The traditional tamil thought is that there
  was a movement of the Yadavas from Dwaraka after the
  floods, then there indeed may be evidence of saraswati
  scripts in the south. It would be no surprise at all.

regards,
subrahmanya

--- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Michel Danino" <micheldanino@...>
wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
> For the past few years we have seen and heard many claims that South India
> is full of "Indus signs" - they have been suddenly discovered everywhere,
> incised on stone axes, painted on pottery or engraved in caves. Scholars
> driven by various ideologies have been rivalling with one another in proving
> the existence of Indus script in the South, unmindful of the 1,500-year gap
> between the disappearance of the script in the North-West and its supposed
> reappearance in the South. In reality, not a single unmistakably Harappan
> sequence of Indus signs has been found anywhere in the South, and I hold
> that with a little goodwill it is always possible to see parallels between
> any two scripts.
>
> To expose the many metholodical flaws in the above claims, I presented a
> paper at the International Symposium on Indus Civilization and Tamil
> Language 2007 organized by the Dept. of Archaeology, Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
> Chennai, 15-16 February 2007: "A Dravido-Harappan Connection? The Issue of
> Methodology." It has been published (with a few cuts in the conclusion) in
> the seminar's proceedings: Indus Civilization and Tamil Language, T.S.
> Sridhar and N. Marxia Gandhi, eds., Department of Archaeology, Government of
> Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 2009, pp. 70-81:
> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16704742/A-Dravido-Harappan-Connection-The-Issue
> -of-Methodology
>
> (The unedited text is at
> www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/A_Dravido-Harappan_connection.pdf .)
>
> Regards,
>
> Michel
>

Good to see how an Indian has finally entered the debate after having done his
homework on the linguistic AIT debate. Ravilochan does a good job here.

Just one more point for now.

>
> What we have is plenty of words with archaic
> features which are not attested 
>
> in RgVeda :
>
> aika for eka
>
> mizda for mi:dha
>

When I consider the existing dialects of Dutch and German, which I know
intimately, I find in some respects conservative features in A and innovations
in B, in other respects innovations in A and conservatism in B. If we take a
small enough sample, we can thus "prove" that A long precedes B; of we take
another small enough sample, we may "find" that B is older than A. On this
basis, no serious mutual chronology of dialects can be established. In the case
of pre-Mitannic Indo-Aryan, our sample is limited to a few dozen words. On the
IE scale, this is well-attested, with e.g. Lithuanian retaining features today
that Latin lost 2500 years ago, yet modern Lithuanian not being an older form of
Latin. It is perfectly possible that in the dialect continuum of NW India, one
dialect retained "mazdha" while another evolved it into "medha", at the same
time or even earlier, the first one migrating westward and the second one being
used for composing the Vedas.

You make the point very well:

>
>
> I have already clarified my position on Prakrit. You seem to be of the opinion
> that it is necessary for languages which moved out of India to be
‘descended’
> from the Vedic for the OIT to hold. To put in other words, your view is that
if
> any language seems to hold on to pre-Vedic archaisms, then that language has
to
> necessarily predate Vedic. If so, then Bangani is older than Vedic.
>
> The truth is that we are not considering an OIT in which Indo-Aryan/Vedic is
> PIE. Various IE dialects developed in the subcontinent with the modern
Indo-Aryan
> being one among them. You seem to have missed one major issue as well. When
the
> Mitanni migrated to West Asia, they would have passed the Persians. ‘Aika’
and ‘Mazdha’
> are found in Ir in their archaic forms. It is very much possible that it is an
> Iranian effect on Mitanni. Kindly keep in mind that when we analyse a
situation
> from the OIT point of view, the direction of migration considered should also
> be reversed (i.e.) out of India rather than into India.
>


A year after Talageri's argumentation for the late-Vedic dating of Mitannic IA
and of Old Iranian has not been *refuted* on any point at all. It has been
pooh-poohed as non-conform, which of course it is, but never shown to be untrue.

Kind regards,

KE

The languages of wisdom in ancient Greece and India – Alexis Pinchard

Alexis Pinchard, Les langues de sagesse dans la Grèce et l'Inde anciennes. Hautes Études du monde gréco-romain 43.   Genève:  Droz, 2009.  Pp. x, 637.  ISBN 9782600013475.  $140.00 (pb).   

Reviewed by Alberto Bernabé, albernab@... (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2009.11.28

[Table of Contents is listed at the end of the review.]

In this volume A. Pinchard proposes an approach to the study of history of wisdom and ideas, applying the comparative methodology of Indo-European structuralism. Pinchard's central thesis is that common elements in the linguistic and mythological heritage of Ancient India and Greece, as well as some common techniques in poetic composition, reflect the similar formation and regularity of a related wisdom. According to him, this wisdom, acting as universal grammar of traditions, determines a series of possible combinations and assures through ages and cultures the eternity of an intellectual project. Vedic literature and Plato serve as the most representative models for this comparative study which aims to unveil the essence which encouraged the "excellence intellectuelle" attested in these related languages and ultimately turns out to be "la quête épistémique de l'essence des choses (οὐσία)".

nous faisons l'hypothèse que la parenté linguistique entre l'Inde et la Grèce, à la suite de la mythologie et des techniques de composition poétique, s'accompagne d'une parenté sapientiale susceptible de la même formalisation et de la même régularité entr'expressive. La langue ne saurait se réduire à un simple véhicule, incapable d'orienter les pensées qu'elle porte. Elle détermine au moins une série de possibilités qui, quoique donnant lieu à diverses combinaisons, assure la pérennité d'un projet intellectuel à travers la multitude des âges et des cultures.

In Indo-European linguistics scholars have defined a coherent methodology based on the regularity of phonetic changes in specific areas; unfortunately, for a study of configuration of ideas this becomes much more complex. It is therefore absolutely crucial to define a valid methodology; that is why the discussion of methodological aspects occupies an important part of this book.

Parallels between two cultures might be explained by common origin (sharing the same cultural ancestors or being both influenced by a third party), as a universal parallel which does not necessarily presuppose a cultural contact, or by mutual influence. The author starts from the assumption that the similarities between India and Greece, especially between "the Veda" and Plato or the Greek mysteries, emerged from the same origin. The possibility of later contact between the two cultures and a possible mutual influence between them is neglected. This is really aparti pris that can cloud some results of the research. On the other hand, structural comparison frequently neglects important historical aspects and combines in the same reality features that go from different times and never were in the same pattern.1

This approach undoubtedly reveals very interesting parallels between both cultures; however, it is important not to forget that in spite of their original similarity or equivalence many pieces might have changed their context and function so much that one should ask if they have more things in common or, on the contrary, if there are further relevant aspects, which differentiate them. For example: it is interesting to notice that Agni and Dionysus share some characteristics, epithets, and that they might have similar mythical ancestors, but that does not mean that their roles are comparable, even in their assumed "fonction initiatique". Agni represents more than any other god the essence of the cosmic order and becomes the central pillar of sacrifice, which is extremely regulated in Vedic literature; Dionysus, on the contrary, plays exactly the opposite role: he is the disorder which reaffirms order. On the other hand, we know, especially since Heesterman's anthropological studies (not mentioned in this context) that the destructive aspect is essential to Vedic sacrifice as well. Dionysus might share more characteristics with other gods.

Because Pinchard tries to cover so many aspects of the question, it is not surprising that many nuances are neglected. There is no doubt that Pinchard has put a lot effort in determining points of contact between the world of mysteries and Indian thought, and has reached many interesting conclusions, but he has much less interest in pointing out the differences between his primary texts in cultural context, function, and meaning, and the result of this is sometimes a simplification of complex realities. For example, in chapter II Pinchard tries to reconstruct an Indo-European model for the Orphic-Eleusinian theology, but our evidence for an "Eleusinian theology" is scarce, and it is risky to assert that there was a continuum between it and the Orphic doctrines. Besides, in this chapter Pinchard's bibliographical information is very limited: the edition of the Gold Tablets he uses is the French one by Pugliese Carratelli,2 but there are many recent approaches not taken in consideration.3 For the Hymns he quotes (p. 475 n. 65) Quandt's edition, but there is a more recent and well commented edition by G. Ricciardelli and an excellent study by A.-F. Morand4; there are also many works which compare Plato and Orphic texts.5 We find also some inaccuracies.6

Therefore, I might conclude that Pinchard undertakes the admirable task to reach the essential roots of wisdom, offers us a series of very interesting parallels, and allows us to have a deeper insight into the complex world of configuration of concepts and ideas which time ago "have started already in secret"; as long as one keeps in mind that ideas are sometimes closer related to their times than to their genesis. Pinchard introduces a lot of new proposals in a scarcely cultivated field. Without doubt the contributions by Pinchard will serve as a starting point for future research.

