedic script to iron. But Ayas means bronze and copper as many scholars proposed.  Yajur and Atharva Vedas spoke about diifferent colors of ayas.  Also at Surkotada we found horse remains dated to cca 2000 BC.
Did Aryans caused colapse of IVC? No. Probably now shadow river Saraswati. There are over 70 % of IVC sites around dried up river. It was Max Mueller s 1853 invention ( word Arya ) as part of Aryan race theory. On Sanskirt it means righteous.
People often say that Aryan bring IE language. Now if that was peaceful migration then how come that their language overwhelmed IVC language. If you came as refugee and seek for help,shelter, place to live and bread you dont act like conquerer. You cant have migration with results of conquering. And if Prakrit languages are not syster then that means we have had multiple migration/invasion in India. Yet we dont see any evidence for that. None Vedic text mention migration into India. Puranas said about migrations of people out of India.

Edited by the L, 26 January 2013 - 06:15 PM.

[the L]

Okay I realy now feel like al Biruni.
Thats a sign I must rest my case.

[the L]

Jay here is something to cheer you up

Mangoze, on 26 October 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

Well I'm convinced.  India is the origin of everything - , including Christianity, view from 10:00 minutes onwards.

Jericho...LOL

...Well, business is business.

Edited by the L, 26 January 2013 - 06:36 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

the L, on 26 January 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Does anyone knows why IVC fall?

It was due, at least in part, to climate change:

http://www.pnas.org/...9.full.pdf html

cormac

[the L]

But Aryans didnt. And I concluded that Sarasvati dried out and 70% of IVC was without water.

[Everdred]

the L, on 26 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Centum explaination provided by Swede is Kurgan theory explaination.

Can you explain upper statement, please develop what you think. I dont understand probably because language barrier (mine).


Tocharians proove us that  linguistic center of gravity isnt in Central Asia and Europe. It switched foward east.
You must add to that Prakrit language as syster IE language .

Also as map in post 9 indicates could it be that from Central Asia they spread west and east and that way they evolve similar as those in europe, while core of IE language (satem) is maintained in Iran and India.(Thats my suggestions)

The idea isn't specific to the Kurgan hypothesis--it fits with Anatolian and OIT as well.  Basically the idea is that IE languages are the result of multiple waves of migration.  So one wave is at a time when PIE is Centum.  This group migrates out from the homeland and continues to develop and eventually splits into subgroups that later become Germanic, Celtic, Italic, and Tocharian.  Meanwhile in the home region the language develops into a Satem form, and later groups migrate out.

Under the Kurgan or Anatolian ideas, the Centum migration is a westward one, but the Tocharians then double back and head Eastward down into China, while the other branches continue further into Europe, and then Satem branches migrate mainly Eastward.  Under OIT, Centum migrates to the North/Northwest into Central Asia, where the Tocharians split off and head Eastward into China, while the rest of the Centum group migrates further West and eventually into Europe.

So basically the Tocharians' Centum affinity can easily be explained in either model, and thus they don't support one hypothesis over the other.

[jaylemurph]

the L, on 26 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

.Tocharians proove us that  linguistic center of gravity isnt in Central Asia and Europe. It switched foward east.
You must add to that Prakrit language as syster IE language .

I'm not sure what a linguistic "centre of gravity" even is, or how it could be used to explain language change or the movement of a people who speak a language. It certainly is not a technique used by linguists. (Although I am a hair away from just giving up on this thread as one that has nothing to do with or learn from actual linguistics. Fantasists are only ever satisfied with fantasy.)

Most people who speak English don't live in England, but that doesn't mean it didn't develop in England and isn't related to Germanic languages. By your argument, then, English must be related to Native American languages. And I'm sure with a lengthy internet search you can find three or four Uto-Aztecan words that sound vaguely like English words, and then conveniently forget that words transfer to proximal languages.

Quote

Also as map in post 9 indicates could it be that from Central Asia they spread west and east and that way they evolve similar as those in europe, while core of IE language (satem) is maintained in Iran and India. (Thats my suggestions)

That you identify Satem languages as a "core" indicates -- as I have pointed out before -- you do not understand the fundamental relationships between languages posited in modern linguistics. I've pointed out at least one text you can get a hold of to learn more. Your grasp of English is well in advance of what you'd need to read it.

Let me ask you, frankly: do you post your material merely to have people tell you how brilliant you are for cutting and pasting interent articles here, or do you want to actually learn more about language? If it's the former, I have nothing to add. I value my time sufficiently not to talk to somone who won't listen. If it's the latter, I urge you to take some time to learn the basics of how languages are formed, and how languages change before you decide for yourself a theory has no merit.

--Jaylemurph

[Harsh86_Patel]

TheSearcher, on 23 January 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

Just so you know, who you are actually talking about.

Koenraad Elst, may be a writer and orientalist, he is however also a right wing nationalist, very close to the Vlaams Belang (very right wing party in the Flanders, known for their xenophobia and ethnocentrism.) Seems he has a special hatred of Islam, as his views on Islam are markedly in line with the neoconservative think-tank "Middle East Forum", to which he has contributed.

