Vedic/Puranic History - more details:

[Guest guest]

IndiaArchaeology , " kishore mohan "

<kishore_future wrote:

 

You may be partially right in saying that arch time frames do not

support 3138 bce date of mbh. in fact, the indraprastha excavations

of around this time support the existence of rg vedic periods and not

a city life. on the other hand, the beta dwaraka excavations seem to

be taking the date of dwaraka (or which ever city that has been

excavated) around 1400 bce. similiarly, mbh does not speak of

harappa and mohenja daro either. hence, should we surmise that the

traditional dating of mbh has to be abandoned??? it may be easier to

do so, coz it is not really difficult to adjust dates of 1500 years

later to the astronomical pointers in mbh.

 

but wait a minute, before we really jump to conclusions, it is

essential to look at the evidence more closely.

 

The indraprastha excavations do reveal a culture of rg vedic type but

it is well known that this culture was existing all over india in the

forests. you must be knowing that in fact, at centres of such culture

that the puranas and perhaps,even vedas were later published from.

In other words, these scriptures were existing in an unorganised form

prior to this publishing but the rsis like suta and shounaka etc

performed yagnas etc at such centres-esp in a forest called naimisa-

and sat to recall puranas. this has indeed happend only after

traditional dating of mbh. similiarly, even later upanishads have

been seen at such centres only. hence, the existence of rg vedic type

of culture during the period of mbh is established and hence, it does

not negate the existence of cities at that time.

 

secondly, the existence of beta dwaraka around 1400 bce does not

mean that it was the first city of its type in that area. in fact,

even if u believe that this is dwaraka of sri krishna, do u know that

it has been created on the ruins of another city kushasthali, whose

king was kukudmi? this means that the area of dwaraka is a good place

to construct cities, for one reason or other, and people of different

generations have been doing so one after another. in other words,

just like dwaraka has been constructed after the destruction of

kushasthali, another city with another name might been created after

the destruction of dwaraka.

 

third thing is about mentioning of harappa and m'daro by mbh

writings. this is a point i had been raising in various groups. i had

bbeen emphasising with eminent indologists on the need to reconcile

the dating of mbh with that of ivc.

 

the most unfortunate thing is that while the royal chronology is

available from various puranas till a very later date, the stories

and descriptions seem to have stopped with mbh or just till after

mbh.

 

 

if harappa civilisation has thrived after mbh time, then obviously u

do not find any reference to it in mbh and any of the puranas, which

do not talk much about times after mbh.

 

this is quite possible since harappa civilisation does not boast of

king and army which is a typical developement in provinces that

existed after mbh great war. the obvious reason might be that

several kings and army have been totally vanquished in this war and

hence, the need for development of janapadas. |These janapadas have

thrived even upto the times of buddha.

 

buddha's timing , btw, has to be advanced by atleast 1200 years from

the current accepted dates. so do many other dates, including that of

chandra gupta maurya who is not sandro cratus. also, we cannot rule

out the existence of one ashoka vikramaditya, which will force to

reconsider the dates of asoka too.

 

finally, u discussed about sarasvati river being dead by the time of

pandavas but this is not true. the mbh war has been fought on the

banks of r. sarasvati . perhaps, it was already dieing or so. it is a

point of contention whether the war of kuruksetra has been fought in

a confined area or all along the banks of r. sarasvati...

 

please do not hesitate to ask for clarifications, since i tried to

give lot of arguements in shorter framework of this message and of

course, time was always a constraint. hence, i might hv been

uncomprehendable at places.

 

 

kishore

 

IndiaArchaeology , " Raj Mohanka "

<nmohanka> wrote:

> All,

>

> Speaking of adding details to the chronology of India, that is what

> I've done in my 'Royal Chronology of India' which can be downloaded

> from www.NewDharma.org .

>

> I do not believe the archaeological evidence supports the 3138

B.C.E.

> timeframe for the Mahabharata. According to my timeline, the

> Mahabharata is the 3rd of three Epics. Those who like to use the

> 3000+ B.C.E. timeframe for the MBH, usually have no specific

timeframe

> in mind for the Ramayana and often have never heard of the

> Dasharajnya.

>

> The approximate timeframes in my Royal Chronology are:

>

> 1) 4000 B.C.E. - Vivasvata

> 2) 3300 B.C.E. - Emperor Bharata

> 3) 2900 B.C.E. - Epic#1: Dasharajyna

> 4) 2100 B.C.E. - Epic#2: Ramayana

> 5) 1400 B.C.E. - Epic#3: Mahabharata

> 6) 550 B.C.E. - Buddhist Era

>

> After the Buddhist Era, there is much greater agreement regarding

> dates.

>

> Please download and read my Royal Chronology and let me know if you

> have any questions.

>

> Regards,

>

> - Raj Mohanka

>

> Visit: Http://www.NewDharma.org and

> Http://www.DharmicSriptures.org

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

I would like to add two points to this:

 

1. harappa and m'daro

Jayadrath the king of Sindh and Sauveer fought on Kauravas side. There is a possibility that these areas capitals were harappa and m'daro. (?)

2. Sarasvati drying up:

Balarama's pilgrimage along the banks of Sarasvati is mentioned in Mahabharat. MB says: At some places Sarasvati had dried up. One could tell where it was by the moist soil. So this indicates that the drying up process had started during MB time.