Table of Contents:

INTRODUCTION
Première partie : Une méthode nouvelle pour un problème ancien
Chapitre premier : la sagesse, une question à reprendre
La décision aristotélicienne : la sagesse comme science
1) Définition et pérennité de la sagesse
2) Un parti pris épistémique contestable
Résistence de la figure socratique
1) La sagesse comme docte ignorance
2) Réfutation, herméneutique, énigme
3) Sagesse herméneutique et sagesse épistémique irréconciliables ? 
La tradition de l'énigme sapientiale en amont de Socrate
1) Les sophistes et la force du verbe
2) Les Sept Sages, ou la "bonne" pratique de l'énigme
3) L'énigme sapientiale ou le reniement du monde
Antinomie de la sagesse grecque
1) Sagesse archaïque et omniscience divinatoire
2) L'unité de la sagesse, perdue mais nécessaire au nom du Bien
3) Le monde est structuré comme un langage : une solution à portée de main ? 
Insuffisance de la solution platonicienne exotérique
1) La scission entre λόγος
2) Incompatibilité du λόγος mathématique et des pratiques divinatoires traditionelles
3) De l'énigme comme sagesse à la sagesse comme énigme
Chapitre II : légitimité d'une aproche comparative
La primauté de la question du langage
1) La grammaire comparée, un modèle épistémologique généralisable ? 
2) Trifonctionnalité dumézilienne et niveaux de discours
3) Parole de première fonction et langue poétique indo-européenne
Poétique indo-européenne et sagesse
1) Deux exemples d'énigmes apparentées
2) La convergence des énigmes vers le Soi
3) La sagesse entre atman et brahman
4) Opposition héritée entre les noms de la langue des hommes et celle des dieux
Deuxième partie : LA LANGUE DES DIEUX : UNE PRATIQUE SAPIENTIALE EXEMPLAIRE
Chapitre premier: LE DISCOURS SUR LE LANGAGE CONTRE LE DISCOURS SUR L'ÊTRE? 
A. Valeur cathartique de l'interprétation étymologisante
1) Du marquage sémantique à la grammaticalité 
2) Un savoir sur les noms ou un savoir sur les choses ? 
3) Le problème des doubles motivations
B. La vérité des dieux fondée dans les noms de leur langue
1) Une structure cosmico-épistémique : dieux véridiques et mortels ambigus
2) De la parole vraie à al langue vraie
3) Platon : la vérité des noms de la langue des dieux comme adéquation du sens à l'essence
4) Le "nom chéri" des dieux, un secret connu d'eux seuls
C. Quel occulte pour la bouche vérace des dieux? 
1) Risque de conflit entre l'exigence de secret et l'exigence de vérité 
2) L'occulte comme ineffabilité 
3) L'occulte comme agrammaticalité 
4) L'essence platonicienne, point de rencontre entre vérité et occulte ? 
Chapitre II : LES TRACES D'UNE THÉORIE INDOEUROPÉENNE DES IDÉES? 
A. Hiérarchie parallèle des noms et des "corps" divins
1) Des poètes incapables de s'extraire hors du sensible ? 
2) "Noms chéries" et "corps chéries"
3) Hypostases de Soma
4) "Sur le dos du ciel"
B. Le Veda comme "Vivant intelligible intégral"
1) Éternité, essentialité : le statut ontologique du Veda, héritier des noms de la langue des dieux
2) Paradigmaticité efficace du Veda à l'égard de toute parole humaine
3) Paradigmaticité efficace du Veda à l'égard du monde
4) Universalité et sphota
Chapitre III : LA MAÎTRISE DE LA TRADITION AU MÉPRIS DE L'ESSENCE
A. Le relatif contre l'essentiel
1) Un conflit interne à la motivation étymologique
2) Faiblesse de la motivation étymologique en général face à l'essence
B. La promotion sapientiale de la dialectique
1) Le nécessaire ajournement de la langue des dieux comme langue aux noms vrais
2) L'énigme comme seule parole divine en l'homme, et ses limites
3) L'idée, solution à l'énigme du sensible ? 
C. La langue des dieux comme formalisation rationelle des mythes
1) La motivation relativiste des plus anciens noms de la langue des dieux
2) Hermétisme et principe de raison
3) Les illusions de la sagesse comme science des choses fondée sur celle des noms
Chapitre IV : DE LA COMPLICATION DU SIGNE À LA COMPLEXITÈ DE L'ÊTRE
A. La mémoire des traditions au service de la réminiscence métaphysique
1) Une commune méfiance à l'égard de l'écriture
2) Ce que les dieux appellent "se remémorer", les hommes le nomment "apprendre"
3) Redoublement de l'occultation et évidence originelle
B. Une autre ontologie : la vérité par la tradition et dans la tradition
1) L'efficace de la parole vraie, ou l'insuffisance de l'interprétation épistémique de la vérité 
2) Vérité et Ordre
3) Coexistence des dieux trompeurs des mythes et des dieux véraces de sagesse
C. La dialectique du bráhman, ou l'invention du monisme
1) De la formule magique à l'absolu substantiel
2) Om et le dépassement du formulaire de double nomination
3) Relativisation des noms divins et humains face au brahman
D. Généalogie nominaliste du concept d'essence (οὐσία)
1) L'idée, synthèse de la formule magique singulière et de l'absolu substantiel
2) L'accident antérieur à l'essence
3) Réintegration du sophiste dans la sagesse la plus authentique
4) Les Mystères comme véhicule de l'ontologie essentialiste ? 
Troisième partie : ORIGINE, SIGNIFICATION ET FONCTION DES MYSTÈRES
Chapitre premier: LA SAGESSE GRECQUE SOUS LE SIGNE DES MYSTÈRES
A. Les références mystériques au coeur de la philosophie
1) Platon et les sophistes : une querelle d'héritage
2) La découverte du λόγος cosmique en soi-même comme rituel d'initiation
3) La délivrance à l'égard du temps comme rituel d'initiation
B. Les Mystères, aliénés ou dévoilés par Platon? 
1) Le perfectionnement par la connaissance contre le perfectionnement par le rite
2) Double ritualité et mémoire dans les Mystères
3) Double ritualité et réminiscence platonicienne
C. Platon : le recours aux Mystères comme impératif systémique 
1) Allusions à une tradition de l'hypothèse des Formes
2) Seul le Bien dispense de la tradition
3) Insuffisance structurelle des soi-disant "preuves" de l'existance de Formes séparées
D. Apories rémanentes du mystérisme platonicien
1) Sempiternité ou éternité ? 
2) Appel au comparatisme
Chapitre II: UN MODÈLE INDO-EUROPÉEN POUR LA THÉOLOGIE ORPHICO-ÉLEUSINIENNE
A. Dionysos, Agni et leurs familles respectives
1) Filiation
2) Pouvoir de réengendrement et immortalisation
3) Lieux et valeurs sapientiales des naissances multiples
4) Les mères mystiques : Perséphone et Usas (Aurore) 
B. Insuffisance de l'interprétation naturaliste des Mystères
1) La cosmologie, système symbolique au même titre que les mythologies familiales
2) Affinité équivoque de l'Aurore et du domaine nocturno-infernal
3) Connaissance et nuit chez les pythagoriciens et Platon
C. Ontologie essentialiste, cosmologie et rituel
Chapitre III : MYSTÈRES ET POÉTIQUE INDO-EUROPÉENNE
1) OusiáHestiáomphalos chez Philolaos et Platon
2) Agní, atmán, nábhi
3) (οὐσία) hypercosmique, Hestia centrale et double localisation d'Agni
A. Des arts de la mémoire à la détemporalisation de l'existence
1) La perfection octroyée par les Mystères, intérieure ou extérieure ? 
2) L'énigme, la morte et immortalité 
3) Le Veda, un commencement tardif
B. Rencontres entre immortalité mystérique et immortalité poétique
1) Les deux noms de Sémélé 
2) Énigme et voyages outre-tombe
3) La "gloire impérissable " et l'initiation érotique 
C. La quête de l'inspiration, récit fondateur
1) Voyants primordiaux, Pères, Héros
2) Le rite, substitut non élitiste de l'intuition poétique
3) La katabase de Parménide
4) La philosophie, ou l'impossible retour à l'intuition poétique
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
I. Sources antiques
II. Littérature secondaire
INDEX

Notes:

1.   For example, a text of Plato's Cratyle (403e-404b) about the etymology of Persephone cannot be used (p. 491) as evidence for reconstructing common Greek ideas about the goddess; Pinchard himself (n. 111) admits that the passage is parodic. 
2.   G. Pugliese Carratelli, Les lamelles d'or orphiques, Paris 2003. 
3.   A. Bernabé - A. I. Jiménez San Cristóbal, Instrucciones para el Más Allá. Las laminillas órficas de oro, Madrid 2001 (there is not even one Spanish title in Pinchard's bibliography); English version,Instructions for the Netherworld. The Orphic Gold Tablets, Leiden 2008, A. Bernabé, Poetae Epici Graeci Testimonia et fragmenta, II 2, Monachii et Lipsiae 2004, M. Tortorelli Ghidini, Figli della terra e del cielo stellato, Napoli 2006, F. Graf - S. I. Johnston, Ritual Texts for the Afterlife, London 2007. 
4.   G. Ricciardelli, Inni Orfici, Milano 2000, A. F. Morand, Études sur les Hymnes orphiques, Leiden-Boston 2001. 
5.   For example, A. Masaracchia, "Orfeo e gli 'orfici' in Platone," A. Masaracchia, (ed.), Orfeo e l'orfismo, Roma 1993, 173-197, A. Bernabé, "Platone e l'orfismo," G. Sfameni Gasparro (ed.), Destino e salvezza: tra culti pagani e gnosi cristiana. Itinerari storico-religiosi sulle orme di Ugo Bianchi, Cosenza, 37-97, R. Edmonds, Myths of the Underworld Journey. Plato, Aristophanes, and the 'Orphic' Gold Tablets, Cambridge 2004. 
6.   On p. 378 αΐσσω should read ἀείσω; ξυνετοῖσι κτλ. is not only "the first verse of the Theogony commented by Derveni papyrus, according to M. West", but is the first verse of the Orphic Rhapsodies and other Orphic poems; cf. A. Bernabé, Poetae Epici fr. 101 and id., "La fórmula órfica 'cerrad las puertas, profanos'. Del profano religioso al profano en la materia," Ilu. Revista de ciencias de las religiones 1, 1996, 13-37. On p. 602 M. L. West appears as the editor of the Orphic Theogony of the Derveni Papyrus, but the British scholar has made only an ingenious (and dubious!) exempli gratia reconstruction of the text.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-11-28.html

Arnaud you seem to be taking too much of a leap and
   overinterpreting the so called 'linguistic' data.

   Instead of bringing in too much to discuss,lets
   look at just the cuneiform writing and its accuracy.
   Since I dont know cuneiform, how would you think
   my name is written. we can take up a name like
   vasishTa or dIrghatamas later.

   If my name were to be written in cuneiform by an
   european who has just 'heard my name' my guess
   is that it would well be written as
   sa ba ra ha ma na ya. (Please correct it if needed)
   So let us assume you saw this cuneiform writing.

   What would this tell you about the age of just such
   word by looking at the cuneiform ?

   Btw, Even the english spelling does not do justice
   to the specific way my name has to be pronounced and
   no european ever gets the pronunciation 100 percent right.

    We can take up specific Rigvedic nouns later and check
    how they would be written in cuneiform.  If it happens
    that Rigvedic terms rendered in cuneiform are different
    than Rigvedic prounciation. Do you know what that would
    do to so called 'linguistic' evidence for dating ?

  regards,
  Subrahmanya


--- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Well, I think we have to deal with whatever data we
> have. In that case, we  have what Scribes wrote in cuneiform.
> In many cases, what they wrote is very faithful to the
> phonetic reality of Indo-Aryan, like Tu-i-ish-ra-at-ta-a for
> Tveshratha: with final long vowel.
> Indo-Aryan can in fact be used to determine what Hurrian was
> because plene writing and cuneiform conventions are impressively
> coherent with Indo-Aryan  as we know it.
> For that matter, the data we have cannot be dismissed
> as "spellings" as you  say, which seems to convey the idea that
> the data are irrelevantly written in an inadequate and
> artificial orthography.
> This is not the case. The consequence is that these data
> when different from
> Indo-Aryan as we know it definitely say something.
> A.
> ***


>
> Now, onto your argument that Mittani is older than Vedic, I would ask the
> AMT/AIT school to not spout random words as evidence. You seem to follow
> Witzel blindly in this case.
> ***
> I usually never follow anybody "blindly", least of all hostile strangers.
> A.
> ***
>
>
> The presence of ‘aika’ in Mittani IA is not a definite evidence of pre-RV
> period. 'Satta' used by the Mittani is more Prakrit than Vedic. So shall we
> say that Mittani is closer to Prakrit (and not just post-Vedic).
> ***
> The case of satta instead of sapta may be an internal problem with Hurrian.
> The sequence -pt- does not seem to exist in the language.
> The cuneiform sequence -vp-Cv usually stands for -w-C. It is unclear if
> satta is an inadequate rendition of sapta or if satta actually is satta (I
> would opt for the latter).
>
> What we have is plenty of words with archaic features which are not attested
> in RgVeda :
> aika for eka
> mizda for mi:dha
> I hope to find more examples..
> Moreover Varuna is either attested as Aruna or Uruwana (< *Ruwana).
> Another point is the name of the horse-trainer Kikkuli which I consider an
> archaic form of Skrt kis^ora "foal" < *kik(a)ul-
> For that matter, Mittani Aryan is necessarily older and slightly different
> form Indo-Aryan and impossibly post-Vedic.
> In all cases, the statement that Mitanni-Aryan has anything to do with
> Prakrit is to be dismissed
> A.
> ***
>
>
> A few words cannot make evidence (esp. when they can be interpreted anyway
> the 'scholars' want).
> ***
> No
> If your point is to dismiss the evidence we have, then the discussion will
> not go very far.
> A.
> ***
>
>
> Your claim that linguistic data 'undoubtedly' puts Vedic as younger to
> Mittani is far-fetched and misleading.
> ***
> Then, what is your counter-analysis of my arguments ?
> See above.
> A.
> ***
>
>
> Moreover, Mittani has only few IA words. As such, any ‘argument’ based on
> evidence of absence is baseless (hence, please stop stating that late
> RV-words are not present in Mittani). Finally, Mittani IA uses the word
> ‘mani’ which is from late-RV period.
> ***
> Which word is this "mani" ?
> Moreover, with all the Person names, it's possible that we have about thirty
> to fifty Mitanni Aryan "stems".
> A.
> ***
>
>
> The presence of ‘aika’ does not prove Mittani as pre-RV. After all, Rg
Veda
> was redacted many times before it was frozen and it has undergone
> pronunciation changes as well. Therefore, it is very much possible that
> ‘aika’ was used in RV and that it was changed to ‘eka’ during the
redactions
> (similarly the other sounds such as ‘zdh’).
> ***
> Yes, I agree that we cannot dismiss the possibility that sound changes
> occured between the time RgVeda was orally composed and the time when RgVeda
> was written black on white at a later period.
> This can be evidenced for example with Homer. There are metrical scars that
> the language was not the same when some verses were composed.
>
> Now, as regards RgVeda, we know that the verses were scanded and memorized
> with several pada-decomposing methods: I read three were in constant use.
> What evidence do you have from the traditional pada-decompositions that eka,
> which is was we really have, was **ever** decomposed as a-i-ka, which is
> what eka *used to be* ?
> and what evidence do you have that mi:dha was **ever** decomposed as
> mi-iz-dha ?
> I tend to think that no such evidence exists. But I may be wrong.
> If you have references that indeed show that these words may have been
> decomposed as they etymologically used to be *before* the composition of the
> RgVeda, then you have a point. Otherwise your theory is just wrong, I'm
> afraid.
>
> A.
> ***
>
>
> Also, the Mittani would have crossed the Iranians on their way to Aratta. As
> such, it is possible that they took up some Iranian sounds.
> ***
> There is no reason to think Mitanni Aryans came from India and moved thru
> Iranians.
> They may just have followed their own way from North-west-Central Asia
> toward Anatolia, while the other branches were moving south.
>
> Another point is that anytime we can make a difference between Iranian and
> Indo-Aryan, Mitanni-Aryan sides like an archaic (pre-RgVedic) form of
> Indo-Aryan.
> A.
> ***
>
>
> So, the argument that Mittani is pre-RV is not an ‘invincible’ one as
Witzel
> and you would like us to believe. The truth is that Mittani uses a late RV
> word (mani). It has at least one Prakrit word form (satta).
> ***
> Satta as said before may be caused by Hurrian itself.
> For the time being, you have not explained what this word "mani" is.
> A.
> ***
>
>
> As such, we can definitely state that Mittani belongs to late RV or post-RV
> era. The fact that Mittani names are very similar to late RV books (Talageri
> 2008: 175 - 180) has been well established by Talageri.
> ***
> Sorry, but this is just wrong.
> Talageri (2008:176) compares medha with biria-masda : masda archaic form
> !!!! -z- retaining as in *mi-z-dha
> A.
> ***
>
>
>
> Also remember that Mittani IAs would have left the subcontinent a few
> centuries earlier before they conquered West Asia and that Mittani IA words
> are found in texts which were written much later. As such, any argument
> about ‘earlier sound forms’ is nullified as RV was redacted after this
> migration period. Words are better evidences than sounds in this matter.
> Mittani words support the OIT rather than AMT as they use late RV words.
> ***
> As explained so far, this conclusion is just completely wrong.
> The only thing that Mitanni Aryan proves is that the RgVeda is younger than
> the Mitanni Kingdom.
> A.
> ***
>
>
> The key argument of Lal and others is: Indra and Varuna were worshipped by
> these names only in the subcontinent.
> ***
> Be careful that Mitanni Aryans worshipped Ruwana not Varuna...
> A.
> ***
>
>
> The Vedic people do not say that they came from any foreign land. Instead
> the Rg Veda speaks about an east to west 'expansion' (and not migration).
> ***
> The American constitution does not mention any invasion of the Americas and
> the literary tradition of the Americans speaks about an expansion toward the
> Far West.
> Consequently, the English language originates in New York city [I let you
> choose the street and number] and the logical consequence is that this is
> the Out-of-NYC theory of PIE.
> A.
> ***
>
>
> The western lands are seen only in the later books. Then, we come across a
> later Vedic text which states that a set of people migrated to the west
> while the others migrated to the east. It also states that those who
> migrated to the west did not perform the Vedic rituals. As such, it fits the
> description of the Avestans who were not performing Vedic sacrifices. Then,
> you come across a land whose name is very similar to Aratta and where the IE
> entered as conquerors and still remembered their God Indra who was not
> worshipped by this name by any other IE group outside the subcontinent.
>
> Common sense demands that we identify these conquerors as the Indo-Aryans
> who migrated to Aratta.
> ***
> What is this "Aratta" ??
> This word just does not exist at all in Hurrian...
> A.
> ***
>
>
> And why does it make you wonder that OIT scholars who do not accept any
> 'Aryan invasion' of India readily accept the 'Aryan invasion' of Aratta?
> There is no hypocrisy in this. There is simply no archaeological/literary
> evidence for any Aryan invasion of India while we have both for the Mittani
> Indo-Aryans.
>
> As for your example about 'ostrich', I feel that it applies more to the
> AIT/AMT school than anyone else. After all, they keep on harping the same
> tune despite the fact that there is neither archaeological nor literary
> evidence to support their viewpoint.
> ***
> There are mountains of lexical and linguistic evidence.
> A.
>