Irrespective of his orientations to whatever ideology he follows, his views and contributions to the OIT vs AIT/AMT(Aryan Migration Theory) are very pertinent. If you ask Indians irrespective of nationalism the AMT is viewed as an attempt by the then prevalent western imperialist to enforce race based divides and alienate the Indian populus from their own country.The more recent Kurrugan hypothesis is also viewed as a biased theory.

Also his positions against Islam may be a trend which is now viewed in more favourable light in many western countries by many intellectuals who were previously catering to a more politically correct view.

[Harsh86_Patel]

jaylemurph, on 25 January 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

Actually, no I will answer this. Somewhat. If I fail to repeat myself at your leisure or explain to your personal level of saitsfaction, forgive me. If you're that interested in my response to these questions, which has been posted numerous times on this forum, you are more than welcome to use the Search function. If you are unclear how it works, I'm sure harte will be happy to tutor you.

I do believe in the Kurgan hypothesis. Or rather, I understand the arguments from which it is made and agree with the findings of those who postulate it. I don't necessarily /believe/ it, as belief requires faith and I don't think that's called for in a rational study.

I actually agree with you: there is precious little hard evidence to be found, and as that is the case, a great deal of theory in the matter is speculation. And the speculation has to be taken lighly in direct proportion to the evidence found for it. However, I suspect the historical speculation is a great deal more informed than you are aware. You may want to look into some texts on the PIE history, culture and language -- Fortson's Indo-European Langauge and Culture: An Introduction is (as it implies) a good introduction to the subject that discusses the evidence, the speculation and the process of theorization currently going on in the field. From what I have read in the field, the people doing serious work are the first to state how theoretical it is, and how subject to correction it is.

It is generally the internet "fringe lunacy" reported (to use a generous term) by people like the L that claim some manner of superiority or correctness.

And your insistence on one field -- history -- over another field shows a plutot jejeune insistence on the breakdown of individual studies that I think you'll find does not really occur in advanced studies. You may also want to take some time to learn about historiography, if you're that convinced history and historians are always correct. (This may well help you to learn the difference between an archeaologist and a historian, since no historian -- by definition -- would be speculating about pre-literate, prehistoric cultures like the PIE ones.)

--Jaylemurph

I like your reply to my speculation on your response and i appreciate that it was made in a very mature manner. Though i will turn down your offer of being tutored by Harte, i am always open for a non-emotional discussion with anyone.
I understand your perspective on the mainstream approach to this subject and the amount of rationalization and deduction involved in the exercise before approving a proposed hypothesis for eg- Kurrugan Hypotheisis, but i would like to point out modestly that all the subsequent rationalisation and deduction and opinion building happens only once an initial platform or direction is decided.My major objection is the direction chosen for the hypothesis and subsequent blanketing and ridiculing of the alternatives which maybe more plausible and equally logical.
It is entirely possible that if the mainstream had spent equal amount of time and effort in gathering support for the OIT instead of the current alternative they would by now have a more robust Urheimat Theory then one being currently heralded by them.
Since a lot of personal opinions are involved in a subject like history (whether backed by physical evidence or based on academic opinion and consensus from limited dominant circles) hence it gets very difficult to accept any historical hypothesis as unbiased. Also fund and asset allocation towards a particular cause make all the difference in how much exposure and acceptance a Hypothesis can gather conversely ridicule and blanketing can often kill a hypothesis before it buds.

[Harsh86_Patel]

the L, on 26 January 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Does anyone knows why IVC fall?

Can look at Mahabharata for some explanations.
1.For starters the mahabharata was a great war fought between two warring sections the 'Pandus' and the 'Kurrus'. The Kurrus lost the battle ultimately and were banished from their lands. The name 'Kurru' does it strike a bell? ('Kurrugan' would literally mean 'the soldiers of Kurru' in Sanskrit)
2.Large scale banishment of a defeated faction can be a reasonable explanation of what we observe in the IVC ruins. The 'Pandus' though victorious couldn't sustain the damages of this war and ultimately the entire civilization collapsed as entire kingdoms were destroyed or it's people killed.
3.Mahabharata is a war that was fought under a strict code of conduct where the battlefield (kurukshetra) was pre-decided and the battles were only fought from Dawn to Dusk after which the dead were claimed by each side and the last rights/creamations were performed. This sort of warfare can explain why there are no sign of battle or war in the IVC ruins since the battles never entered the residences of the people fighting the war.
4.The fall from glory of the IVC and the approximate time of the Mahbharata according to archeoastronomy somewhat coincide.
5.Also an interesting fact is that in the War the king of Gandhar (modern day Afghanistan) was an ally of the Pandus and hence the defeated Kurrus might have been forced to take a northern path towards central asia or towards Russia during their migration/banishment.
6.The recent rediscovery of the Saraswati river delta and numerous archaeological finds on the extinct river banks holds a candle to the credibility of Indian Mythology.(Saraswati is often mentioned in the RigVeda as a mighty river and it was long thought to be a fairytale until recent satellite images confirmed that it did exist historically and started dying out around 4000 B.C.)