Indus script linguistically Dravidian: Expert- Iravatham Mahadevan

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends:Here is something we all can debate about... Article from today's Hindu newspaperRegardsanantha krishnanIndus script linguistically Dravidian: expert

S. Ganesan

 

 

 

 

 

The Indus script is Dravidian

linguistically and culturally closer to the old Tamil polity than what

has been recognised so far, eminent epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan has

said. He shared some of his recent and

still-not-fully-published findings relating to the interpretation of

the Indus script, in an endowment lecture on ‘Vestiges of Indus

Civilisation in Old Tamil’ at the 16th annual session of the Tamil Nadu

History Congress, which opened here on Friday. Mr.

Mahadevan said that though the claim could be met with incredulity, the

evidence he had gathered over four decades of intensive study of the

sources — the Indus texts and old Tamil anthologies — had led him to

the conclusion. Mr. Mahadevan, who specialises in

the Indus script and Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions, said there was also

substantial archaeological evidence to support the view that Indus

Civilisation was pre-Aryan. The Indus Civilisation was urban, while the

Vedic culture was rural and pastoral. The Indus

seals, he said, do not depict the horse and the chariot with ‘spooked

wheels,’ which were the defining pieces of the Aryan-speaking

societies. “The Indus religion as revealed by the pictorial depiction

on seals included worship of a buffalo-horned male god,

mother-goddesses, the pipal tree and the serpent, and possibly the

phallic symbol. Such modes of worship present in Hinduism are known to

have been derived from the aboriginal population and are totally alien

to the religion of the Rig Veda.â€There was also

substantial linguistic evidence “favouring Dravidian authorship of the

Indus Civilisation,†he said, citing Brahui, a Dravidian language still

spoken in the Indus region, Dravidian loan words in the Rig Veda, the

substratum influence of Dravidian on Indo-Aryan as shown by the

presence of retroflex consonants in the Rig Veda and major

modifications in the Prakrit dialects moving them closer to the

Dravidian than the Indo-European family of languages. Computer analysis

of Indus texts has also revealed that the language had suffixes only as

in Dravidian and no prefixes as in Indo-Aryan or infixes as in Munda.Clarifying

that he was employing the terms, ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian,’ only in

linguistic sense, he said speakers of the Aryan languages

indistinguishably merged with Dravidian and Munda-speaking people

millennia ago, creating a composite Indian society. Priestly functionaryReferring

to the ‘BEARER’ ideograms in the Indus script, he said the frequent

Harappan title, ‘Bearer,’ originally meant a priestly functionary

ceremonially carrying, on a yoke, food offerings to the deity. The

corresponding Dravidian expression, ‘poray’ (bearer) was translated in

the Rig Veda as Bharata (bearer).The symbols

inscribed on a Neolithic axe found at Sembiyan Kandiyur near

Mayiladuthurai in 2006, a most significant discovery connecting Indus

Civilisation with Tamil Nadu, corresponded to the signs of the Indus

script. Symbols found on megalithic pottery and potsherds from Sanur

and Mangudi in Tamil Nadu also resembled the signs of the Indus script.

Keywords: Indus script, Dravidian, Old Tamil polity, epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan, ‘Vestiges of Indus Civilisation in Old Tamil’ Tamil Nadu History Congress