First it was the efforts to trace the native origins of "international Indians" like astronaut Sunita Williams, now scholars and archaeologists in Bihar have staked a claim to poet Kalidas.

Recently, about 60 scholars gathered at the Patna division of Archaeolo-gical Survey of India (ASI) in a bid to trace and preserve the birthplace of Kalidas, whose life and times are shrouded in mystery. After a daylong discourse, scholars agreed to ASI's Superintending Archaeologist Dr Phani Kant Mishra's suggestion to launch excavations to support the belief that Kalidas was born in the Madhubani-Darbhanga region.

"After the current floods recede, a team of archaeologists would visit Uchaith, believed to be the birthplace of Kalidas," Mishra said.

However, Bihar Religious Trusts Board Administrator and Sanskrit scholar Kishore Kunal, who presided over the ASI meet, later admitted that the time and place of birth of Kalidas may not be established by excavations. "Mithila's claim over Kalidas is based on the fact that he had compared lips with `bimb-phala', a fruit found in the region," he said.

Different regions claim Kalidas as their own. Bengal scholars maintain Kalidas was a Bengali because of his name (Kali + Das) and Kalidas Research Committee  organises an annual Kalidas Utsav. They also believe he was born in Gadda Singru village in Murshidabad. Kashmiri scholars say in Kumarsambhavam and Meghdootum his description of the Himalayan region matched with Kashmir. Ujjain calls Kalidas its own as he was a gem in the court of Vikramaditya (Chandragupta-ll), the place of his principal literary activities. Oriya scholars claim he was born at Ramagiri in Orissa. Many believe he was a native of Ramtek in Madhya Pradesh and it was here that he penned Meghdootum.

Sahitya Akademy awardee Govind Jha says there are songs in his dramas that match Maithili folk songs. Besides, he says, Kalidas might have shifted to Ujjain. In the 18th century, Sir George Abraham Grierson, the man behind the Linguistic Survey of India, found Kalidih, the birthplace of Kalidas, in Uchaith, says Jha. Kalidas is believed to have gained wisdom in Siddhipitha temple here, which also housed his pathshala. In local dialect and survey records it is mentioned as Kaildasko Chaupdi, the college of Kalidas.

Archaeologists believe the site is very old and an excavation might yield good results. Even as scholars may agree to disagree over the great bard's birthplace, he continues to enthrall one and all everywhere.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/1103/OFFTRACK/A+birthplace+for+the+bard.html

----- Original Message -----
From: ravilochanan iyengar
To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Prof. BB Lal's response to a critique on westward
migration of Vedic people


Dear Arnaud

You seem to follow the other AIT/AMT scholars in picking out insignificant
things like 'spellings' of names (which incidentally are not in English).
Wouldn't it be better if you just kept to the main arguments rather than
'spellings'?
***
Dear Mr. Ravilochanan Iyengar

Well, I think we have to deal with whatever data we have. In that case, we
have what Scribes wrote in cuneiform.
In many cases, what they wrote is very faithful to the phonetic reality of
Indo-Aryan, like Tu-i-ish-ra-at-ta-a for Tveshratha: with final long vowel.
Indo-Aryan can in fact be used to determine what Hurrian was because plene
writing and cuneiform conventions are impressively coherent with Indo-Aryan
as we know it.
For that matter, the data we have cannot be dismissed as "spellings" as you
say, which seems to convey the idea that the data are irrelevantly written
in an inadequate and artificial orthography.
This is not the case. The consequence is that these data when different from
Indo-Aryan as we know it definitely say something.
A.
***


Now, onto your argument that Mittani is older than Vedic, I would ask the
AMT/AIT school to not spout random words as evidence. You seem to follow
Witzel blindly in this case.
***
I usually never follow anybody "blindly", least of all hostile strangers.
A.
***


The presence of ‘aika’ in Mittani IA is not a definite evidence of pre-RV
period. 'Satta' used by the Mittani is more Prakrit than Vedic. So shall we
say that Mittani is closer to Prakrit (and not just post-Vedic).
***
The case of satta instead of sapta may be an internal problem with Hurrian.
The sequence -pt- does not seem to exist in the language.
The cuneiform sequence -vp-Cv usually stands for -w-C. It is unclear if
satta is an inadequate rendition of sapta or if satta actually is satta (I
would opt for the latter).

What we have is plenty of words with archaic features which are not attested
in RgVeda :
aika for eka
mizda for mi:dha
I hope to find more examples..
Moreover Varuna is either attested as Aruna or Uruwana (< *Ruwana).
Another point is the name of the horse-trainer Kikkuli which I consider an
archaic form of Skrt kis^ora "foal" < *kik(a)ul-
For that matter, Mittani Aryan is necessarily older and slightly different
form Indo-Aryan and impossibly post-Vedic.
In all cases, the statement that Mitanni-Aryan has anything to do with
Prakrit is to be dismissed
A.
***


A few words cannot make evidence (esp. when they can be interpreted anyway
the 'scholars' want).
***
No
If your point is to dismiss the evidence we have, then the discussion will
not go very far.
A.
***


Your claim that linguistic data 'undoubtedly' puts Vedic as younger to
Mittani is far-fetched and misleading.
***
Then, what is your counter-analysis of my arguments ?
See above.
A.
***


Moreover, Mittani has only few IA words. As such, any ‘argument’ based on
evidence of absence is baseless (hence, please stop stating that late
RV-words are not present in Mittani). Finally, Mittani IA uses the word
‘mani’ which is from late-RV period.
***
Which word is this "mani" ?
Moreover, with all the Person names, it's possible that we have about thirty
to fifty Mitanni Aryan "stems".
A.
***


The presence of ‘aika’ does not prove Mittani as pre-RV. After all, Rg Veda
was redacted many times before it was frozen and it has undergone
pronunciation changes as well. Therefore, it is very much possible that
‘aika’ was used in RV and that it was changed to ‘eka’ during the
redactions
(similarly the other sounds such as ‘zdh’).
***
Yes, I agree that we cannot dismiss the possibility that sound changes
occured between the time RgVeda was orally composed and the time when RgVeda
was written black on white at a later period.
This can be evidenced for example with Homer. There are metrical scars that
the language was not the same when some verses were composed.