 

Regards,

-Deepali.

--- On Sat, 9/20/08, Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Fwd: Re: Vedic/Puranic History - more details: Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 3:47 AMIndiaArchaeology , "kishore mohan"

<kishore_future wrote:

You may be partially right in saying that arch time frames do not support 3138 bce date of mbh. in fact, the indraprastha excavations of around this time support the existence of rg vedic periods and not a city life. on the other hand, the beta dwaraka excavations seem to be taking the date of dwaraka (or which ever city that has been excavated) around 1400 bce. similiarly, mbh does not speak of harappa and mohenja daro either. hence, should we surmise that the traditional dating of mbh has to be abandoned??? it may be easier to do so, coz it is not really difficult to adjust dates of 1500 years later to the astronomical pointers in mbh. but wait a minute, before we really jump to conclusions, it is essential to look at the evidence more closely. The indraprastha excavations do reveal a culture of rg vedic type but it is well known that this culture was existing all over india in the forests. you must be knowing that in fact, at centres of such culture that the puranas and perhaps,even vedas were later published from. In other words, these scriptures were existing in an unorganised form prior to this publishing but the rsis like suta and shounaka etc performed yagnas etc at such centres-esp in a forest called naimisa-

and sat to recall puranas. this has indeed happend only after traditional dating of mbh. similiarly, even later upanishads have been seen at such centres only. hence, the existence of rg vedic type of culture during the period of mbh is established and hence, it does not negate the existence of cities at that time. secondly, the existence of beta dwaraka around 1400 bce does not mean that it was the first city of its type in that area. in fact, even if u believe that this is dwaraka of sri krishna, do u know that it has been created on the ruins of another city kushasthali, whose king was kukudmi? this means that the area of dwaraka is a good place to construct cities, for one reason or other, and people of different generations have been doing so one after another. in other words, just like dwaraka has been constructed after the destruction of kushasthali, another city with another name might been created after the destruction of dwaraka. third thing is about mentioning of harappa and m'daro by mbh writings. this is a point i had been raising in various groups. i had bbeen emphasising with eminent indologists on the need to reconcile the dating of mbh with that of ivc. the most unfortunate thing is that while the royal chronology is available from various puranas till a very later date, the stories and descriptions seem to have stopped with mbh or just till after mbh. if harappa civilisation has thrived after mbh time, then obviously u do not find any reference to it in mbh and any of the puranas, which do not talk much about times after mbh. this is quite possible since harappa civilisation does not boast of king and army which is a typical developement in provinces that existed after mbh great war. the obvious reason might be that several kings and army have been totally vanquished in this war and hence, the need for development of janapadas. |These janapadas have thrived even upto the times of buddha. buddha's timing , btw, has to be advanced by atleast 1200 years from the current accepted dates. so do many other dates, including that of chandra gupta maurya who is not sandro cratus. also, we cannot rule out the existence of one ashoka vikramaditya, which will force to reconsider the dates of asoka too. finally, u discussed about sarasvati river being dead by the time of pandavas but this is not true. the mbh war has been fought on the banks of r. sarasvati . perhaps, it was already dieing or so. it is a point of contention whether the war of kuruksetra has been fought in a confined area or all along the banks of r. sarasvati... please do not hesitate to ask for clarifications, since i tried to give lot of arguements in shorter framework of this message and of course, time was always a constraint. hence, i might hv been uncomprehendable at places. kishore IndiaArchaeology , "Raj Mohanka" <nmohanka> wrote:

> All,

> > Speaking of adding details to the chronology of India, that is what > I've done in my 'Royal Chronology of India' which can be

downloaded > from www.NewDharma.org .

> > I do not believe the archaeological evidence supports the 3138 B.C.E. > timeframe for the Mahabharata. According to my timeline, the > Mahabharata is the 3rd of three Epics. Those who like to use the > 3000+ B.C.E. timeframe for the MBH, usually have no specific timeframe > in mind for the Ramayana and often have never heard of the > Dasharajnya.

> > The approximate timeframes in my Royal Chronology are:

> > 1) 4000 B.C.E. - Vivasvata

> 2) 3300 B.C.E. - Emperor Bharata

> 3) 2900 B.C.E. - Epic#1: Dasharajyna

> 4) 2100 B.C.E. - Epic#2: Ramayana

> 5) 1400 B.C.E. - Epic#3: Mahabharata

> 6) 550 B.C.E. - Buddhist Era

> > After the Buddhist Era, there is much greater agreement regarding > dates.

> > Please download and read my Royal Chronology and let me know if you > have any questions.

> > Regards,

> > - Raj Mohanka

> > Visit: Http://www.NewDharma.org and

> Http://www.DharmicSriptures.org

--- End forwarded message ---

---

 

[Guest guest]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Deepali Tasgaonkar <pdeepali wrote:

 

 

 

I would like to add two points to this: 1. harappa and m'daro Jayadrath the king of Sindh and Sauveer fought on Kauravas side. There is a possibility that these areas capitals were harappa and m'daro. (?)

 

 

 

 

No, these towns are dated later to the traditional dating of Mbh war . This is one thing which is not being digested by people who are brought up on the staple diet that Indian History started with Indus Valley civilization. In any case, the IVC towns are more of Panya pattanas (Merchant towns) than capitals or mere residential colonies. There is no proof of State or Religion present in these towns. thus, we can not connect them with any known Royal Dynasty.