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananta Krishnan ji, They are all arguing for long - without reaching any useful conclusion! Take the 2 basic arguments - Arg 1: Indus script is linguistically dravidian since the linguistic analysis points in this direction (min-fish min-star or what ever that be) Arg 2: Brahmi script (the ancestor of Devanagari script) originated Indus script, and this can be startistically proved. So the question is - is Indus script Dravidian or Aryan? Dravidian or Indo-European? They are not goint to reach a conclusive answer at all - how much energy they waste! Why can't we think that there could be truth in both the above studies and arguments at the same time? How? I will explain. * Dravidians also argue that they have some phonetic/lingustic/antrapological connection with the anceint Sumerians. Many even use the term Sumero-Tamil cult now a days! OK. Let us accept that Sumerians migrated to India and Dravidians are Indian settled Sumerians. * Sumerian culture existed from BC 5300 or so to BC 1940 and Sindhu-Sarasvaty civilization overlapped this period during BC 2600 or so to BC 1800. If Sumerians came to India then most possibly it could be through Sindhu-Sarsvaty and there is a lot of chance for Some Dravidian like lingu-fransa present in Sindhu-Sarasvati as well. So Arg 1 becomes acceptable * Even Sumerian culture indicate the influence of Agamic temple culture and numerous Sanskrit like words (Endo-European language influence) through the words such as Uttana-pishtin etc - and it is certain that Central Asian Indo-European influence is well evident even from Sumerian period! So if it was the same Agama (temple centric) culture that spread from Central Asia to Sumeria and Sindhu-Sarasvaty then it is well possible that numerous Indo-Europian like language speaking people were also present in both those places and places overlapping cultures such as Hittite culture of Anatolia. Since it is the (sanskrit like language speaking) central asian people that caused the origin of Deva nagari script from Siddha script used of writing mantras and the phonetic system used in Brahmi, it is well possible that the origin of Devanagari script can be traced to Brahmi script (used for writing prakrit/sanskrit those days) and also that the origin of Brahmi can be traced to the Sindhu-Sarasvati script (where both Indo-Eropean and Sumerian/Dravidian people were present at the same time). So Arg 2 also becomes acceptable. So the point is traffic (people migration) happened in 3 direction and from 3 major sources - 1) First, Central Asian Agamic people (who followed temple worship and an sanskrit like lingustic system) migrated from Central Asia to places like Sumer and Sindhu-Sarasvati -- Agama culture 2) Second, people from Sumeria (again following Agamic temple cult and a Dravidian like lingustic system) migrated from Sumeria to South India through Sindhu-Sarasvaty ---- Dravidian culture 3) Third, Siberian (north asian) Fire cult and the people who used Sanskrit like language migrated from Siberia to Iran/Irac and to India ----- Vedic culture If so Siberia, Central Asia and Sumeria - all should be the cradle of Civilizations. The arguments put forward by the Aryan (Indo-European) fanatics, and Drvidian (Indo-Sumerian) fanatics also becomes true - and all evidences will become justifiable. But such acceptace demands accepting the contribution of other cultures as well, apart from fanatic effort to put forward own supremacy (whether it be of Vedic, Dravidian or Agama cult). The mutual migrations and mixing of cultues are more freequent and lingustic and script developments more complex than the one way traffic we would love to assign them to be! Note: There is a problem with the statement - //Indus script linguistically Dravidian//. It could be that - * Indus language is lingustically dravidian BUT * Indus script is and could be the one that caused the origin of BOTH Brahmi (remember the phonetic alphabet system and font similarity) and Tamil (remember Tamil-Brahmi). Thus Indus Script is either BOTH Aryan and Dravidian or not both. (for example, current Devanagari or Tamil script has no similarity with the ancient indus script)Love and regards,Sreenadh , Anantha Krishnan <anantha_krishnan_98 wrote:>> > > Dear Friends:> Here is something we all can debate about... Article from today's Hindu newspaper> Regards> anantha krishnan> > Indus script linguistically Dravidian: expert > > var addthis_pub = "thehindu";> > S. Ganesan> > > > var min=8;> var max=18;> var min1=18;> var max1=24; function increaseFontSize() { var temp=document.getElementById('inc').innerHTML> if(temp=="T-")> decreaseFontSize();> else> {> var p = document.getElementsByTagName('p');> for(i=0;i> print · > T+ > > > > > > The Indus script is Dravidian> linguistically and culturally closer to the old Tamil polity than what> has been recognised so far, eminent epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan has> said. He shared some of his recent and> still-not-fully-published findings relating to the interpretation of> the Indus script, in an endowment lecture on ‘Vestiges of Indus> Civilisation in Old Tamil’ at the 16th annual session of the Tamil Nadu> History Congress, which opened here on Friday. Mr.> Mahadevan said that though the claim could be met with incredulity, the> evidence he had gathered over four decades of intensive study of the> sources â€" the Indus texts and old Tamil anthologies â€" had led him to> the conclusion. Mr. Mahadevan, who specialises in> the Indus script and Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions, said there was also> substantial archaeological evidence to support the view that Indus> Civilisation was pre-Aryan. The Indus Civilisation was urban, while the> Vedic culture was rural and pastoral. The Indus> seals, he said, do not depict the horse and the chariot with ‘spooked> wheels,’ which were the defining pieces of the Aryan-speaking> societies. “The Indus religion as revealed by the pictorial depiction> on seals included worship of a buffalo-horned male god,> mother-goddesses, the pipal tree and the serpent, and possibly the> phallic symbol. Such modes of worship present in Hinduism are known to> have been derived from the aboriginal population and are totally alien> to the religion of the Rig Veda.â€There was also> substantial linguistic evidence “favouring Dravidian authorship of the> Indus Civilisation,†he said, citing Brahui, a Dravidian language still> spoken in the Indus region, Dravidian loan words in the Rig Veda, the> substratum influence of Dravidian on Indo-Aryan as shown by the> presence of retroflex consonants in the Rig Veda and major> modifications in the Prakrit dialects moving them closer to the> Dravidian than the Indo-European family of languages. Computer analysis> of Indus texts has also revealed that the language had suffixes only as> in Dravidian and no prefixes as in Indo-Aryan or infixes as in Munda.Clarifying> that he was employing the terms, ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian,’ only in> linguistic sense, he said speakers of the Aryan languages> indistinguishably merged with Dravidian and Munda-speaking people> millennia ago, creating a composite Indian society. Priestly functionaryReferring> to the ‘BEARER’ ideograms in the Indus script, he said the frequent> Harappan title, ‘Bearer,’ originally meant a priestly functionary> ceremonially carrying, on a yoke, food offerings to the deity. The> corresponding Dravidian expression, ‘poray’ (bearer) was translated in> the Rig Veda as Bharata (bearer).The symbols> inscribed on a Neolithic axe found at Sembiyan Kandiyur near> Mayiladuthurai in 2006, a most significant discovery connecting Indus> Civilisation with Tamil Nadu, corresponded to the signs of the Indus> script. Symbols found on megalithic pottery and potsherds from Sanur> and Mangudi in Tamil Nadu also resembled the signs of the Indus script.> > $(function() {> $('#articleKeywords a').click( function() { var keyword = $(this).text();> if (keyword.indexOf(' ') != -1)> $('input#searchString').attr("value", '"' + keyword + '"');> else> $('input#searchString').attr("value", keyword);> $('#simpleSearchForm').submit();> return false;> });> });> > Keywords: Indus script, Dravidian, Old Tamil polity, epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan, ‘Vestiges of Indus Civilisation in Old Tamil’ Tamil Nadu History Congress>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananta Krishnan ji, * Assimilation of everything good from everywhere happens always! * Origin of something bad always happens everywhere! * We loss something good and bad (BOTH!) every time with the flow of time! * Something contradictory will not get accepted into some system - even when good! Some thing bad will get assimilated if it is in tune with the current system - even when bad! This is simply human nature and human psychology. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear Ananta Krishnan ji,> They are all arguing for long - without reaching any useful> conclusion! Take the 2 basic arguments -> Arg 1: Indus script is linguistically dravidian since the linguistic> analysis points in this direction (min-fish min-star or what ever that> be)> Arg 2: Brahmi script (the ancestor of Devanagari script) originated > Indus script, and this can be startistically proved.> So the question is - is Indus script Dravidian or Aryan? Dravidian or> Indo-European? They are not goint to reach a conclusive answer at all -> how much energy they waste!> > Why can't we think that there could be truth in both the above studies> and arguments at the same time? How? I will explain.> * Dravidians also argue that they have some> phonetic/lingustic/antrapological connection with the anceint> Sumerians. Many even use the term Sumero-Tamil cult now a days! OK. Let> us accept that Sumerians migrated to India and Dravidians are Indian> settled Sumerians.> * Sumerian culture existed from BC 5300 or so to BC 1940 and> Sindhu-Sarasvaty civilization overlapped this period during BC 2600 or> so to BC 1800. If Sumerians came to India then most possibly it could> be through Sindhu-Sarsvaty and there is a lot of chance for Some> Dravidian like lingu-fransa present in Sindhu-Sarasvati as well. So Arg> 1 becomes acceptable> * Even Sumerian culture indicate the influence of Agamic temple> culture and numerous Sanskrit like words (Endo-European language> influence) through the words such as Uttana-pishtin etc - and it is> certain that Central Asian Indo-European influence is well evident even > from Sumerian period! So if it was the same Agama (temple centric)> culture that spread from Central Asia to Sumeria and Sindhu-Sarasvaty> then it is well possible that numerous Indo-Europian like language> speaking people were also present in both those places and places> overlapping cultures such as Hittite culture of Anatolia. Since it is> the (sanskrit like language speaking) central asian people that caused> the origin of Deva nagari script from Siddha script used of writing> mantras and the phonetic system used in Brahmi, it is well possible that> the origin of Devanagari script can be traced to Brahmi script (used> for writing prakrit/sanskrit those days) and also that the origin of> Brahmi can be traced to the Sindhu-Sarasvati script (where both> Indo-Eropean and Sumerian/Dravidian people were present at the same> time). So Arg 2 also becomes acceptable.> > So the point is traffic (people migration) happened in 3 direction and> from 3 major sources -> 1) First, Central Asian Agamic people (who followed temple worship and> an sanskrit like lingustic system) migrated from Central Asia to places> like Sumer and Sindhu-Sarasvati -- Agama culture> 2) Second, people from Sumeria (again following Agamic temple cult and> a Dravidian like lingustic system) migrated from Sumeria to South India> through Sindhu-Sarasvaty ---- Dravidian culture> 3) Third, Siberian (north asian) Fire cult and the people who used> Sanskrit like language migrated from Siberia to Iran/Irac and to India> ----- Vedic culture> If so Siberia, Central Asia and Sumeria - all should be the cradle of> Civilizations.> > The arguments put forward by the Aryan (Indo-European) fanatics, and> Drvidian (Indo-Sumerian) fanatics also becomes true - and all evidences> will become justifiable. But such acceptace demands accepting the> contribution of other cultures as well, apart from fanatic effort to put> forward own supremacy (whether it be of Vedic, Dravidian or Agama cult).> The mutual migrations and mixing of cultues are more freequent and> lingustic and script developments more complex than the one way traffic> we would love to assign them to be!> Note:> There is a problem with the statement - //Indus script linguistically> Dravidian//. It could be that -> * Indus language is lingustically dravidian BUT> * Indus script is and could be the one that caused the origin of BOTH> Brahmi (remember the phonetic alphabet system and font similarity) and> Tamil (remember Tamil-Brahmi). Thus Indus Script is either BOTH Aryan> and Dravidian or not both. (for example, current Devanagari or Tamil> script has no similarity with the ancient indus script)> Love and regards,> Sreenadh