Now, as regards RgVeda, we know that the verses were scanded and memorized
with several pada-decomposing methods: I read three were in constant use.
What evidence do you have from the traditional pada-decompositions that eka,
which is was we really have, was **ever** decomposed as a-i-ka, which is
what eka *used to be* ?
and what evidence do you have that mi:dha was **ever** decomposed as
mi-iz-dha ?
I tend to think that no such evidence exists. But I may be wrong.
If you have references that indeed show that these words may have been
decomposed as they etymologically used to be *before* the composition of the
RgVeda, then you have a point. Otherwise your theory is just wrong, I'm
afraid.

A.
***


Also, the Mittani would have crossed the Iranians on their way to Aratta. As
such, it is possible that they took up some Iranian sounds.
***
There is no reason to think Mitanni Aryans came from India and moved thru
Iranians.
They may just have followed their own way from North-west-Central Asia
toward Anatolia, while the other branches were moving south.

Another point is that anytime we can make a difference between Iranian and
Indo-Aryan, Mitanni-Aryan sides like an archaic (pre-RgVedic) form of
Indo-Aryan.
A.
***


So, the argument that Mittani is pre-RV is not an ‘invincible’ one as Witzel
and you would like us to believe. The truth is that Mittani uses a late RV
word (mani). It has at least one Prakrit word form (satta).
***
Satta as said before may be caused by Hurrian itself.
For the time being, you have not explained what this word "mani" is.
A.
***


As such, we can definitely state that Mittani belongs to late RV or post-RV
era. The fact that Mittani names are very similar to late RV books (Talageri
2008: 175 - 180) has been well established by Talageri.
***
Sorry, but this is just wrong.
Talageri (2008:176) compares medha with biria-masda : masda archaic form
!!!! -z- retaining as in *mi-z-dha
A.
***



Also remember that Mittani IAs would have left the subcontinent a few
centuries earlier before they conquered West Asia and that Mittani IA words
are found in texts which were written much later. As such, any argument
about ‘earlier sound forms’ is nullified as RV was redacted after this
migration period. Words are better evidences than sounds in this matter.
Mittani words support the OIT rather than AMT as they use late RV words.
***
As explained so far, this conclusion is just completely wrong.
The only thing that Mitanni Aryan proves is that the RgVeda is younger than
the Mitanni Kingdom.
A.
***


The key argument of Lal and others is: Indra and Varuna were worshipped by
these names only in the subcontinent.
***
Be careful that Mitanni Aryans worshipped Ruwana not Varuna...
A.
***


The Vedic people do not say that they came from any foreign land. Instead
the Rg Veda speaks about an east to west 'expansion' (and not migration).
***
The American constitution does not mention any invasion of the Americas and
the literary tradition of the Americans speaks about an expansion toward the
Far West.
Consequently, the English language originates in New York city [I let you
choose the street and number] and the logical consequence is that this is
the Out-of-NYC theory of PIE.
A.
***


The western lands are seen only in the later books. Then, we come across a
later Vedic text which states that a set of people migrated to the west
while the others migrated to the east. It also states that those who
migrated to the west did not perform the Vedic rituals. As such, it fits the
description of the Avestans who were not performing Vedic sacrifices. Then,
you come across a land whose name is very similar to Aratta and where the IE
entered as conquerors and still remembered their God Indra who was not
worshipped by this name by any other IE group outside the subcontinent.

Common sense demands that we identify these conquerors as the Indo-Aryans
who migrated to Aratta.
***
What is this "Aratta" ??
This word just does not exist at all in Hurrian...
A.
***


And why does it make you wonder that OIT scholars who do not accept any
'Aryan invasion' of India readily accept the 'Aryan invasion' of Aratta?
There is no hypocrisy in this. There is simply no archaeological/literary
evidence for any Aryan invasion of India while we have both for the Mittani
Indo-Aryans.

As for your example about 'ostrich', I feel that it applies more to the
AIT/AMT school than anyone else. After all, they keep on harping the same
tune despite the fact that there is neither archaeological nor literary
evidence to support their viewpoint.
***
There are mountains of lexical and linguistic evidence.
A.

--- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Krishen" <jyotirved@...> wrote:
>
> Sheri Bhattacharjya has said, "The Puranas have been called by the
> Chandogya Upanishad and the Brihadaranyak upanishad as the fifth
> Veda." and let us compare  this statement with another statement of
> the same gentleman, "The Mahabharata tells us that one must study
> the Puranas and Itihasas before reading the Vedas."
>

One of the problems here is, again, the lack of a sense of historicity among
Hindus. Just now, on the Indo-Eurasian Research list, Steve Farmer berates a
colleague for juxtaposing Bible passages as if thety were all contemporaneous,
without any sense of time depth and editorial history with its compilation of
chronologically and otherwise disparate sources, interpolation, hypercorrections
etc., "like a medieval scholar". In these discussions, Purana enthusiasts
likewise behave like medieval scholars.

Case in point: words have a history too, and the term "Purana" which now means
the well-known set of the 18 Puranas, did not have that canonical meaning in the
Upanishads yet. Purana, "antiquity", is a fifth Veda in the sense that history,
as a generic concept, is a teacher, a repository of knowledge, for everyone in
every nation. The Puranas as a corpus are much younger than the Vedas,
Upanishads and even the MBh, and contain totally un-Vedic elements quite unknown
to Yajnavalkya abnd Uddalaka, such as the Hellenistic Zociac.

There are overlaps too, a lot with the epics whose long-drawn-out editing was
partly contemporaneous with that of the Puranas. Thus, the supposed horoscope of
Rama has "Hellenistic import" written all over it. Conversely, some parts of the
Puranas (meaning contents, not form) strech back into and possibly beyond the
Vedic age, e.g. it is conceivable that the genealogies involving Manu, Nahusha,
Yayati, said to predate the first Rishis and Vedic kings such as Bharata, may
indeed contain archaic material. On the other hand, plenty of Puranic stories
about Vedic characters lok like having been composed later and involving clearly
post-Vedic concerns, e.g. the caste concerns of Vishvamitra trying to convert
from a Rajarhsi to a Brahmarshi. But in principle, they should contain elements
of an archaic tradition of historical and genealogical data. That tradition has
always existed and informed the Vedic rishis themselves. It is in that generic
sense that "Purana" could be a source of wisdom for Vasishtha, Dirghatamas,
Yajnavalkya and the other pre-Puranic seers.



> And the Vedas, including the Yajurveda, are
> supposed to be the works created/revealed by the Supreme much before
> Treta yuga, which is supposed to have been reigning millions of years
> back as per the Surya Sidhanta!<

This is a truly sorry symptom of a total lack of a sense of historicity, both
yours and that of the Siddhanta authors: to treat the astronomical
subject-matter on a par with mythical concepts like these "yuga-s". In the
Vedanga Jyotisha, "yuga" is an astronomical concept, viz. a cycle of five years.
Even its original Puranic meaning of periods of 1,080 years and its multiples
may well have an astronomical basis, viz. that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1
times this unit amounts to 21,600 years, a very rough approximation of the
precession cycle of ca. 25,700 years (a cycle that was indeed underestimated
somewhat in the Siddhanta-s, as implied in its slight overestimation of the
precession rate). That is the explanation given a century ago by Sri Yuktesvar
in his The Holy Science, a thesis I used to dismiss but that now seems to have a
kernel of truth: the introduction of the knowledge of the precession
(established by Hipparchos 2nd BC, though actually implied but not understood in
Chandogya in Maitri Up 1:4 which notes the deviation of the visible pole star
from its scripturally recorded position) ca. 1st CE coincides with the emergence
of a yuga concept of cosmic duration. But then the jump from a cycle in the
range of the precession cycle to cycles of millions of years, unrelated to any
then-observable astro-cycle is typical of the extreme, exalted and fanciful
mindset underlying the Puranic corpus.