 

 

 

 

2. Sarasvati drying up:Balarama's pilgrimage along the banks of Sarasvati is mentioned in Mahabharat. MB says: At some places Sarasvati had dried up. One could tell where it was by the moist soil. So this indicates that the drying up process had started during MB time.

 

 

 

This is the objection taken up by KE elsewhere :

 

" For something non-astronomical, you say:> Mbh describes Saraswati, which has totally dried up by> 1900 bce. Hence, Mabh must have occured prior to 1900 bce>Maybe the Saraswati dried up to its present modest condition in 1900

BC, but it didn't disappear, indeed it still exists today. But itwas no longer the mighty sea-going river and instead dried up halfwayin the desert. As you yourself quote K.:>> Balarama sets off on pilgrimage on Sarasvati on Pushya day Nov. 1,

> 3067 BCE>To be more precise, he went to Vibhishana, " disappearance " , the placein Rajasthan where the Saraswati, post-1900 BC, dried up. So, if atall the Saraswati data provide evidence, it would be *against* anu

pre-1900 C dating for the MBh "

 

In reply, I have posted a professional article on AncientIndia : /message/541

 

which states that :

 

The river was obliterated within a short span, in the Quarternary period of the Cenozoic era, through a combination of destructive catastrophic events. The decline of the river appears to have commenced between 5000 and 3000 B.C., probably precipitated by a major tectonic event in the Siwalik Hills of Sirmur region "

 

From the above, ït is clear that the river started disappering much before the times of Mbh.

 

 

Hope this clears,

 

Kishore patnaik

 

 

.

[Guest guest]

Kishore, the point you make about urban phase of the Harappan civilization starting after the traditional date of the Mbh war (3138 BCE) is a valid one. If the traditional date of the war is accepted as correct that makes it around about half a millennium from the time of the war (3138 BCE) to the beginning of the urban phase of the Harappan civilization (c.2600 BCE). Thus if the Mbh was basically composed in that period there would be no reference to a mighty Harappan civilization.

 

Another point in relation to this discussion is that we are still not certain what name/s the Harappans or the Vedic Indians used when referring to the ‘Harappan’ civilization or its cities.

 

Other point that needs to be considered is whether the Rigveda predates even the earliest stages of Harappan civilization (c. 6000-4000 BCE), and the possibility that before the time of the ‘Harappan’ civilization the culture of the whole of the north western region of India had become predominantly Vedic. Thus cities like ‘Mohenjodaro’, Harappa, etc. could have been Vedic cities or kingdoms. This early date for the Rigveda is possible because, due to the strict metrical rules governing the language of its hymns, no one can date it with any certainty.

 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

On 20/9/08 6:47 PM, " Kishore patnaik " <kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

 

 

 

 

IndiaArchaeology <IndiaArchaeology%40> , " kishore mohan "

<kishore_future wrote:

 

You may be partially right in saying that arch time frames do not

support 3138 bce date of mbh. in fact, the indraprastha excavations

of around this time support the existence of rg vedic periods and not

a city life. on the other hand, the beta dwaraka excavations seem to

be taking the date of dwaraka (or which ever city that has been

excavated) around 1400 bce. similiarly, mbh does not speak of

harappa and mohenja daro either. hence, should we surmise that the

traditional dating of mbh has to be abandoned??? it may be easier to

do so, coz it is not really difficult to adjust dates of 1500 years

later to the astronomical pointers in mbh.

 

but wait a minute, before we really jump to conclusions, it is

essential to look at the evidence more closely.

 

The indraprastha excavations do reveal a culture of rg vedic type but

it is well known that this culture was existing all over india in the

forests. you must be knowing that in fact, at centres of such culture

that the puranas and perhaps,even vedas were later published from.

In other words, these scriptures were existing in an unorganised form

prior to this publishing but the rsis like suta and shounaka etc

performed yagnas etc at such centres-esp in a forest called naimisa-

and sat to recall puranas. this has indeed happend only after

traditional dating of mbh. similiarly, even later upanishads have

been seen at such centres only. hence, the existence of rg vedic type

of culture during the period of mbh is established and hence, it does

not negate the existence of cities at that time.

 

secondly, the existence of beta dwaraka around 1400 bce does not

mean that it was the first city of its type in that area. in fact,

even if u believe that this is dwaraka of sri krishna, do u know that

it has been created on the ruins of another city kushasthali, whose

king was kukudmi? this means that the area of dwaraka is a good place

to construct cities, for one reason or other, and people of different

generations have been doing so one after another. in other words,

just like dwaraka has been constructed after the destruction of

kushasthali, another city with another name might been created after

the destruction of dwaraka.

 

third thing is about mentioning of harappa and m'daro by mbh

writings. this is a point i had been raising in various groups. i had

bbeen emphasising with eminent indologists on the need to reconcile

the dating of mbh with that of ivc.

 

the most unfortunate thing is that while the royal chronology is

available from various puranas till a very later date, the stories

and descriptions seem to have stopped with mbh or just till after

mbh.

 

if harappa civilisation has thrived after mbh time, then obviously u

do not find any reference to it in mbh and any of the puranas, which

do not talk much about times after mbh.