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji,Nobody can say that the Dravidians are not Aryans. They are Dravas (Dravidas) ie. one of the different groups of Aryans, dispersed from the Aryavarta. Drava signifies wetness and from that it appears that the Dravas probably preferred to stay near water source.When they moved out of the Aryavarta they kept the original language and the original pre-Brahmi script with them and nourished them. In the North more changes in the language had occurred and Sanskrit evolved as the language of the intellectuals and the Brahmi script for the scriptures at a later date or side by side. There is one Ol' Chiki script developed in the early twentieth century as a composite of the Oriya and the Santhali symbols. The Santhai symbols are similar to the Indus valley (ie. Saraswati-valley) symbols. Therefore it appears to me that not only the Tamil

language, even the Oriya language bears resemblance to the Saraswati-valley script.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Fri, 10/9/09, sreesog <sreesog wrote:sreesog <sreesog Re: Indus script linguistically Dravidian: Expert- Iravatham Mahadevan Date: Friday, October 9, 2009, 11:03 PM

 

 

 

Dear Ananta Krishnan ji, * Assimilation of everything good from everywhere happens always! * Origin of something bad always happens everywhere! * We loss something good and bad (BOTH!) every time with the flow of time! * Something contradictory will not get accepted into some system - even when good! Some thing bad will get assimilated if it is in tune with the current system - even when bad! This is simply human nature and human psychology. Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear Ananta Krishnan ji,> They are all arguing for long -

without reaching any useful> conclusion! Take the 2 basic arguments -> Arg 1: Indus script is linguistically dravidian since the linguistic> analysis points in this direction (min-fish min-star or what ever that> be)> Arg 2: Brahmi script (the ancestor of Devanagari script) originated > Indus script, and this can be startistically proved.> So the question is - is Indus script Dravidian or Aryan? Dravidian or> Indo-European? They are not goint to reach a conclusive answer at all -> how much energy they waste!> > Why can't we think that there could be truth in both the above studies> and arguments at the same time? How? I will explain.> * Dravidians also argue that they have some> phonetic/lingustic/ antrapological connection with the anceint> Sumerians. Many even use the term Sumero-Tamil cult now a days! OK. Let> us accept

that Sumerians migrated to India and Dravidians are Indian> settled Sumerians.> * Sumerian culture existed from BC 5300 or so to BC 1940 and> Sindhu-Sarasvaty civilization overlapped this period during BC 2600 or> so to BC 1800. If Sumerians came to India then most possibly it could> be through Sindhu-Sarsvaty and there is a lot of chance for Some> Dravidian like lingu-fransa present in Sindhu-Sarasvati as well. So Arg> 1 becomes acceptable> * Even Sumerian culture indicate the influence of Agamic temple> culture and numerous Sanskrit like words (Endo-European language> influence) through the words such as Uttana-pishtin etc - and it is> certain that Central Asian Indo-European influence is well evident even > from Sumerian period! So if it was the same Agama (temple centric)> culture that spread from Central Asia to Sumeria and Sindhu-Sarasvaty>

then it is well possible that numerous Indo-Europian like language> speaking people were also present in both those places and places> overlapping cultures such as Hittite culture of Anatolia. Since it is> the (sanskrit like language speaking) central asian people that caused> the origin of Deva nagari script from Siddha script used of writing> mantras and the phonetic system used in Brahmi, it is well possible that> the origin of Devanagari script can be traced to Brahmi script (used> for writing prakrit/sanskrit those days) and also that the origin of> Brahmi can be traced to the Sindhu-Sarasvati script (where both> Indo-Eropean and Sumerian/Dravidian people were present at the same> time). So Arg 2 also becomes acceptable.> > So the point is traffic (people migration) happened in 3 direction and> from 3 major sources -> 1) First, Central Asian

Agamic people (who followed temple worship and> an sanskrit like lingustic system) migrated from Central Asia to places> like Sumer and Sindhu-Sarasvati -- Agama culture> 2) Second, people from Sumeria (again following Agamic temple cult and> a Dravidian like lingustic system) migrated from Sumeria to South India> through Sindhu-Sarasvaty ---- Dravidian culture> 3) Third, Siberian (north asian) Fire cult and the people who used> Sanskrit like language migrated from Siberia to Iran/Irac and to India> ----- Vedic culture> If so Siberia, Central Asia and Sumeria - all should be the cradle of> Civilizations.> > The arguments put forward by the Aryan (Indo-European) fanatics, and> Drvidian (Indo-Sumerian) fanatics also becomes true - and all evidences> will become justifiable. But such acceptace demands accepting the> contribution of other

cultures as well, apart from fanatic effort to put> forward own supremacy (whether it be of Vedic, Dravidian or Agama cult).> The mutual migrations and mixing of cultues are more freequent and> lingustic and script developments more complex than the one way traffic> we would love to assign them to be!> Note:> There is a problem with the statement - //Indus script linguistically> Dravidian//. It could be that -> * Indus language is lingustically dravidian BUT> * Indus script is and could be the one that caused the origin of BOTH> Brahmi (remember the phonetic alphabet system and font similarity) and> Tamil (remember Tamil-Brahmi) . Thus Indus Script is either BOTH Aryan> and Dravidian or not both. (for example, current Devanagari or Tamil> script has no similarity with the ancient indus script)> Love and regards,> Sreenadh

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, //> Nobody can say that the Dravidians are not Aryans. They are Dravas

(Dravidas) ie. one of the different groups of Aryans, dispersed from

the Aryavarta. Drava signifies wetness and from that it appears that

the Dravas probably preferred to stay near water source.When they moved

out of the Aryavarta they kept the original language and the original

pre-Brahmi script with them and nourished them. In the North more

changes in the language had occurred and Sanskrit evolved as the

language of the intellectuals and the Brahmi script for the scriptures

at a later date or side by side.// That is a good argument.//There is one Ol' Chiki script developed in the early twentieth century

as a composite of the Oriya and the Santhali symbols. The Santhai

symbols are� similar to the Indus valley (ie. Saraswati-valley)

symbols. Therefore it appears to me that not only the Tamil language,

even the Oriya language bears resemblance to the Saraswati-valley

script.// Yes, I know that and agree with it. Further considering the fact that Kalinga (Orissa) and Ujjaini (Malva region) could be places where Sindhu-Saraswati harappan culture tried to re-establish themselves till near the period of Asoka - if there is a possibility of finding good amount of Sindhu-Sarasvati like language use or influence Orissa becomes one of the prime candidate. Love and regards,Sreenadh , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > Nobody can say that the Dravidians are not Aryans. They are Dravas (Dravidas) ie. one of the different groups of Aryans, dispersed from the Aryavarta. Drava signifies wetness and from that it appears that the Dravas probably preferred to stay near water source.When they moved out of the Aryavarta they kept the original language and the original pre-Brahmi script with them and nourished them. In the North more changes in the language had occurred and Sanskrit evolved as the language of the intellectuals and the Brahmi script for the scriptures at a later date or side by side. There is one Ol' Chiki script developed in the early twentieth century as a composite of the Oriya and the Santhali symbols. The Santhai symbols are� similar to the Indus valley (ie. Saraswati-valley) symbols. Therefore it appears to me that not only the Tamil language, even the Oriya language bears resemblance to the Saraswati-valley script.> > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinadh/Mahadevan Ji,

 

India is the origion of vedic culture and if any migration has happened,

that w'd have happened from India to other places, like, after the tens

of thousands of years, somebody tries to find origin of indian culture,

he w'd find some temples in USA, some temples in Europe, and may come up

with a conclusion that indian culture started in USA and Europe and then

they people might have migrated to India, w'd that be a right

conclusion ????????

 

This is the point where most people are doing mistakes.

 

Pls correct a wrong visualization, Vedic culture is evolved in the land

of vedas, which is known as India today, may be those days, we were in

density from Hindukush to Aryavrat but that doesnt mean no indians were

living in other places of country or other parts of country had no

culture, A diety called Kubera had a Lanka in treta.