Hindus of the Puranic age decided that walking upright like the Vedic Rishis was
impious so they opted for a crawling and creeping lifestyle, ever minimizing
themselves and exalting the gods. (Or likewise the Gurus: the oft-used prayer
"Gurur Brahma, gurur Vishnu ..." exalts the meritorious guru way beyond all
proportion in a fit of pious Puranic exaggeration.) So they replaced the
manageable and realistic yuga concept involving millennia by an unwieldy and
unrealistic yuga concept involving millions of years, based on the replacement
of years in the yuga definition by "years of Brahma", taking a day of Brahma to
be equal to a human year. And other multiplicaptions, all meant to make man
smaller and the gods greater. Nothing against self-effacement before the gods,
but one should not drag robust concepts of physics/astronomy along into the
abyss of magnitudinal extremism.

This Puranic extremism leads to utterly silly problems, such as putting the
Vedas, which predated the Avesta and the Mitanni texsts only slightly, in a
Satya Yuga dated millions of years ago. Not to ention the utterly non-Vedic
claim that the Vedas were "created/revealed by the Supreme". Only Puranic
authors who had lost touch with the Vedic inspiration could think up this
exalted fairy-tale. The Vedic seers who had combined inspiration and
perspiration in the composition of their hymns knew very well who the real
author of these hymns was.



> On the other hand, the Puranas and the
> Mahabharata are works of much later dates---almost at the fag end of
> Dwapara Yuga, and the start of Kaliyuga, which is supposed to have
> started in 3102 BCE as per the same Surya Sidhanta that some people
> worship even today!
>
> It gives rise to a question like the eternal vexatious one, "Did the
> egg come first or the hen"?  If the Vedas existed much before the
> start of the Kaliyuga, how could they have eulogized the Puranas?<

See above for the evolving meaning of "Purana".

Kind regards,

KE

Evidence for kings David and Solomon

Until 15 years ago, there was no extra-biblical documentary mention of even the House of David as ruling in Judea

Norman Hammond, Archaeology correspondent

Recommend?

The Ten Dan Stele

"King David and King Solomon lived merry, merry lives,

With many, many concubines and many, many wives.

But when old age crept after them, with many, many qualms,

King Solomon wrote the Proverbs and King David wrote the Psalms."

There are several versions of this anonymous rhyme, but the problem, some biblical archaeologists argue, is that there is little evidence that either king existed: archaeological remains have been assigned to their reigns on the basis of cryptic verses in the Old Testament, and then used to "prove" the date of similar buildings at other sites.

Until 15 years ago, Professor Eric Cline notes in a new book, there was no extra-biblical documentary mention of even the House of David as ruling in Judea. The fragmentary Tel Dan Stele, found reused as building material at a site in what is now northern Israel in 1993-94, provided the first evidence outside the First Book of Kings.

Dating to about 842BC, the Tel Dan inscription describes the defeat of Joram, king of Israel, and Ahaziyahu, king of Judah, by a ruler of Aram-Damascus earlier in the 9th century BC. The Israelites had invaded his territory, located somewhere in Lebanon or southern Syria, but he "slew seventy kings, who harnessed thousands of chariots and thousands of horsemen. And I killed Joram son of Ahab, king of Israel, and I killed Ahaziyahu, son of Joram, king of the House of David."

"However, we are still lacking any contemporary or near-contemporary inscriptions that mention Solomon: at the moment we do not have a single one," Professor Cline says. "Moreover, there is still very little archaeological evidence for the existence of David."

The status of Jerusalem at this period is also debated, with some scholars arguing that the Bible account of a powerful capital city is true, others that it was, two millennia after its first settlement in the Bronze Age, what Professor Cline dubs "a small `cow town'. In fact, it is still not clear where David is positioned along the continuum from tribal chieftains to might kings."

Buildings identified in excavations as the palace of King David and of 10th century BC date are neither certainly dated nor of certain palatial function, Professor Cline argues. Israel Finkelstein, the Israeli archaeologist, suggests that much of the pottery and other material assigned to this date is at least a century later and thus unrelated to the dates assigned to David and Solomon.

He directly contradicts the work of the late Yigael Yadin, who assigned impressive walls and gates found at Hazor, as well as a "palace" to the reign of Solomon on the basis of the mention (in I Kings 9:15) of the king's use of forced labour to build "the house of the Lord and his own houses and the wall of Jerusalem and Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer".

The American excavators of Megiddo used I Kings again to identify structures as "Solomon's Stables"; they may well have been stables, Professor Cline says, but could have been built by any of a number of later kings.

The same applies to Yadin's identification of a "Solomonic" gate at Gezer; Professor Finkelstein's use of radiocarbon dating, not available when the original excavations were carried out at these sites, brings the dates forward in time by one to two centuries, to the 9th or 8th centuries, something which agrees with the evidence of identical mason's marks on a palace at Samaria, known to have been built by Omri's dynasty in the 9th century BC, and a palace at Megiddo. Other carbon dates, from Tel Rehov, have been cited in support of the traditional dates assigned to the biblical kings.

The problem, Professor Cline points out, is that the biblical references were used to identify and thus date the architecture, and the pottery was then dated by association with the buildings. These assumed dates were then rolled out across the field of biblical archaeology where similar pottery was encountered.

The impact of Professor Finkelstein's redating is that "not only do all of our assumptions about the tenth century have to be re-examined, but also that Solomon, and perhaps much of the tenth century itself, essentially disappears from the archaeological and historical record". Although on balance David and Solomon most likely did exist, the biblical accounts may have been concocted several centuries later, Professor Cline argues.

"Ultimately, biblical archaeology is not about proving or disproving the Bible: archaeologists are more concerned with reconstructing the culture and history of the Holy Land."

Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article6917740.ece

Dear friends,

Jai Shri Ram!

Sheri Bhattacharjya has said, "The Puranas have been called by the Chandogya Upanishad and the Brihadaranyak upanishad as the fifth Veda." and let us compare  this statement with another statement of the same gentleman, "The Mahabharata tells us that one must study the Puranas and Itihasas before reading the Vedas."

Brihad Arnyaka Upanishad is a part of the Vajasaneya Brahmana of the Yajurveda, kanva Shakha.  And the Vedas, including the Yajurveda, are supposed to be the works created/revealed by the Supreme much before Treta yuga, which is supposed to have been reigning millions of years back as per the Surya Sidhanta!  On the other hand, the Puranas and the Mahabharata are works of much later dates---almost at the fag end of Dwapara Yuga, and the start of Kaliyuga, which is supposed to have started in 3102 BCE as per the same Surya Sidhanta that some people worship even today!

It gives rise to a question like the eternal vexatious one, "Did the egg come first or the hen"?  If the Vedas existed much before the start of the Kaliyuga, how could they have eulogized the Puranas?  And if the knowledge of puranas and itihasas is a must before studying the Vedas, I wonder as to how many scholars there are around who have mastered  the Puranas, itihasas and the Vedas! Besides, does it not mean that the Puranas existed even before the Vedas, because unless the Puranas were studied, the Vedas could not be!

< Again some uninformed people grudgingly say that the Bhagavad purana alone  may be the fifth Veda.>

According to the Vaishnav Sampradaya, Srimad Bhagawata is the fifth Veda!  I would not like to call them uninformed!

< It is something  like Lord Rama telling Hanuman that if anybody can read only one Upanishad that must-read will be the Mandukya Upanishad.>

It would be highly appreciated if proper references are given as to whether it is from the Valmiki Ramayana or some other work.

< The rashi is defined in the Vamana purana as containing nine padas (quarters) of Nakshatras, i.e, two and a quarter nakshatras.>

Again, no references have been quoted!  In any case, Vamana Purana is a much later work, like most of the other puranas.  And the definition of rashis in most of the puranas is exactly as per the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha! That is the very first work that has clubbed nakshatras with rashis!  So there is nothing new in the Vamana Purana that is not already in the Surya Sidhanta!

< As the nakshatras are fixed so are the rashis by definition.>

The first and foremost thing that is necessary is the definition of nakshatras!  What are they? Groups of stars? How many are they in number?  Are they equal to one another or not?  If they are the groups of stars, what are the criteria of including the stars in a particular nakshatra!  If the nakshatras have nothing to do with stars, then how do we know as to which part of the imaginary circle known as zodiac is a particular nakshatra?

Regarding nakshatras being fixed, in the Yajurveda, Vedanga Jyotisha  and the Atharva Veda etc. nakshatras start from Krittikas.  They start from Ashvini in the Surya Sidhanta.  As such, the definition of fixed has to be explained in detail since something can be fixed with reference to something else!  If nakshatras are groups of stars, stars in themselves have Proper Motion.  That itself negates the statement that nakshatras are fixed!  Then again, if they started from Krittias at the time of the Vedanga Jyotisha, why do they start from ashvini nowadays?  Have their starting points "moved" or is it that our measuring yardsticks are different now?