 

this is quite possible since harappa civilisation does not boast of

king and army which is a typical developement in provinces that

existed after mbh great war. the obvious reason might be that

several kings and army have been totally vanquished in this war and

hence, the need for development of janapadas. |These janapadas have

thrived even upto the times of buddha.

 

buddha's timing , btw, has to be advanced by atleast 1200 years from

the current accepted dates. so do many other dates, including that of

chandra gupta maurya who is not sandro cratus. also, we cannot rule

out the existence of one ashoka vikramaditya, which will force to

reconsider the dates of asoka too.

 

finally, u discussed about sarasvati river being dead by the time of

pandavas but this is not true. the mbh war has been fought on the

banks of r. sarasvati . perhaps, it was already dieing or so. it is a

point of contention whether the war of kuruksetra has been fought in

a confined area or all along the banks of r. sarasvati...

 

please do not hesitate to ask for clarifications, since i tried to

give lot of arguements in shorter framework of this message and of

course, time was always a constraint. hence, i might hv been

uncomprehendable at places.

 

kishore

 

IndiaArchaeology <IndiaArchaeology%40> , " Raj Mohanka "

<nmohanka> wrote:

> All,

>

> Speaking of adding details to the chronology of India, that is what

> I've done in my 'Royal Chronology of India' which can be downloaded

> from www.NewDharma.org .

>

> I do not believe the archaeological evidence supports the 3138

B.C.E.

> timeframe for the Mahabharata. According to my timeline, the

> Mahabharata is the 3rd of three Epics. Those who like to use the

> 3000+ B.C.E. timeframe for the MBH, usually have no specific

timeframe

> in mind for the Ramayana and often have never heard of the

> Dasharajnya.

>

> The approximate timeframes in my Royal Chronology are:

>

> 1) 4000 B.C.E. - Vivasvata

> 2) 3300 B.C.E. - Emperor Bharata

> 3) 2900 B.C.E. - Epic#1: Dasharajyna

> 4) 2100 B.C.E. - Epic#2: Ramayana

> 5) 1400 B.C.E. - Epic#3: Mahabharata

> 6) 550 B.C.E. - Buddhist Era

>

> After the Buddhist Era, there is much greater agreement regarding

> dates.

>

> Please download and read my Royal Chronology and let me know if you

> have any questions.

>

> Regards,

>

> - Raj Mohanka

>

> Visit: Http://www.NewDharma.org and

> Http://www.DharmicSriptures.org

 

--- End forwarded message ---

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Bruce Duffy <bwduffy wrote:

>

> Kishore, the point you make about urban phase of the Harappan

civilization

> starting after the traditional date of the Mbh war (3138 BCE) is a

valid

> one. If the traditional date of the war is accepted as correct that

makes it

> around about half a millennium from the time of the war (3138 BCE)

to the

> beginning of the urban phase of the Harappan civilization (c.2600

BCE). Thus

> if the Mbh was basically composed in that period there would be no

reference

> to a mighty Harappan civilization.

>

 

Even if the MBh war were contemporaneous with urban Harappa, the two

wouyld be disjunct geographically. Kurukshetra was outside the

eastern border of the urban-Harappan area. But it was very much in

the Vedic area. Therefore:

 

 

> Another point in relation to this discussion is that we are still

not

> certain what name/s the Harappans or the Vedic Indians used when

referring

> to the ŒHarappan¹ civilization or its cities.

>

 

The Vedic and Harappan peoples were not the same. Meluhha was the

name known in Mesopotamia for (part of) the Harappan civilization.

Hence " Mleccha " as the name for prominent strangers to the Vedic

tradition, viz. its Western neighbours.

 

In the Puranas, there is often wailing among the Vedic cattle-herders

about the material and technological superiority of the " Asuras " .

These may well be the Harappans. Note that the same term also denotes

the Iranians. Putting some ethnic and geographical data from the Rg-

Veda together, we may speculate that the Harappan civilization was,

in part, Iranian.

 

 

> Other point that needs to be considered is whether the Rigveda

predates even

> the earliest stages of Harappan civilization (c. 6000-4000 BCE),

and the

> possibility that before the time of the ŒHarappan¹ civilization the

culture

> of the whole of the north western region of India had become

predominantly

> Vedic. Thus cities like ŒMohenjodaro¹, Harappa, etc. could have

been Vedic

> cities or kingdoms.<

 

The classical AIT criticism that the Vedas are clearly non-urban is

valid. Harappa was non-Vedic. Only, the Vedic peoploe lived not to

its west but to its east, where effectively cattle-rearing semi-

nomadic tribes have included a large part of the population till only

a few centuries ago.

 

KE

[Guest guest]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst wrote:

 

>

 

 

Even if the MBh war were contemporaneous with urban Harappa, the two wouyld be disjunct geographically. Kurukshetra was outside the eastern border of the urban-Harappan area. But it was very much in

the Vedic area. Therefore:

 

 

Therefore, what? The members here are trying to identify what could be the names of Harappan civilization in the scriptures. The answer is these names might have never been atttested in the scriptures for very simple reason that the dates of MBh predates Harappa.