 

regards,

Utkal.

 

 

, " sreesog " <sreesog

wrote:

>

> Dear Ananta Krishnan ji,

> * Assimilation of everything good from everywhere happens always!

> * Origin of something bad always happens everywhere!

> * We loss something good and bad (BOTH!) every time with the flow of

> time!

> * Something contradictory will not get accepted into some system -

> even when good! Some thing bad will get assimilated if it is in tune

> with the current system - even when bad!

> This is simply human nature and human psychology. []

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " sreesog " sreesog@

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Ananta Krishnan ji,

> > They are all arguing for long - without reaching any useful

> > conclusion! Take the 2 basic arguments -

> > Arg 1: Indus script is linguistically dravidian since the

> linguistic

> > analysis points in this direction (min-fish min-star or what ever

> that

> > be)

> > Arg 2: Brahmi script (the ancestor of Devanagari script) originated

> > Indus script, and this can be startistically proved.

> > So the question is - is Indus script Dravidian or Aryan? Dravidian

> or

> > Indo-European? They are not goint to reach a conclusive answer at

all

> -

> > how much energy they waste!

> >

> > Why can't we think that there could be truth in both the above

> studies

> > and arguments at the same time? How? I will explain.

> > * Dravidians also argue that they have some

> > phonetic/lingustic/antrapological connection with the anceint

> > Sumerians. Many even use the term Sumero-Tamil cult now a days! OK.

> Let

> > us accept that Sumerians migrated to India and Dravidians are Indian

> > settled Sumerians.

> > * Sumerian culture existed from BC 5300 or so to BC 1940 and

> > Sindhu-Sarasvaty civilization overlapped this period during BC 2600

or

> > so to BC 1800. If Sumerians came to India then most possibly it

could

> > be through Sindhu-Sarsvaty and there is a lot of chance for Some

> > Dravidian like lingu-fransa present in Sindhu-Sarasvati as well. So

> Arg

> > 1 becomes acceptable

> > * Even Sumerian culture indicate the influence of Agamic temple

> > culture and numerous Sanskrit like words (Endo-European language

> > influence) through the words such as Uttana-pishtin etc - and it is

> > certain that Central Asian Indo-European influence is well evident

> even

> > from Sumerian period! So if it was the same Agama (temple centric)

> > culture that spread from Central Asia to Sumeria and

Sindhu-Sarasvaty

> > then it is well possible that numerous Indo-Europian like language

> > speaking people were also present in both those places and places

> > overlapping cultures such as Hittite culture of Anatolia. Since it

is

> > the (sanskrit like language speaking) central asian people that

caused

> > the origin of Deva nagari script from Siddha script used of writing

> > mantras and the phonetic system used in Brahmi, it is well possible

> that

> > the origin of Devanagari script can be traced to Brahmi script (used

> > for writing prakrit/sanskrit those days) and also that the origin of

> > Brahmi can be traced to the Sindhu-Sarasvati script (where both

> > Indo-Eropean and Sumerian/Dravidian people were present at the same

> > time). So Arg 2 also becomes acceptable.

> >

> > So the point is traffic (people migration) happened in 3 direction

> and

> > from 3 major sources -

> > 1) First, Central Asian Agamic people (who followed temple worship

> and

> > an sanskrit like lingustic system) migrated from Central Asia to

> places

> > like Sumer and Sindhu-Sarasvati -- Agama culture

> > 2) Second, people from Sumeria (again following Agamic temple cult

> and

> > a Dravidian like lingustic system) migrated from Sumeria to South

> India

> > through Sindhu-Sarasvaty ---- Dravidian culture

> > 3) Third, Siberian (north asian) Fire cult and the people who used

> > Sanskrit like language migrated from Siberia to Iran/Irac and to

India

> > ----- Vedic culture

> > If so Siberia, Central Asia and Sumeria - all should be the cradle

> of

> > Civilizations.

> >

> > The arguments put forward by the Aryan (Indo-European) fanatics,

> and

> > Drvidian (Indo-Sumerian) fanatics also becomes true - and all

> evidences

> > will become justifiable. But such acceptace demands accepting the

> > contribution of other cultures as well, apart from fanatic effort to

> put

> > forward own supremacy (whether it be of Vedic, Dravidian or Agama

> cult).

> > The mutual migrations and mixing of cultues are more freequent and

> > lingustic and script developments more complex than the one way

> traffic

> > we would love to assign them to be!

> > Note:

> > There is a problem with the statement - //Indus script

> linguistically

> > Dravidian//. It could be that -

> > * Indus language is lingustically dravidian BUT

> > * Indus script is and could be the one that caused the origin of

> BOTH

> > Brahmi (remember the phonetic alphabet system and font similarity)

and

> > Tamil (remember Tamil-Brahmi). Thus Indus Script is either BOTH

Aryan

> > and Dravidian or not both. (for example, current Devanagari or Tamil

> > script has no similarity with the ancient indus script)

> > Love and regards,

> > Sreenadh

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Utkal ji, There are many problems with your proposal. * First of all, Vedic (Nigama) religion is NOT in favor of temples and temple worship; but is Homa/yaga centric. * It is Agama (Tantric) religion that is in favor of temples and temple worship. New archeological evidence for numerous temples in Central Asia (Tajakistan, Armenia etc), Ancient Sumeria (Mesopotomian Iran), Anatolian (Turki) Hittite culture etc are coming up and even Sindhu-Sarasvay is in Agama temple cult line. * If it is about the dateline then, as per our current understanding, Sumerian and Central Asian cultures are much older than Sindhu-Sarasvaty culture. But ofcouse Dwaraka like archeological sites may provide more info, and there is always a chance that India might also had a much developed Agama (not-vedic) civilization during that period. The OIT (Out of India Theory) has many falws and currently facing much critisism, even though like Hindu Civilization is in favor of it. Check at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory The theory that is getting more and more acceptable to all now a days is Kurgan Theory of Kurugan Hypothesis. To know more about it, check at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_theory Me too finds, Kurgan hypothesis as more acceptable comparied to OIT or AIT. Note: Presence of Sanskrit like words in many languages easly create the hallusination that everything originated from India and spread outside. But the knowledge that there are NUMEROUS languages (whether it be Hittite, Avasthan, Glascha or anything) that share the same ancient nature as Sasnkrit and NOT indebted to sanskrit but all point to a possible common source of origin in Central Asia or North Asia (for Indo-European language speaking cultures). And this shatters the myth of India as the source of Indo-European language family (actually that is what later transilates into OIT). Same is true about the Temple cult - even when India had no temples, Agamic temple cuture was flurishing at many places of the world - Sumerian and Hittite cultures are examples. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "utkal.panigrahi" <utkal.panigrahi wrote:>> > Dear Srinadh/Mahadevan Ji,> > India is the origion of vedic culture and if any migration has happened,> that w'd have happened from India to other places, like, after the tens> of thousands of years, somebody tries to find origin of indian culture,> he w'd find some temples in USA, some temples in Europe, and may come up> with a conclusion that indian culture started in USA and Europe and then> they people might have migrated to India, w'd that be a right> conclusion ????????> > This is the point where most people are doing mistakes.> > Pls correct a wrong visualization, Vedic culture is evolved in the land> of vedas, which is known as India today, may be those days, we were in> density from Hindukush to Aryavrat but that doesnt mean no indians were> living in other places of country or other parts of country had no> culture, A diety called Kubera had a Lanka in treta.> > regards,> Utkal.> > > , "sreesog" sreesog@> wrote:> >> > Dear Ananta Krishnan ji,> > * Assimilation of everything good from everywhere happens always!> > * Origin of something bad always happens everywhere!> > * We loss something good and bad (BOTH!) every time with the flow of> > time!> > * Something contradictory will not get accepted into some system -> > even when good! Some thing bad will get assimilated if it is in tune> > with the current system - even when bad!> > This is simply human nature and human psychology. []> > Love and regards,> > Sreenadh

[Guest guest]

I had taken temples just like an example.