In fact, Rashis are imaginary divisions and they can be fixed or moving or stable or unstable etc. etc. depending on the jyotishi concerned!  They have nothing to do with stars!  And by implication, they have nothing to do with nakshatras either!

< So no sensible person ever questions the use of the word Nirayana.>

This is yet another funny statement!  Nobody has quoted any shloka from any purana or any sidhanta, leave alone the Vedas and the Vedanga Jyotisha or even Atharva-Veda-Parshishta or Atharva-Jyotisha in support of his/her claim that the use of the word nirayana is very old! In fact nobody can quote any such shloka that talks of the so called nirayana even by mistake, since we never had such controversies prior to the introduction of Grahalaghava of Ganesha Daivajnya!

< Some unscrupulous people at some time in later-day history imagined the Rashis also to be moving according to the precessional movement.>

Anything that is imaginary, can be moving or stationary or even moving-cum-stationary at one and the same time!  It is common knowledge by now that Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rashis are nothing but "twelve equal animals" of an "imaginary circle of unequal  animals" which were imported from Greco-Chaldean astrologers, in the early centuries of CE.  However, if by "moving rashis", it is meant that the so called sayana Rashis, in which case Winter Solstice and Capricorn ingress start simultaneously, then I am afraid that all the puranas are "unscrupulous" according to Shri Bhattacharjya himself, as we shall see shortly!

Shri Bhattacharjya has give absolutely wrong translation of the shlokas of Vishnupurana since  when he says "Vishnu purana (2.8.28 - 31) says that the Northerly movement of the Sun begins when the Sun is in the Makar rash. Then the Sun moves to Kumbha and Mina and after passing through these three signs it goes to the Vishuvati (the equator) and makes day and night equal. Thereafter the nights go on diminishing and days go on increasing. After the end of Mithuna ie. in the Karkata rashi the day is the longest and then the southerly movement begins.

Vishnu purana (2.8.67 - 68) again says that the equinoxes occur in the middle of the Sharad and the Vasanta seasons, when the Sun enters the Tula and Mesha rashis respectively and the days and nights become equal. The southerly movement occurs when the Sun is in the Karkata and the Northerly moveement occurs when the sun is in the Makara rashi" and has said in the end, "Please note here that nowhere it says that the points are at the beginning of Makara and Karkata. In fact in Vedanga Jyotisha the points are in the Dhanishtha nakshatra in the Makar rashi ie towards the end of the Makar rashi"

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THAT I HAVE GVEN REFERENCES AND TRALSNATONS OF ALL THE RELEVANT  PAURANIC AND SIDHANTIC MANTRAS/SHOLKAS IN MY BVB6.DOC AND HERE ARE SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS!

The actual translation, together with the original shlokas, given by me, however, is.

In paragraph 5 of the BVB.6 I have quoted Vishnupurana: 2/8/28-31 and 67-68 as saying,

                       ayanasyotarasyadav makaram yati bhaskarah

            tatah kumbham cha menam cha rashe rashyantaram dvija   (28)    

trishu eteshu atha bhukteshu tato vaishuvatim gatim

prayati savita kurvan ahoratram tatah samam                                   (29)

                        tato ratrih kshayam yati vardhate anudinam dinam               (30)

                        tatashcha mithunasyante param kashtham upagatah

                        rashim karkatam prapya kurute dakshinayanam                    (31)

            "In the beginning of  Uttarayana, the sun enters Capricorn (Makara Rashi) there from going to Kumbha and them Mina. After having passed through these three signs, it just gains vishuvati (equinoctial) speed resulting in the day and night being equal on Mesha.  After that, nights start decreasing and the days increasing correspondingly daily. Then when the sun is in the end of Mithuna Rashi, i.e. when it is just at the verge of entering Cancer, the day is the longest then and Dakshnayana starts on that date". 

                        Sharad vsantyor Madhye vishuvam to vibhavyete

                        Tula mesh gate bhanav samratri divam tu tat                                     (67)

                        Karkatavasthite bhanav dakshiyanamuchete

                        Uttarayanam  api uktam makarasthe divakare                                   (68)

"In the midst of sharat ritu and vasanta ritu, vishuvas (equinoxes) take place with the entry of the sun into Tula (Libra) and Mesha (Aries) respectively and days and nights become equal on those two sankrantis.  The entry of sun into Cancer (Karkata) is known as dakshinayana whereas its entry into Maraka is known as Uttarayana"

�������.

It is thus clear that the Shri Bhattacharjya is deliberately neither quoting the original Sanskrit shlokas nor the translation given by me!

Let us, therefore, analyze the original shlokas in a proper manner!

It states, "ayanasyotarasyadav, makaram yati bhaskarah" which means "in the beginning of Uttarayana the sun enters Makara".  Thus the very first part of the shloka clarifies that Makar Sankranti is another name of Uttarayana, the shortest day of the year, since the six months of Uttarayana start from that date!

It states further, "tatah kumbam chai meenam cha rashe rashyantaram dvija"  "O Maitreya, after that it passes through Kumbha and Mina".  "trishu eteshu atha bhukteshu, tato yati vaishuvatim gatim" which means, "having thus crossed the three signs of Makara, Kumbha and Mina, it reaches the point which is known as Vishuva," Then  "prayati savita kurvan ahoratram tatah samam" i.e. " the sun reaches point which makes the day equal to night, which is known as Vishuva"  In sixty-seventh mantra, it has been clarified, "ttula mesh gate bhanav sama ratri divam tu tat" which means, "when the sun is in either Mesha or Tula Rashi, the day is equal to night".

In the 31^st shloka, Parashara Rishi has said, "tatashchai mithunasyante, param kashtham upagatah, rashim karkatam prapya kurute dakshinayanam" which means that after having reached the end of Mithuna and just at the ingress of the sun into Karkata, Dakshinayana starts".  �"Uttarayanam api uktam makarasthe divakare" On the ingress day of the sun into Makara, that is the day of Uttarayana"

Shri SKB has said, "Please note here that nowhere it says that the points are at the beginning of Makara and Karkata. In fact in Vedanga Jyotisha the points are in the Dhanishtha nakshatra in the Makar rashi ie towards the end of the Makar rashi".

What a brazen lie!  The above quoted statements from the Vishnupurana are as simple, lucid and clear as is humanly possible and they correlate Karkata Sankranti to the starting day of six months of Dakshinayana, Makara Sankranti to the starting day of six months of Uttarayana, Mesh Sankranti to the day of Vishuva and Tula Sankranti to the day of Vishuva, again.  They have made it absolutely clear that on the day of Makar Sankrnati, the day is the shortest, on the day of Karkata Sankranti day is the longest and on the days of Mesha and Tula Sankrantis days are equal to nights!

THUS ANYBODY MANIPULATING THE TRANSLATIONS IS MAKING A FOOL OF A COMMON MAN FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT 99 PERCENT OF HINDUS DO NOT UNDERSTAND SANSKRIT AT ALL AND THE MINISCULE NUMBER THAT UNDERSTAND THAT LANGUAGE DO NOT HAVE THE GUTS TO QUESTION THE INTENTONS OF SUCH MISINTERPRETATION.

(To be contd.)

Jai Shri Ram.

A K Kaul

Friends,

For the past few years we have seen and heard many claims that South India
is full of "Indus signs" - they have been suddenly discovered everywhere,
incised on stone axes, painted on pottery or engraved in caves. Scholars
driven by various ideologies have been rivalling with one another in proving
the existence of Indus script in the South, unmindful of the 1,500-year gap
between the disappearance of the script in the North-West and its supposed
reappearance in the South. In reality, not a single unmistakably Harappan
sequence of Indus signs has been found anywhere in the South, and I hold
that with a little goodwill it is always possible to see parallels between
any two scripts.

To expose the many metholodical flaws in the above claims, I presented a
paper at the International Symposium on Indus Civilization and Tamil
Language 2007 organized by the Dept. of Archaeology, Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai, 15-16 February 2007: "A Dravido-Harappan Connection? The Issue of
Methodology." It has been published (with a few cuts in the conclusion) in
the seminar's proceedings: Indus Civilization and Tamil Language, T.S.
Sridhar and N. Marxia Gandhi, eds., Department of Archaeology, Government of
Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 2009, pp. 70-81:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16704742/A-Dravido-Harappan-Connection-The-Issue
-of-Methodology

(The unedited text is at
www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/A_Dravido-Harappan_connection.pdf .)