 

Identification of names like Harapiyu with Harappa is trash. It is mere wild theories running amok. In any case, even by the accepted theories, Aryans have not entered India before 1500 bce or even 1380 bce (the date of treaty of Mitannis), which will preclude any connection of Indic Aryans with Harappa and other cities.

 

More over, why the Aryans have not destroyed the likes Jorwe culture (which certainly predates the dates of 'Ayan invasion' and continues much beyond the date of Aryans entering India) and more interestingly, why there was no so called Aryan stamp on these culures. What is much more perplexing is noone is trying to take the dates of Aryan entry based on the latest excavations such as those at Bet dwaraka.

 

 

The Vedic and Harappan peoples were not the same. Meluhha was the name known in Mesopotamia for (part of) the Harappan civilization. Hence " Mleccha " as the name for prominent strangers to the Vedic

tradition, viz. its Western neighbours.

In the Puranas, there is often wailing among the Vedic cattle-herders about the material and technological superiority of the " Asuras " . These may well be the Harappans. Note that the same term also denotes

the Iranians. Putting some ethnic and geographical data from the Rg-Veda together, we may speculate that the Harappan civilization was, in part, Iranian.

 

 

It is a very funny derivation, Elst. To start with Meluha is not really the name connected with Sindh. It is the name given for Bahrain, with which there was continuous interaction of the ancient civilization (cf Kosambi) and if your derivation of Mleccha from Meluaha stands the scrutiny of lingusitcs, which I am not competent to decide, the reason for such a thing is simply that Meluha is connected with a Mleccha area ie Bahrain.

 

 

The classical AIT criticism that the Vedas are clearly non-urban is valid. Harappa was non-Vedic. Only, the Vedic peoploe lived not to its west but to its east, where effectively cattle-rearing semi-

nomadic tribes have included a large part of the population till only a few centuries ago.

 

 

The problem with you is you are semi AIT and semi Non AIT. Please decide what is going ot be your stand.

 

If you are not inclined to accept AIt or its semantic sister, AMT, it is clearly means Aryans are autochthonous (spellcheck) and the alters and other artifacts of IVC MUST be a direct relative of Rg Veda, no matter what came first. Again, the OITians talk of the mutual exclusivity problem : Indus people have archaeology, no texts and Aryans have texts, no archaeology. It is possible to solve this problem only if these two are complementary.

 

regards,

 

Kishore patnaik

[Guest guest]

"

Even if the MBh war were contemporaneous with urban Harappa, the two

wouyld be disjunct geographically. "MBh mentions clearly the kingdoms from which armies joined the war. The list very much covers the entire region, so geographical disjointness is probably not a valid argument. Harappa's west is mentioned (Afghan), its east is mentioned, its south is mentioned. If it was a mighty civilization, and also contemporary, its mention cannot be missed in MBh. Also, the kingdoms mentioned are not disjoint from the Harappan area. "

In the Puranas, there is often wailing among the Vedic cattle-herders

about the material and technological superiority of the "Asuras".

These may well be the Harappans. ""Asuras" never formed a civilization from Puranic evidence. Most of the stories were about "an asura". In cases where there was mention of "Asuric army", as in case of Naraka (Assam) or Ravana (Lanka), the geography of their kingdom was nowhere near Harappa. Moreover, those who fought them were the kings of Ayodhya (Uttar pradesh), Dwaraka (Gujarat), Hastinapur (Delhi), which are closer to Harappa/Mohenjodaro than the "Asuric" kingdoms. "

The classical AIT criticism that the Vedas are clearly non-urban is

valid. "Veda is neither a historic text nor a record of civilization, so the statement whether the text is urban or not, does not amount to anything. Moreover, a big third of the Veda is called "Aranyaka", meaning practiced in Aranya or forest. It does not certainly talk of cities, but nor does it talk of anything non-urban. It is basically about those who walked out FROM the habited areas to forests. It is about those who moved from areas crowded to areas that give them scope for penance, clearly implying that civilization was grown enough. Then, the stories like those seers going and meeting the kings, the description of their capitals, is the contrary proof. Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elstTo:

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:59:40 PM Fwd: Re: Vedic/Puranic History - more details:

 

, Bruce Duffy <bwduffy > wrote:

>

> Kishore, the point you make about urban phase of the Harappan

civilization

> starting after the traditional date of the Mbh war (3138 BCE) is a

valid

> one. If the traditional date of the war is accepted as correct that

makes it

> around about half a millennium from the time of the war (3138 BCE)

to the

> beginning of the urban phase of the Harappan civilization (c.2600

BCE). Thus

> if the Mbh was basically composed in that period there would be no

reference

> to a mighty Harappan civilization.

>

 

Even if the MBh war were contemporaneous with urban Harappa, the two

wouyld be disjunct geographically. Kurukshetra was outside the

eastern border of the urban-Harappan area. But it was very much in

the Vedic area. Therefore:

 

> Another point in relation to this discussion is that we are still

not

> certain what name/s the Harappans or the Vedic Indians used when

referring

> to the ¼Harappan¹ civilization or its cities.

>

 

The Vedic and Harappan peoples were not the same. Meluhha was the

name known in Mesopotamia for (part of) the Harappan civilization.

Hence "Mleccha" as the name for prominent strangers to the Vedic

tradition, viz. its Western neighbours.

 

In the Puranas, there is often wailing among the Vedic cattle-herders

about the material and technological superiority of the "Asuras".