 

regards,

Utkal.

 

, " sreesog " <sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Utkal ji,

> There are many problems with your proposal.

> * First of all, Vedic (Nigama) religion is NOT in favor of temples and

> temple worship; but is Homa/yaga centric.

> * It is Agama (Tantric) religion that is in favor of temples and

> temple worship. New archeological evidence for numerous temples in

> Central Asia (Tajakistan, Armenia etc), Ancient Sumeria (Mesopotomian

> Iran), Anatolian (Turki) Hittite culture etc are coming up and even

> Sindhu-Sarasvay is in Agama temple cult line.

> * If it is about the dateline then, as per our current understanding,

> Sumerian and Central Asian cultures are much older than Sindhu-Sarasvaty

> culture. But ofcouse Dwaraka like archeological sites may provide more

> info, and there is always a chance that India might also had a much

> developed Agama (not-vedic) civilization during that period.

> The OIT (Out of India Theory) has many falws and currently facing much

> critisism, even though like Hindu Civilization is in favor

> of it. Check at:

> <http://www.surfagain.com/browse.php/Oi8v/ZW4ud2lraXBlZGlh/Lm9yZ/y93aWtp\

> L091dF/9vZl9JbmR/pYV90aGVvcnk_3D/b0/>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory

> The theory that is getting more and more acceptable to all now a days

> is Kurgan Theory of Kurugan Hypothesis. To know more about it, check at:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_theory

> Me too finds, Kurgan hypothesis as more acceptable comparied to OIT or

> AIT.

>

> Note: Presence of Sanskrit like words in many languages easly create

> the hallusination that everything originated from India and spread

> outside. But the knowledge that there are NUMEROUS languages (whether it

> be Hittite, Avasthan, Glascha or anything) that share the same ancient

> nature as Sasnkrit and NOT indebted to sanskrit but all point to a

> possible common source of origin in Central Asia or North Asia (for

> Indo-European language speaking cultures). And this shatters the myth of

> India as the source of Indo-European language family (actually that is

> what later transilates into OIT). Same is true about the Temple cult -

> even when India had no temples, Agamic temple cuture was flurishing at

> many places of the world - Sumerian and Hittite cultures are examples.

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " utkal.panigrahi "

> <utkal.panigrahi@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Srinadh/Mahadevan Ji,

> >

> > India is the origion of vedic culture and if any migration has

> happened,

> > that w'd have happened from India to other places, like, after the

> tens

> > of thousands of years, somebody tries to find origin of indian

> culture,

> > he w'd find some temples in USA, some temples in Europe, and may come

> up

> > with a conclusion that indian culture started in USA and Europe and

> then

> > they people might have migrated to India, w'd that be a right

> > conclusion ????????

> >

> > This is the point where most people are doing mistakes.

> >

> > Pls correct a wrong visualization, Vedic culture is evolved in the

> land

> > of vedas, which is known as India today, may be those days, we were in

> > density from Hindukush to Aryavrat but that doesnt mean no indians

> were

> > living in other places of country or other parts of country had no

> > culture, A diety called Kubera had a Lanka in treta.

> >

> > regards,

> > Utkal.

> >

> >

> > , " sreesog " sreesog@

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Ananta Krishnan ji,

> > > * Assimilation of everything good from everywhere happens always!

> > > * Origin of something bad always happens everywhere!

> > > * We loss something good and bad (BOTH!) every time with the flow of

> > > time!

> > > * Something contradictory will not get accepted into some system -

> > > even when good! Some thing bad will get assimilated if it is in tune

> > > with the current system - even when bad!

> > > This is simply human nature and human psychology. []

> > > Love and regards,

> > > Sreenadh

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh-ji,

 

I find the discussion about Indus-Saraswati, AIT, OIT, Aryan-Dravid

Agama -Vedic etc. are going in predictable manner.

 

One group (Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Michael Witzel) etc. asserts

that whatever good things are there (in India), everything came from

outside - some sort of AIT fanatics. One of their tactics is to reduce

the antiquity of Veda (to BC 1500-1200).

 

Other group (OIT) asserts that everything originated in India. The more

fanatics will even assert that all languages evolved from Sanskrit.

Anything non-vedic is not acceptable to them. They are unconsciously

following the monoethistic trait of Christianity.

 

And then, those who are 'experts'... they also consciously or otherwise

are biased by their personal prejudices.

 

May be I am biased too. But before going to find the original homeland

of anyone, may be we should look in to the ancient literature available

to us. Does Veda or MBH mentions anything about the present question ?

What are the myths of different races present in India (Santhal, Munda,

Bodo) and Tamil / Telegu Literatures suggest ? What the Puranas

suggest ?

 

Probably, that will be a better way of searching. As you always suggest

that we should look in to astrology classics for authentic facts on astrology..

 

regards

 

Chakraborty

 

 

 

sreesog [sreesog] Saturday, October 10, 2009 3:10 PM Subject: Re: Indus script linguistically Dravidian: Expert- Iravatham Mahadevan

Dear Utkal ji, There are many problems with your proposal. * First of all, Vedic (Nigama) religion is NOT in favor of temples and temple worship; but is Homa/yaga centric. * It is Agama (Tantric) religion that is in favor of temples and temple worship. New archeological evidence for numerous temples in Central Asia (Tajakistan, Armenia etc), Ancient Sumeria (Mesopotomian Iran), Anatolian (Turki) Hittite culture etc are coming up and even Sindhu-Sarasvay is in Agama temple cult line. * If it is about the dateline then, as per our current understanding, Sumerian and Central Asian cultures are much older than Sindhu-Sarasvaty culture. But ofcouse Dwaraka like archeological sites may provide more info, and there is always a chance that India might also had a much developed Agama (not-vedic) civilization during that period. The OIT (Out of India Theory) has many falws and currently facing much critisism, even though like Hindu Civilization is in favor of it. Check at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory The theory that is getting more and more acceptable to all now a days is Kurgan Theory of Kurugan Hypothesis. To know more about it, check at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_theory Me too finds, Kurgan hypothesis as more acceptable comparied to OIT or AIT. Note: Presence of Sanskrit like words in many languages easly create the hallusination that everything originated from India and spread outside. But the knowledge that there are NUMEROUS languages (whether it be Hittite, Avasthan, Glascha or anything) that share the same ancient nature as Sasnkrit and NOT indebted to sanskrit but all point to a possible common source of origin in Central Asia or North Asia (for Indo-European language speaking cultures). And this shatters the myth of India as the source of Indo-European language family (actually that is what later transilates into OIT). Same is true about the Temple cult - even when India had no temples, Agamic temple cuture was flurishing at many places of the world - Sumerian and Hittite cultures are examples. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "utkal.panigrahi" <utkal.panigrahi wrote:>> > Dear Srinadh/Mahadevan Ji,> > India is the origion of vedic culture and if any migration has happened,> that w'd have happened from India to other places, like, after the tens> of thousands of years, somebody tries to find origin of indian culture,> he w'd find some temples in USA, some temples in Europe, and may come up> with a conclusion that indian culture started in USA and Europe and then> they people might have migrated to India, w'd that be a right> conclusion ????????> > This is the point where most people are doing mistakes.> > Pls correct a wrong visualization, Vedic culture is evolved in the land> of vedas, which is known as India today, may be those days, we were in> density from Hindukush to Aryavrat but that doesnt mean no indians were> living in other places of country or other parts of country had no> culture, A diety called Kubera had a Lanka in treta.> > regards,> Utkal.> > > , "sreesog" sreesog@> wrote:> >> > Dear Ananta Krishnan ji,> > * Assimilation of everything good from everywhere happens always!> > * Origin of something bad always happens everywhere!> > * We loss something good and bad (BOTH!) every time with the flow of> > time!> > * Something contradictory will not get accepted into some system -> > even when good! Some thing bad will get assimilated if it is in tune> > with the current system - even when bad!> > This is simply human nature and human psychology. []> > Love and regards,> > SreenadhThis Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji:Thanks for your comments.Based on the "Out of Africa" theory, human beings started to migrate out of central Africa, some 50,000 to 30,000 years ago. The first wave hung around the coastal regions followed the Arabian sea, Bay of Bengal and on to east asia and on to australia. These people are presumed to be Dravidians. The next wave went north to Babylon and some of them dropped south towards Hindukush and then to India; these gruops are probably classifiedas Aryans.Now, ofcourse assimilation has taken place, sometimes very slowly but nevertheless it has happened. This theory has been proven scientifically tracing the chromosones and

