Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Ind-Arch] A Declaration

Expand Messages
  • aaaa
    Dear Ram, I think Ravi has provided some very good arguments on why north-west India shouldn t be ruled out as a possible homeland for Proto-IndoEuropean
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 10, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Ram,
      I think Ravi has provided some very good arguments on why north-west India shouldn't be ruled out as a possible homeland for Proto-IndoEuropean people. Come to think of it, even after 200 years of research in this field the PIE homeland has not been located. If the OIT hypothesis fail due to insufficient statistical sample data then so do the Pontic-Caspian, Anatolian or any other PIE hypothesis not to speak of AIT.
      A lot of scholars make absurd claims. As an example David Anthony in his recent book "The Horse, the Wheel and Language" rules out any PIE homeland east of the Ural mountains just because bees did not exist there around 5000 B.C.!! Witzel and other scholars think that a group of shepherds, who failed to return back to their mountain homes from the warm plains, could completely take over the Para-Munda speaking Indus valley civilization and within centuries wipe out any memories of the earlier language, compose the Rigveda and impose the pastoral culture onto the urban population.
      In contrast Talageri's research on the internal cronology of the Rigveda, cronology based on personal names and interactions of the Vedic people with their Iranian neighbors is very much sound and scientific far from being a theory by ultra-patriotic group as you suggest.
      I personally don't care where the PIE homeland was but I do believe it to be the same as the proto-Indo-Aryan (or PIIr) epicenter, whereever it was, Afghanistan, Turkmenia, north-west India, BMAC, Sogdiana but definitely in a location much east of the Caspian sea. I also believe that IAs were present in North-west India from at least 3500 B.C. if not earlier.

      In sum, I don't think Ravi or Talageri are making absurd claims. It is unfair to group them together with other nuts.

      regards,
      Mandar

      --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Ravi,
      > I am of the opinion that this OIT is a theory by some well meaning and ultra-patriotic group to create pride in the subcontinent otherwise noted for occupation after foreign occupation for the last 2000+ years - almost the entire period of recorded history of the region.
      > I think Arnaud is right that there is insufficient statistical sample data to prove the hypothesis of OIT, substantiated by words alone. (I agree with him on this, but not necessarily his decipherment of Harappan).
      >

      > From: ravilochanan iyengar <ravilochan_tn@...>
      > Subject: [Ind-Arch] A Declaration
      > To: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>, "Indian Archaeology" <indiaarchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: Monday, May 31, 2010, 7:08 AM
      >
      > Dear Arnaud (and others)
      >
      >
      > I had stated in my last mail that I do not even wish to read Arnaud's mails on OIT (especially about Talageri's views) topics any longer. I received a reply which I've deleted without even reading (I'll do the same wrt any further mail that I'll receive on this issue from him). Because this debate is becoming simply dogmatic and Arnaud is simply following the technique of 'ignorance' at every step. I certainly do not have a lot of time to waste on repetitions. For those who want a fair view of the debate, they can read the entire debate between us on IA group in the last week or so..
      >
      >
      > You can decide by yourself whether I made a fair attempt or not..
      >
      >
      > regards
      >
      > Ravilochanan
      >
    • Arnaud Fournet
      ... From: Ram Varmha To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:14 PM Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] A Declaration Ravi, I am of the opinion
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Ram Varmha
        To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:14 PM
        Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] A Declaration




        Ravi,
        I am of the opinion that this OIT is a theory by some well meaning and
        ultra-patriotic group to create pride in the subcontinent otherwise noted
        for occupation after foreign occupation for the last 2000+ years - almost
        the entire period of recorded history of the region.
        I think Arnaud is right that there is insufficient statistical sample data
        to prove the hypothesis of OIT, substantiated by words alone. (I agree with
        him on this, but not necessarily his decipherment of Harappan).
        ***
        Simple and wise words.
        I agree that the Indus signs need much more work.
        A.
        ***


        There are many towns and cities in South India that end with "ur" - Trichur,
        Tanjavur, Coimbatur, Kodungallur etc etc. The word "ur" is understood to be
        city or town in Tamil. In Sumerian the name for town or city is also "ur".
        Can one, based on this single sample, conclude that South Indians are
        descendants of Sumerians? I once asked Dr. John Halloran, one of the leading
        experts on Sumerian, if it can be taken that the Tamils descended from
        Sumerians, based on the similarity of this one word which means the same in
        both languages? He said: "At best the question can be asked, how did the
        Sumerians and the South Indians use the same word to describe cities and
        towns? That may be intriguing. However, it cannot be concluded that
        Sumerians came and settled in South India, based on this one word. Not
        enough sample size".
        ***
        Anyway it can be noted that this word -ur- also appears in Latin in ur-bs.
        The ultimate deep-level root is *Hor-.
        This root also appears in Chinese é (second tone) "city, fortress".
        It's possible that we are dealing here with a very old word.
        I'm no sure there is any conclusion to be drawn from the chance coincidence
        that Sumerian and Dravidian both have -ur-.
        I would not conclude that Dravidian derives from Sumerian or Sumerian
        settled in India.
        A.
        ***





        I believe the OIT theory from what I have read here is pretty much a dead
        horse, (pardon the Aryan pun!). This discussion is getting to be very
        circular; going nowhere. We need to move on to some other topic of interest,
        please.
        This does not take away from the spirited and erudite discussion you
        presented on OIT. Perhaps you will some day prove it right! But, at this
        point it seems hardly a winning stroke.
        Regards,
        Ram



        --- On Mon, 5/31/10, ravilochanan iyengar <ravilochan_tn@...> wrote:


        From: ravilochanan iyengar <ravilochan_tn@...>
        Subject: [Ind-Arch] A Declaration
        To: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>, "Indian Archaeology"
        <indiaarchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Monday, May 31, 2010, 7:08 AM



        Dear Arnaud (and others)


        I had stated in my last mail that I do not even wish to read Arnaud's mails
        on OIT (especially about Talageri's views) topics any longer. I received a
        reply which I've deleted without even reading (I'll do the same wrt any
        further mail that I'll receive on this issue from him). Because this debate
        is becoming simply dogmatic and Arnaud is simply following the technique of
        'ignorance' at every step. I certainly do not have a lot of time to waste on
        repetitions. For those who want a fair view of the debate, they can read the
        entire debate between us on IA group in the last week or so..

        You can decide by yourself whether I made a fair attempt or not..

        ***
        You asked and you got one answer from Mr. Ram Varmha.

        Best

        A.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.