These may well be the Harappans. Note that the same term also denotes

the Iranians. Putting some ethnic and geographical data from the Rg-

Veda together, we may speculate that the Harappan civilization was,

in part, Iranian.

 

> Other point that needs to be considered is whether the Rigveda

predates even

> the earliest stages of Harappan civilization (c. 6000-4000 BCE),

and the

> possibility that before the time of the ¼Harappan¹ civilization the

culture

> of the whole of the north western region of India had become

predominantly

> Vedic. Thus cities like ¼Mohenjodaro¹, Harappa, etc. could have

been Vedic

> cities or kingdoms.<

 

The classical AIT criticism that the Vedas are clearly non-urban is

valid. Harappa was non-Vedic. Only, the Vedic peoploe lived not to

its west but to its east, where effectively cattle-rearing semi-

nomadic tribes have included a large part of the population till only

a few centuries ago.

 

KE

[Guest guest]

, " kishore patnaik "

<kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

>

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Koenraad Elst

<koenraad.elstwrote:

>

> >

>

> >

> > Even if the MBh war were contemporaneous with urban Harappa, the

two

> > wouyld be disjunct geographically. Kurukshetra was outside the

> > eastern border of the urban-Harappan area. But it was very much in

> > the Vedic area. Therefore:

> >

>

>

> Therefore, what? The members here are trying to identify what

could be the

> names of Harappan civilization in the scriptures. The answer is

these names

> might have never been atttested in the scriptures for very simple

reason

> that the dates of MBh predates Harappa.<

>

 

But the MBH mentions the Yavanas! If it could include post-500 BC

immigrants, why not the much older Mlecchas?

 

>

>

> > The Vedic and Harappan peoples were not the same.<

 

That's exactly my point. The Vedic Pauravas lived to the east of the

Harappan area.

 

> Meluhha was the

> > name known in Mesopotamia for (part of) the Harappan civilization.

> > Hence " Mleccha " as the name for prominent strangers to the Vedic

> > tradition, viz. its Western neighbours.

> >

>

>

> It is a very funny derivation, Elst.<

 

That is " Doctor Elst " to you. Or Koenraad. But addressing someone by

his untitled family name is fit only for a sergeant barking at the

new army recruits.

 

And there's nothing " funny " about the derivation. It is exactly

parallel to what happened with " Yavan " : from a name of distinct

western foreigners with whom the Sanskrit authors came in contact, it

became a name for foreigners in general.

 

> To start with Meluha is not really the

> name connected with Sindh. It is the name given for Bahrain, with

which

> there was continuous interaction of the ancient civilization (cf

Kosambi).<

 

Hindu polemicists often have their facts right but then spoil it all

by wrong deductions. Here you haven't even got your facts right.

Bahrain was Dilmun, not Meluhha, which from Sumeria lay beyond Dilmun

and Magan..

 

 

> >

> > The classical AIT criticism that the Vedas are clearly non-urban

is

> > valid. Harappa was non-Vedic. Only, the Vedic peoploe lived not to

> > its west but to its east, where effectively cattle-rearing semi-

> > nomadic tribes have included a large part of the population till

only

> > a few centuries ago.

> >

 

Judging from the river names, most of the Panjab and the Ganga plain

were Indo-Aryan-speaking in the Vedic age. A common mistake among pro-

and anti-AIT debaters is to take Vedic Sanskrit as the mother of all

Indo-Aryan languages. In relatity, it had sister languages to its

east and west. It was also still in touch with its Iranian cousin,

which must also have occupied part of the Harappan area. The Pauravas

under Sudas invaded the area from the east and fought the Iranians on

the banks of the Ravi in the Battle of the Ten Kings.

 

>

>

> The problem with you is you are semi AIT and semi Non AIT. Please

decide

> what is going ot be your stand.

>

 

I simply follow the evidence. At present, the OIT is my favourite,

but there's so much evidence still missing that this must be

provisional. People who swea by one or the other theory are not

serious enough about evidence, i.e. about the scientific method.

 

 

> If you are not inclined to accept AIt or its semantic sister, AMT,

it is

> clearly means Aryans are autochthonous (spellcheck) and the alters

and other

> artifacts of IVC MUST be a direct relative of Rg Veda, no matter

what came

> first.<

 

A typical Hindutva deduction: non sequitur. Thus, the Aryans may have

invaded and then put quasi-Vedic objects in Harappa. Or the

purpoorted altars may be non-Vedic or may even not be altars at all.

Conversely, the altars may be non-Vedic and yet the Vedic people may

have been autochthonous -- to the area east of Harappa.

 

 

> Again, the OITians talk of the mutual exclusivity problem : Indus

> people have archaeology, no texts and Aryans have texts, no

archaeology. It

> is possible to solve this problem only if these two are

complementary.<

 

That's " Frawley's paradox " . I hope you realize Frawley is a white

man. Do you accept anything from such a tainted source? I don't know

about you, but in recent years I've noticed what an obstacle anti-

white racism is to the intellectual functioning among Hindutva people.

 

It's not even an OIT position, merely an anti-AIT one. That is not

the same thing. Numerous people have argued against the AIT,

principally most Indian and some foreign archaeologists, because they

have found no trace of the supposed Aryan invasion. And Frawley. And

a few people including myself who have investigated the astronomical

data in Vedic literature and found it incompatible with AIT

chronology (though possibly compatible with a much earlier Aryan

invasion).