all it signifies that everybody in India came from some place at different

times.So, to say that people originated in India and spread elsewhere is just mere talk without any scientific or archeological evidence. Now, both Mahadeven and Asko Parpola who have spent close to forty years researching on this subject, have nearly come to a conclusion, that both Tamil and Sanskrit have the roots in the Indus script. Only fanatics cannot see the commonality between Tamil and Sankrit and according to them have proto-dravidian origns. All the Tamil words like,karmam, dharmam, and practically every word ending with "m" has Sanskrit roots. These words are not recently created, it is there in "Thirukural" which was written around 200 B.C. It is very sad that Indus valleyites who had underground drainage system did not leave something similar to the Pyramids so that this language can be deciphered once for all. For centuries, it has been hidden and came to light only in the early part of last century. Moreover, most of the

artifacts are in Pakistan, and they are not going to spend a dime in deciphering the language. So it is not easy work for the experts and let us hope they can decipher this conclusively some time soon.Regards,anantha krishnan--- On Sat, 10/10/09, sreesog <sreesog wrote:sreesog <sreesog Re: Indus script linguistically Dravidian: Expert- Iravatham Mahadevan Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 1:50 AM

 

 

 

Dear Ananta Krishnan ji, They are all arguing for long - without reaching any useful conclusion! Take the 2 basic arguments - Arg 1: Indus script is linguistically dravidian since the linguistic analysis points in this direction (min-fish min-star or what ever that be) Arg 2: Brahmi script (the ancestor of Devanagari script) originated Indus script, and this can be startistically proved. So the question is - is Indus script Dravidian or Aryan? Dravidian or Indo-European? They are not goint to reach a conclusive answer at all - how much energy they waste! Why can't we think that there could be truth in both the above studies and arguments at the same time? How? I will explain. * Dravidians also argue that they have some phonetic/lingustic/ antrapological connection with the anceint Sumerians. Many even use the term Sumero-Tamil

cult now a days! OK. Let us accept that Sumerians migrated to India and Dravidians are Indian settled Sumerians. * Sumerian culture existed from BC 5300 or so to BC 1940 and Sindhu-Sarasvaty civilization overlapped this period during BC 2600 or so to BC 1800. If Sumerians came to India then most possibly it could be through Sindhu-Sarsvaty and there is a lot of chance for Some Dravidian like lingu-fransa present in Sindhu-Sarasvati as well. So Arg 1 becomes acceptable * Even Sumerian culture indicate the influence of Agamic temple culture and numerous Sanskrit like words (Endo-European language influence) through the words such as Uttana-pishtin etc - and it is certain that Central Asian Indo-European influence is well evident even from Sumerian period! So if it was the same Agama (temple centric) culture that spread from Central Asia to Sumeria and Sindhu-Sarasvaty then it is well possible that numerous Indo-Europian

like language speaking people were also present in both those places and places overlapping cultures such as Hittite culture of Anatolia. Since it is the (sanskrit like language speaking) central asian people that caused the origin of Deva nagari script from Siddha script used of writing mantras and the phonetic system used in Brahmi, it is well possible that the origin of Devanagari script can be traced to Brahmi script (used for writing prakrit/sanskrit those days) and also that the origin of Brahmi can be traced to the Sindhu-Sarasvati script (where both Indo-Eropean and Sumerian/Dravidian people were present at the same time). So Arg 2 also becomes acceptable. So the point is traffic (people migration) happened in 3 direction and from 3 major sources - 1) First, Central Asian Agamic people (who followed temple worship and an sanskrit like lingustic system) migrated from Central Asia to places like Sumer

and Sindhu-Sarasvati -- Agama culture 2) Second, people from Sumeria (again following Agamic temple cult and a Dravidian like lingustic system) migrated from Sumeria to South India through Sindhu-Sarasvaty ---- Dravidian culture 3) Third, Siberian (north asian) Fire cult and the people who used Sanskrit like language migrated from Siberia to Iran/Irac and to India ----- Vedic culture If so Siberia, Central Asia and Sumeria - all should be the cradle of Civilizations. The arguments put forward by the Aryan (Indo-European) fanatics, and Drvidian (Indo-Sumerian) fanatics also becomes true - and all evidences will become justifiable. But such acceptace demands accepting the contribution of other cultures as well, apart from fanatic effort to put forward own supremacy (whether it be of Vedic, Dravidian or Agama cult). The mutual migrations and mixing of cultues are more freequent and

lingustic and script developments more complex than the one way traffic we would love to assign them to be! Note: There is a problem with the statement - //Indus script linguistically Dravidian//. It could be that - * Indus language is lingustically dravidian BUT * Indus script is and could be the one that caused the origin of BOTH Brahmi (remember the phonetic alphabet system and font similarity) and Tamil (remember Tamil-Brahmi) . Thus Indus Script is either BOTH Aryan and Dravidian or not both. (for example, current Devanagari or Tamil script has no similarity with the ancient indus script)Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, Anantha Krishnan <anantha_krishnan_ 98 wrote:>> > > Dear Friends:> Here is something we all can debate about... Article from today's Hindu newspaper> Regards>

anantha krishnan> > Indus script linguistically Dravidian: expert > > var addthis_pub = "thehindu";> > S. Ganesan> > > > var min=8;> var max=18;> var min1=18;> var max1=24; function increaseFontSize( ) { var temp=document. getElementById( 'inc').innerHTML> if(temp=="T- ")> decreaseFontSize( );> else> {> var p = document.getElement sByTagName( 'p');> for(i=0;i> print · > T+ > > > > > > The Indus script is Dravidian> linguistically and culturally closer to the old Tamil polity than what> has been recognised so far, eminent epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan has> said. He shared some of his recent and> still-not-fully- published findings relating to the interpretation of> the Indus script, in an

endowment lecture on ‘Vestiges of Indus> Civilisation in Old Tamil’ at the 16th annual session of the Tamil Nadu> History Congress, which opened here on Friday. Mr.> Mahadevan said that though the claim could be met with incredulity, the> evidence he had gathered over four decades of intensive study of the> sources â€" the Indus texts and old Tamil anthologies â€" had led him to> the conclusion. Mr. Mahadevan, who specialises in> the Indus script and Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions, said there was also> substantial archaeological evidence to support the view that Indus> Civilisation was pre-Aryan. The Indus Civilisation was urban, while the> Vedic culture was rural and pastoral. The Indus> seals, he said, do not depict the horse and the chariot with ‘spooked> wheels,’ which were the defining pieces of the Aryan-speaking> societies.