Regards,

Michel

According to a new study of clay pots and ceramic tablets discovered almost 70 years ago in Harappa, now in Pakistan, the people of the Indus Valley had a detailed system of commodity value, weights and measures.

Dr Bryan Wells, a researcher based at India's Institute of Mathematical Sciences, told The Daily Telegraph he had begun work on his thesis ten years ago when he first saw photographs of the clay pots with markings which appeared to be in proportion to their relative size.

But he was not able to test his thesis until he visited New Delhi earlier this month where the original pots are stored in one of the city's Mughal era forts. The three pots each had different markings, the smallest with a 'V' to indicate 'measure' and three long strokes. The medium vessel had six strokes and the largest had seven.

When he measured them he found they were in proportionate capacity: 3:6:7.

The inscriptions on the pots matched those on bas relief ceramic tablets which he believes are tokens of exchange for fixed measures of grain or other commodities.

The size of the pots �" the largest is 2.7 metres in circumference, and contains 65 litres �" indicates an organised system of exchange for large scale transactions, he said.

The bas-relief tablets are "definitely some kind of exchange token. These pots are more than one metre wide. You're not going to be carrying them around. The chits or tablets have representative value and they are being used in an economic context," he said.

In his paper Indus Weights and Measures, to be published in the archeological journal Antiquity next year, Dr Wells suggests the tablets may be the equivalent of 'wage slips' or credits for work representing fixed volumes of food.

"It is possible that wages were paid with grains dispersed from a centralised storage facility or in the case of incised tablets material for construction projects and other short-term projects," he wrote.

Although older coins and ingots have been discovered from the Mesopotamia, but Dr Wells' findings amount to a more detailed decoding of an ancient value system.

___

Regards,a

Paul Kekai Manansala

Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan 

Below is a fairly complete list of Prof. R. Balasubramaniam's papers on
bridging Harappan and Gangetic metrology:

Balasubramaniam, R., 'On the continuity of engineering tradition from the
Harappan to Ganga Civilization', Man and Environment, vol. 33, 2008, pp.
101-105. (No URL. I can send photocopies in India to anyone seriously
interested.)

Balasubramaniam, R., and J.P. Joshi, 'Analysis of terracotta scale of
Harappan civilization from Kalibangan', Current Science, vol. 95, no. 5, 10
September 2008, pp. 588-89. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/sep102008/588.pdf

Balasubramaniam, R., 'On the mathematical significance of the dimensions of
the Delhi Iron Pillar', Current Science, vol. 95, no. 6, 25 September 2008,
pp. 766-70.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/sep252008/766.pdf

Balasubramaniam, R., 'New insights on the modular planning of the Taj
Mahal', Current Science, vol. 97, no. 1, 10 July 2009, pp. 42-49.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jul102009/42.pdf

Balasubramaniam, R., 'New insights on metrology during the Mauryan period',
Current Science, vol. 97, no. 5, 10 September 2009, pp. 680-682
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/sep102009/680.pdf


My own papers on Harappan linear units and proportions are:

"Unravelling Dholavira's Geometry," in Recent Researches in Archaeology,
History and Culture (Festschrift to Prof. K.V. Raman), P. Chenna Reddy, ed.,
Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 2010, pp. 179-193
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16625951/Unravelling-Dholaviras-Geometry

and

"New Insights into Harappan Town-Planning, Proportions and Units, with
Special Reference to Dholavira," Man and Environment, vol. XXXIII, No. 1,
2008, pp. 66-79
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16625745/New-Insights-into-Harappan-Town-Plannin
g-Proportions-and-Units

More papers are under preparation.

Regards,

Michel

http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/vratya

Vratya

Manusmriti (II.39) notes that over time, dwija who remain uninitiated and become vratya, fallen from Savitri and left out by the aarya: ata uurdhvam trayo apy ete yathaakaalam asamskrtaah saavitripatitaa vraatyaa bhavanty aaryavigarhitaah. Some scholars , however , suggest, Vratya does not necessarily denote a person who has not undergone upanayana samskara; but, it refers to one who does not offer Soma sacrifice or keep the sacred fire(agnihotra).

(http://www.sanathanadharma.com/samskaras/edu1.htm)

Vratyakaanda of AV refer to vratya worshipping Rudra, the wind divinity. Vratya gave the knowledge and tradition of both Pitryaana (Path of the fathers) and devayaana (Path of the divinities) (AV XV.12.4-5, 8-9). Yajnavalkya recognized this tradition. Vratya world-view is that of four quarters of the universe (AV XV.2.1-4) and a Cosmic person (AV XV.18). Vratya interactions with Mesopotamia  may explain a few Akkadian words in the Atharva Veda, the concept of the Purushasukta. Vratya asidiyamana eva sa prajapatim samaisyat (AV 15.1-4)(loc.cit. Hiralal Jain, Jainism in Buddhist literature, fn14:  notes that Pali literature (Theragaatha) also refers vratyas. Cf. Ananda Guruge, Vidyodaya Lipi, Colombo, 1962, p. 71, where arguments are adduced to prove that vratyas of an Eastern India were survivals of the Indus valley civilization).

S. Kalyanaraman

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/11/16/stories/2009111654381800.htm

Monday, Nov 16, 2009

'Konark temple crumbling'


BHUBANESWAR: Voicing concern over the safety of the Sun Temple at Konark and
alleged smuggling of antique pieces from there, a body working for its
protection on Sunday demanded the formation of an expert committee to
supervise the preservation of the 13th century wonder.

The Konark Surakshya Samiti, which has been spearheading a movement for the
safety of the structure, also announced a plan for an indefinite mass dharna
starting on November 17 at the temple until its demands, including free
entry on Saturdays, were met.

Alleging that the edifice was crumbling and stones falling off due to
negligence by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Samiti president
Sarat Jay Singh said no concrete steps were taken for conservation and that
the work done was superficial, causing more harm than good.

While the recommendations of various expert committees were ignored, the
basic need for a proper drainage system had not been made, causing the
submergence of major parts of the structure during rains, Mr. Singh and
Samiti convenor Surendranath Mishra told journalists here.

"Water logging is weakening the foundations and superstructure of the
temple," they said, adding that the cleaning was being done by unskilled
workmen, who use rough brushes that cause the obliteration of many fine
miniature sculptures.

Though several memoranda were submitted to the ASI and Union Ministers and
the Orissa government seeking the formation of an expert committee with
representation from locals, the demands went unheeded, Mr. Singh said.

'Careless stance'

Though there are local skilled craftsmen, the ASI, adopting a careless and
adamant stance, engages workers who have little or no knowledge about
sculptures, Mr. Singh alleged. - PTI

http://sites.google.com/site/induswriting/epigraphs Updated

Bos indicus and fish glyphs of Indus script: metal-smith-guild

There are over 50 epigraphs of the civilization showing bos taurus indicus which is decoded as a hieroglyph denoting in mleccha a metal-smith-guild (community, khu~t.).

Blacksmith guild making excellent iron (metal)

M1118 Kalibangan032  

Excellent metal

Ayo ‘fish’ (Mu.) + gaṇḍa set of four (Santali)

Ayo ‘fish’ (Mu.) + kaṇḍa ‘arrow’ (Skt.)

Rebus: ayaskāṇḍa ‘a quantity of iron, excellent iron’ (Pāṇ.gaṇ) aya = iron (G.); ayah, ayas = metal (Skt.)

Brahmini or Brahmani bull is also called the zebu. It has a pronounced hump, long horns, droopy ears and a large dewlap. Scientific name was originally bos indicus; it is called bos taurus indicus adapted to tropical environments, domesticated in Bharat over 10,000 years ago. It is allowed to roam free in many parts of Bharat, considered a sacred bull; this may have led to the name Brahmani. adar, adar d.an:gra a brahmini bull, a bull kept for breeding purposes and not put to work (Santali) It is also called khunt: khu~t. Brahmani bull (Kathiawar G.); khu~t.r.o entire bull used for agriculture, not for breeding (G.)(CDIAL 3899). Decoded rebus: khu~t. ‘community’ (Guild). Cf. khu~t. a community, sect, society, division, clique, schism, stock (Santali) The zebu (bra_hman.i bull) is: aDar Dan:gra (Santali); rebus: aduru = gan.iyinda tegadu karagade iruva aduru = ore taken from the mine and not subjected to melting in a furnace (Ka.)  Dhan:gar ‘blacksmith’ (Mth.)

Decoding  epigraphs on seals, Mohenjodaro1118 and Kalibangan 032 : ayaskANDa (of) ad.ar d.hangar khu~t. ‘native-metal-blacksmith (making) excellent metal’

Read on...http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16253614/ayas1