 

But the OIT position has been taken by a mere handful of people, or

not even that: you can count them on the fingers of a single hand.

Practically all AIT opponents are satisfied with positing or perhaps

proving the untenability or at leats improbability of the Aryan

invasion scenario, but have not spent a word or even a thouught on

the movement of Indo-European languages " out of India " . Their horizon

stops at the Khyber pass. Some of course deny that any movement

across the NW mountain passes has ever taken place, viz. by denying

the very existence of a linguistic kinship between the languages

hither and thither. Among Westerners, some have provided material

evidence for a movement of goods from Harappa to Central Asia (JM

Kenoyer) but have not deduced that a migration scenario along the

same route deserves consideration, apparently because the AIT

orthodoxy forecloses such heretic thoughts.

 

The only sort of pro-OIT argument I've ever head from Indians (except

for SS Misra and Shrikant Talageri) is that the scene on the

Gundestrup cauldron resembles the Harappan Pashupati seal. If the

likeness is real, it's still not proof of anything, though it falls

into place in an OIT scenario. But that isn't good enough as

evidence.

 

In his much-touted book " The Horse, the Wheel and Language " , David W.

Anthony argues what a scenario explaining the spectacular expansion

of IE would look like and then makes plausible that a spread of horse-

breeders from the PPontic region ca. 3500 BC would fit the bill. But

like the Hindutva anti-AIT polemicists, he doesn't look across the

mountains. he only shows his own scenario could work, that it isn't

in conflict with the data, but fails to show how alternative

scenarios would not fit and would conflict with the data. While some

AIT fans applaud the book as finally refuting those obnoxious OIT-

wallahs, the book actually spends not one word on refuting or even

mentioning the OIT. There is not even a single OIT-ish book or author

mentioned in his bibliography. Now it remains up to the OIT defenders

to show that the OIT equally satisfies Anthony's criteria.

 

regards,

 

KE

[Guest guest]

Koenraad, for the present I am happy to locate the geographical region of the Rigveda more to the eastern and north eastern region of north western India from where the Harappan civilization was mainly situated. In actual fact to a large degree I blindly took onboard the Rigveda being located in that region after reading a post of yours a few months back. However, what I am suggesting is that the Rigveda could well have been composed in the region where you locate it, but that the Vedic culture of the society that composed the Rigveda had spread throughout the whole of the north western region of India well before the event of the Harappan civilization. I am not denying the possibility that north western India may have had a mixed population of indigenous and not so indigenous people in pre Harappan and early Harappan times, but what I am doing is suggesting that members of the above autochthonous society responsible for the composition of the Rigveda could have left their particular region of north western India and have moved into the greater part of that region of India and become recognized as an elite caste of knowledgeable men by the general population of that whole region, and that it was at that time that the culture of the whole region became predominantly Vedic.

 

As I explained in my post, no one can date the Rigveda with any certainty, and I know of nothing mentioned or described in the Rigveda that could prevent it from being composed in the early time frame I am suggesting. My main reason for believing that the composers of the RV were autochthonous to India is the fact that the majority of the river names of north western India are Indo-Aryan (IA). As scholars in general see the predominance of one language in the river names of a particular region as being an indicator of the original inhabitants of a region one would expect the language of the large and widespread Harappan civilization, if it was a non IA society that was either roughly contemporaneous with the IA Rigvedic Indian society or prior to it, would have shown up more in the river names of north west India. To me that indicates that the language(s) of the Harappan civilization were predominantly IA from very early on as was the culture of that civilization Vedic from very early on.

 

Koenraad, if, as I am suggesting, the hymns of the Rigveda were composed before the rise of the Harappan civilization the criticism of Rigvedic society appearing to be non urban becomes irrelevant.

 

All the best, Bruce

 

 

 

On 23/9/08 9:29 PM, " Koenraad Elst " <koenraad.elst wrote:

 

Even if the MBh war were contemporaneous with urban Harappa, the two

wouyld be disjunct geographically. Kurukshetra was outside the

eastern border of the urban-Harappan area. But it was very much in

the Vedic area. . .

 

.. . . The classical AIT criticism that the Vedas are clearly non-urban is

valid. Harappa was non-Vedic. Only, the Vedic peoploe lived not to

its west but to its east, where effectively cattle-rearing semi-

nomadic tribes have included a large part of the population till only

a few centuries ago.

 

KE

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"A common mistake among pro-

and anti-AIT debaters is to take Vedic Sanskrit as the mother of all

Indo-Aryan languages. In relatity, it had sister languages to its

east and west."Actually yes - for a variety of reasons, one to mention: Sanskrit as the name itself suggests, is a revised version of the language, which implies that it had a predecessor. That should be much older than Sanskrit itself. There could be another derivation, that prakrit-sanskrit are like the vyavaharika-granthika or the spoken-scholarly versions of the language. Even in this case, the latter can evolve as a refinement of the former. I am not sure how much of data is available on prakrit, its age and evolution, because it is basically not the version for record. So are we sure that the predecessor of Sanskrit is not going to decide the evolution of the languages, if at all they have a common origin? Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:46:24 AM Fwd: Re: Vedic/Puranic History - more details:

 

, "kishore patnaik"

<kishorepatnaik09@ ...> wrote:

>

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Koenraad Elst

<koenraad.elst@ ...>wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bruce,I think we are in fact agreeing here about Sanskrit or its predecessor being a probable candidate. Regarding languages being more complex and getting less complex over time: The current civilizations we see, are not really as old and evolved as those of previous cycle - Greek or Roman. From those civilizations, not much is taken as a legacy for the European civilization which is today's mightiest one. Today's European civilization is not really a continuation of the previous generations but frankly, it predates those. Its knowledge, languages, most of the civilizational elements developed in the recent centuries. The recent few centuries have undoubtedly seen a huge change, with

the industrial and technological revolutions. But the aspects that come with a long life - such as the necessity to create a permanent and a going concern system, a language for it, is still kind of missing. The old Greek or Roman civilizations do not have a living presence in Europe, nor did they evolve into the present European civilization - there was more or less a clean replacement of those with the modern one. Perhaps Indian is among the very few civilizations that continued from Vedic times without a clean break or a fresh beginning in the recent millenniums. And hence her languages still exhibit those characteristics. Including the recently developed languages like Telugu, they still have two different versions, spoken and one for representing a more permanent recording, they are equally well structured. Bruce Duffy <bwduffy Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 10:47:51 AMRe: Fwd: Re: Vedic/Puranic History - more details:

 

 

Dear ShankaraBharadwaj, because the term Sanskrit indicates that it is a revised or perfected version of an earlier language does not rule it out of contention from being the mother of all languages; at least the mother of all Indo-Aryan or Indo-European languages. It is still the same previous language, but in a more perfected form. In the last 300 years English has undergone some noticeable changes but it is still the English language.

 

I am not convinced that the data we have on the Mitannian language and the Old Persian language is sufficient or reliable enough to give us irrefutable evidence that those languages represent older forms of Old Indo Aryan (OIA) than Rigvedic Sanskrit. I think a lot of the arguments for them being older forms of OIA are colored by a preconceived notion based on unproven theories about the PIE homeland being situated in the Caspian-Anatolian region and spreading east from there to Persia and then India. A theory that if d to makes it necessary that any OIA language west of India has to be earlier than the Rigvedic Sanskrit language of India. But even if I am wrong about those languages not exhibiting earlier forms of OIA than Rigvedic Sanskrit, because Rigvedic Sanskrit could be the final form of an OIA language that possibly took centuries/millennia to perfect, it could still possibly qualify, in its earlier non perfected form, as having been an

earlier OIA language than Mitannian and Old Persian.

 

However, we cannot be sure that the term Sanskrit refers to a language that was revised or perfected over a long period of time. The term Sanskrit can also mean ¡well constructed¢, which could mean that it was not the result of years of revision and perfection, but that it was purposely constructed as a language in its own right in a relatively short time frame. We really have no clear knowledge about how complex languages like Sanskrit originated. What puzzles me about languages like ancient Sanskrit and ancient Greek is that the most archaic examples we have of them (Rigvedic Sanskrit, Homeric Greek) appear to be the most grammatically and structurally complicated examples of those languages from any period in their history. I could be wrong as I am no linguist, but in their most archaic forms they appear to have more cases and genders and a much more strict grammatical paradigm than they have as languages in later periods. If we solely

relied on the actual evidence we have about those languages, without unproven theories and theoretical models to take us back earlier than these oldest actual examples we have of them, we would have to conclude that such IE languages firstly originated as complicated languages and became progressively less complicated over time. Such a conclusion would be at odds with the generally held notion that languages evolve over a period of time from being originally structurally simple to progressively more structurally complicated and sophisticated.

 

I find interesting your suggestion about how the relationship between Prakrit and Sanskrit could have been a case of the spoken and the scholarly versions of a language, and that it is possible that the later developed out of the former. Cuneiform texts found at Bhogazakoi in Turkey very strongly suggest that the 14th century BC Mitannian civilization of Mesopotamia used a very formal IA language (very possibly Rigvedic Sanskrit) as well as a Prakrit IA language.

 

All the best, Bruce

 

 

On 24/9/08 6:44 PM, "ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli" <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:

 

 

 

 

"A common mistake among pro-

and anti-AIT debaters is to take Vedic Sanskrit as the mother of all

Indo-Aryan languages. In relatity, it had sister languages to its

east and west."

 

Actually yes - for a variety of reasons, one to mention:

Sanskrit as the name itself suggests, is a revised version of the language, which implies that it had a predecessor. That should be much older than Sanskrit itself. There could be another derivation, that prakrit-sanskrit are like the vyavaharika- granthika or the spoken-scholarly versions of the language. Even in this case, the latter can evolve as a refinement of the former. I am not sure how much of data is available on prakrit, its age and evolution, because it is basically not the version for record.

 

So are we sure that the predecessor of Sanskrit is not going to decide the evolution of the languages, if at all they have a common origin?

 

 

Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst@ telenet.be>

 

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:46:24 AM

Fwd: Re: Vedic/Puranic History - more details:

 

 

 

 

< %40. com> , "kishore patnaik"

<kishorepatnaik09@ ...> wrote:

>

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Koenraad Elst

<koenraad.elst@ ...>wrote:

>

> >

>

> >