“The Indus religion as revealed by the pictorial depiction> on seals included worship of a buffalo-horned male god,> mother-goddesses, the pipal tree and the serpent, and possibly the> phallic symbol. Such modes of worship present in Hinduism are known to> have been derived from the aboriginal population and are totally alien> to the religion of the Rig Veda.�There was also> substantial linguistic evidence “favouring Dravidian authorship of the> Indus Civilisation,� he said, citing Brahui, a Dravidian language still> spoken in the Indus region, Dravidian loan words in the Rig Veda, the> substratum influence of Dravidian on Indo-Aryan as shown by the> presence of retroflex consonants in the Rig Veda and major> modifications in the Prakrit dialects moving them closer to the> Dravidian than the Indo-European family of languages. Computer

analysis> of Indus texts has also revealed that the language had suffixes only as> in Dravidian and no prefixes as in Indo-Aryan or infixes as in Munda.Clarifying> that he was employing the terms, ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian,’ only in> linguistic sense, he said speakers of the Aryan languages> indistinguishably merged with Dravidian and Munda-speaking people> millennia ago, creating a composite Indian society. Priestly functionaryReferrin g> to the ‘BEARER’ ideograms in the Indus script, he said the frequent> Harappan title, ‘Bearer,’ originally meant a priestly functionary> ceremonially carrying, on a yoke, food offerings to the deity. The> corresponding Dravidian expression, ‘poray’ (bearer) was translated in> the Rig Veda as Bharata (bearer).The symbols> inscribed on a Neolithic axe found at Sembiyan Kandiyur

near> Mayiladuthurai in 2006, a most significant discovery connecting Indus> Civilisation with Tamil Nadu, corresponded to the signs of the Indus> script. Symbols found on megalithic pottery and potsherds from Sanur> and Mangudi in Tamil Nadu also resembled the signs of the Indus script.> > $(function() {> $('#articleKeywords a').click( function() { var keyword = $(this).text( );> if (keyword.indexOf( ' ') != -1)> $('input#searchStri ng').attr( "value", '"' + keyword + '"');> else> $('input#searchStri ng').attr( "value", keyword);> $('#simpleSearchFor m').submit( );> return false;> });> });> > Keywords: Indus script, Dravidian, Old Tamil polity, epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan, ‘Vestiges of Indus Civilisation in Old Tamil’ Tamil Nadu History Congress>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chakraborty ji, I agree with you. //> And then, those who are 'experts'... they also consciously or otherwise> are biased by their personal prejudices. May be I am biased too.// May be the same is true for me too - but it is good that I am not an expert, and so is not going to corrupt the original researches in this area. I would be just satisfied by being the armchair historian in this area - because the subject interests me. //But before going to find the original homeland> of anyone, may be we should look in to the ancient literature available> to us. Does Veda or MBH mentions anything about the present question ?> What are the myths of different races present in India (Santhal, Munda,> Bodo) and Tamil / Telegu Literatures suggest ? What the Puranas> suggest ?> Probably, that will be a better way of searching. As you always suggest> that we should look in to astrology classics for authentic facts on astrology..// That statement is vary valuable - and closes my mouth! You are absolutely right. Actually the problem is - my knowledge in his area of history is awfully limited, I am very junior in this area and was just airing my thoughts during my armchair study/learning of this knowledge area. If I was a historian - I would have followed your above advice. But I am not a historian and my thoughts waders - towards any daily subject of interest! And then I find that I am standing in a forest or a river side - enjoying the beauty of new found lands. But - yee, you are absolutly right! Love and regards,Sreenadh , "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2 wrote:>> Dear Sreenadh-ji,> > I find the discussion about Indus-Saraswati, AIT, OIT, Aryan-Dravid> Agama -Vedic etc. are going in predictable manner.> > One group (Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Michael Witzel) etc. asserts> that whatever good things are there (in India), everything came from> outside - some sort of AIT fanatics. One of their tactics is to reduce> the antiquity of Veda (to BC 1500-1200).> > Other group (OIT) asserts that everything originated in India. The more> fanatics will even assert that all languages evolved from Sanskrit.> Anything non-vedic is not acceptable to them. They are unconsciously> following the monoethistic trait of Christianity.> > And then, those who are 'experts'... they also consciously or otherwise> are biased by their personal prejudices.> > May be I am biased too. But before going to find the original homeland> of anyone, may be we should look in to the ancient literature available> to us. Does Veda or MBH mentions anything about the present question ?> What are the myths of different races present in India (Santhal, Munda,> Bodo) and Tamil / Telegu Literatures suggest ? What the Puranas> suggest ?> > Probably, that will be a better way of searching. As you always suggest> that we should look in to astrology classics for authentic facts on astrology..> > regards> > Chakraborty

[Guest guest]

Dear Anantha Krishnan ji, //It is very sad that Indus valleyites who had underground drainage

system did not leave something similar to the Pyramids so that this

language can be deciphered once for all.// You are absolutely right - beautifully put! Love and regards,Sreenadh , Anantha Krishnan <anantha_krishnan_98 wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji:> Thanks for your comments.> Based on the "Out of Africa" theory, human beings started to migrate out of central Africa, some 50,000 to 30,000 years ago. The first wave hung around the coastal regions followed the Arabian sea, Bay of Bengal and on to east asia and on to australia. These people are presumed to be Dravidians. The next wave went north to Babylon and some of them dropped south towards Hindukush and then to India; these gruops are probably classified> as Aryans.Now, ofcourse assimilation has taken place, sometimes very slowly but nevertheless it has happened. This theory has been proven scientifically tracing the chromosones and> all it signifies that everybody in India came from some place at different> times.So, to say that people originated in India and spread elsewhere is just mere talk without any scientific or archeological evidence. > Now, both Mahadeven and Asko Parpola who have spent close to forty years researching on this subject, have nearly come to a conclusion, that both Tamil and Sanskrit have the roots in the Indus script. Only fanatics cannot see the commonality between Tamil and Sankrit and according to them have proto-dravidian origns. All the Tamil words like,karmam, dharmam, and practically every word ending with "m" has Sanskrit roots. These words are not recently created, it is there in "Thirukural" which was written around 200 B.C. > It is very sad that Indus valleyites who had underground drainage system did not leave something similar to the Pyramids so that this language can be deciphered once for all. For centuries, it has been hidden and came to light only in the early part of last century. Moreover, most of the artifacts are in Pakistan, and they are not going to spend a dime in deciphering the language. So it is not easy work for the experts and let us hope they can decipher this conclusively some time soon.> Regards,> anantha krishnan

[Guest guest]

Dear Chakraborty Ji,

You have diven a right direction to discussion that it w'd be better to check tribes beleives and references in our indian literature, I know about Santhal tribe's culture and beliefs, they worship Sun God, One of their main festival is Akshaitrutiya, another festival is "Karam Bhoga" celebrated in Kartik month and another is, obviously "Makar Sankranti". It's important that Santhals link themselves to Mahabharata war, they took the side of Kauravas.

In the Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharat Sanjay says that on the left side of Bhishma there are the Karusas with the Mundas (Sub Section of Santhals)

"Munda", a sub section of Santhal tribe claims that they helped Rama in war with Ravana, they also worship Sita and show great respect towards her, another sub section Kharwar's identify themselves as Suryavanshi Kshatriya, Vaivasvat Manu's sixth son Karusa was given rulership of Jharkhand region. those Karusas are later on known as Karwar or Kharwar, "Munda" finds a reference in Vishnu puran.It's said that "Boro" or "Borok" are referred to as "Kirat" in Indian epics.

The term "Kirat" has references in Ayodhya Kanda of Ramayana, scholars says that they are referred to in Atharva Veda and Yajur Veda also, some linguists are claiming that term "Sindhu" is derived from borok word "Chinti", from "Chinti" to "Chindi" to Sindhi" to " Sindhu", similarly, Harapps is derived from "Donghorfa".

Borok belief is they are Chandra Vanshis and their king also participated in Mahabharata war.

I have excluded other linguistic and genetic theories becuase they originate with a relative reference , no linguistic or genetic theory is absolute and a discussion on linguistic ground will be misleading. some funny western scholars advocate that rajputs are also not indians but the descendants of skythic tribes of madhya asia, every thing big and beautiful was an assailant to this country, called India so english invasion has a validity, I think they were trying to prove something like this.

regards,Utkal

 

, "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2 wrote:>> Dear Sreenadh-ji,> > I find the discussion about Indus-Saraswati, AIT, OIT, Aryan-Dravid> Agama -Vedic etc. are going in predictable manner.> > One group (Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Michael Witzel) etc. asserts> that whatever good things are there (in India), everything came from> outside - some sort of AIT fanatics. One of their tactics is to reduce> the antiquity of Veda (to BC 1500-1200).> > Other group (OIT) asserts that everything originated in India. The more> fanatics will even assert that all languages evolved from Sanskrit.> Anything non-vedic is not acceptable to them. They are unconsciously> following the monoethistic trait of Christianity.> > And then, those who are 'experts'... they also consciously or otherwise> are biased by their personal prejudices.> > May be I am biased too. But before going to find the original homeland> of anyone, may be we should look in to the ancient literature available> to us. Does Veda or MBH mentions anything about the present question ?> What are the myths of different races present in India (Santhal, Munda,> Bodo) and Tamil / Telegu Literatures suggest ? What the Puranas> suggest ?> > Probably, that will be a better way of searching. As you always suggest> that we should look in to astrology classics for authentic facts on astrology..> > regards> > Chakraborty> ________________________________> sreesog [sreesog]> Saturday, October 10, 2009 3:10 PM> > Re: Indus script linguistically Dravidian: Expert- Iravatham Mahadevan> > > > Dear Utkal ji,> There are many problems with your proposal.> * First of all, Vedic (Nigama) religion is NOT in favor of temples and temple worship; but is Homa/yaga centric.> * It is Agama (Tantric) religion that is in favor of temples and temple worship. New archeological evidence for numerous temples in Central Asia (Tajakistan, Armenia etc), Ancient Sumeria (Mesopotomian Iran), Anatolian (Turki) Hittite culture etc are coming up and even Sindhu-Sarasvay is in Agama temple cult line.> * If it is about the dateline then, as per our current understanding, Sumerian and Central Asian cultures are much older than Sindhu-Sarasvaty culture. But ofcouse Dwaraka like archeological sites may provide more info, and there is always a chance that India might also had a much developed Agama (not-vedic) civilization during that period.> The OIT (Out of India Theory) has many falws and currently facing much critisism, even though like Hindu Civilization is in favor of it. Check at: <http://www.surfagain.com/browse.php/Oi8v/ZW4ud2lraXBlZGlh/Lm9yZ/y93aWtpL091dF/9vZl9JbmR/pYV90aGVvcnk_3D/b0/> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory> The theory that is getting more and more acceptable to all now a days is Kurgan Theory of Kurugan Hypothesis. To know more about it, check at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_theory> Me too finds, Kurgan hypothesis as more acceptable comparied to OIT or AIT.> > Note: Presence of Sanskrit like words in many languages easly create the hallusination that everything originated from India and spread outside. But the knowledge that there are NUMEROUS languages (whether it be Hittite, Avasthan, Glascha or anything) that share the same ancient nature as Sasnkrit and NOT indebted to sanskrit but all point to a possible common source of origin in Central Asia or North Asia (for Indo-European language speaking cultures). And this shatters the myth of India as the source of Indo-European language family (actually that is what later transilates into OIT). Same is true about the Temple cult - even when India had no temples, Agamic temple cuture was flurishing at many places of the world - Sumerian and Hittite cultures are examples.> Love and regards,> Sreenadh> > , "utkal.panigrahi" <utkal.panigrahi@> wrote:> >> >> > Dear Srinadh/Mahadevan Ji,> >> > India is the origion of vedic culture and if any migration has happened,> > that w'd have happened from India to other places, like, after the tens> > of thousands of years, somebody tries to find origin of indian culture,> > he w'd find some temples in USA, some temples in Europe, and may come up> > with a conclusion that indian culture started in USA and Europe and then> > they people might have migrated to India, w'd that be a right> > conclusion ????????> >> > This is the point where most people are doing mistakes.> >> > Pls correct a wrong visualization, Vedic culture is evolved in the land> > of vedas, which is known as India today, may be those days, we were in> > density from Hindukush to Aryavrat but that doesnt mean no indians were> > living in other places of country or other parts of country had no> > culture, A diety called Kubera had a Lanka in treta.> >> > regards,> > Utkal.> >> >> > , "sreesog" sreesog@> > wrote:> > >> > > Dear Ananta Krishnan ji,> > > * Assimilation of everything good from everywhere happens always!> > > * Origin of something bad always happens everywhere!> > > * We loss something good and bad (BOTH!) every time with the flow of> > > time!> > > * Something contradictory will not get accepted into some system -> > > even when good! Some thing bad will get assimilated if it is in tune> > > with the current system - even when bad!> > > This is simply human nature and human psychology. []> > > Love and regards,> > > Sreenadh> > > > This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.>

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Utkal ji, That was much informative - Thanks. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "utkal.panigrahi" <utkal.panigrahi wrote:>> > Dear Chakraborty Ji,> > You have diven a right direction to discussion that it w'd be better to> check tribes beleives and references in our indian literature, I know> about Santhal tribe's culture and beliefs, they worship Sun God, One of> their main festival is Akshaitrutiya, another festival is "Karam Bhoga"> celebrated in Kartik month and another is, obviously "Makar Sankranti".> It's important that Santhals link themselves to Mahabharata war, they> took the side of Kauravas.> > In the Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharat Sanjay says that on the left side> of Bhishma there are the Karusas with the Mundas (Sub Section of> Santhals)> > "Munda", a sub section of Santhal tribe claims that they helped Rama in> war with Ravana, they also worship Sita and show great respect towards> her, another sub section Kharwar's identify themselves as Suryavanshi> Kshatriya, Vaivasvat Manu's sixth son Karusa was given rulership of> Jharkhand region. those Karusas are later on known as Karwar or Kharwar,> "Munda" finds a reference in Vishnu puran.> > It's said that "Boro" or "Borok" are referred to as "Kirat" in Indian> epics.> > The term "Kirat" has references in Ayodhya Kanda of Ramayana, scholars> says that they are referred to in Atharva Veda and Yajur Veda also, some> linguists are claiming that term "Sindhu" is derived from borok word> "Chinti", from "Chinti" to "Chindi" to Sindhi" to " Sindhu", similarly,> Harapps is derived from "Donghorfa".> > Borok belief is they are Chandra Vanshis and their king also> participated in Mahabharata war.> > I have excluded other linguistic and genetic theories becuase they> originate with a relative reference , no linguistic or genetic theory is> absolute and a discussion on linguistic ground will be misleading. some> funny western scholars advocate that rajputs are also not indians but> the descendants of skythic tribes of madhya asia, every thing big and> beautiful was an assailant to this country, called India so english> invasion has a validity, I think they were trying to prove something> like this.> > regards,> Utkal