Pakistan, Bharat, British India - What came first, what came after?

[veer bhogya vasundhara]

OT - Different chapters of the Rig Veda appear to be have been written in different places and at different times. The oldest ones were written in the Yamuna-Saraswati region. Some chapters do appear to have been written in today's Pakistan.

See Koenraad Elst: A great book about the Great Book

yaa i agree with u... what i wanna say is that both pakistanis and indians share the same heritage.... but i know they abuse the very heritage they are claiming now.... they wanna claim it coz the world is in love with vedas... and indian heritage.... they will abuse our lord pashupati and our gods inspite of knowing that even the indus valley civillization people were pagans.... they worshipped mother godess... but they will not leave any chance to abuse all the pagans... they contradict themselves.... one should be very carefull before abusing others religion

 

[Rig Vedic]

May I disagree?

There is enough evidence to prove that parts of the Rg Veda were written when linguistically Vedic Sanskrit, or the Indo-Aryan branch of Indo-Iranian was in a state of linguistic proximity with central Iranian. Certainly far from the Yamuna-Saraswati belt, if the Saraswati actually existed. Following from that, later portions may have been written in the northern part of the Indus Valley.

Koenraad Elst is an arch-Druid from the OOI faction and far from universally acceptable as an objective analyst.

The chronology of the chapters of the Rig Veda is apparently well settled.

The newest parts of the Rig Veda were written at the same time as the earliest parts of the Avesta. They sometimes even describe the same battles, but from different perspectives.

 

[vsdoc]

The chronology of the chapters of the Rig Veda is apparently well settled.

The newest parts of the Rig Veda were written at the same time as the earliest parts of the Avesta. They sometimes even describe the same battles, but from different perspectives.

Too simplistic a statement and depending greatly on the historical source.

Not to mention that there is no single entity called the Avesta and that it is actually a work in progress over a much longer timespan and different epochs.

Most European experts are agreed on the fact that the Gathas predate the Rig Veda by many hundreds of years.

Splitting hairs when we are talking millenia, so just to set the record straight of course.

 

[veer bhogya vasundhara]

Too simplistic a statement and depending greatly on the historical source.

Not to mention that there is no single entity called the Avesta and that it is actually a work in progress over a much longer timespan.

Most European experts are agreed on the fact that the Gathas predate the Rig Veda by many hundreds of years.

Splitting hairs when we are talking millenia, so just to set the record straight of course.

yaa i agree with u ... this is highly debatable ... but being an indian i will go for rig veda.... jus joking.... but just see the similarity between rig vedic sanskrit and old avestan

Avestan and Vedic are obviously twin languages. Notice the
similarity from Avesta to Sanskrit in the sample below:


tem amavantem yazatem
surem damohu seviytem
mithrem yazai zaothrabyo



'Mithra that strong mighty angel, most beneficent to all
creatures, I will worship with libations'.

Becomes when rendered word for word in Sanskrit:

tam amavantam yajatam
yuram dhamasu yavistham
mitram yajai hotrabhyah

 

[vsdoc]

yaa i agree with u ... this is highly debatable ... but being an indian i will go for rig veda.... jus joking

I am Indian too and I'll go with the Gathas.

Not joking. Just stating.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The chronology of the chapters of the Rig Veda is apparently well settled.

The newest parts of the Rig Veda were written at the same time as the earliest parts of the Avesta. They sometimes even describe the same battles, but from different perspectives.

I have a distinctly different impression. The oldest parts of the Rg Veda can be read, meaning understood, by anyone knowing Avestan. Later verses diverge more and more from the apparent hidden root of both. I am not aware of any battles described in common. I am not in fact aware of any accounts of battles in the Avesta, which is a liturgical collection. Not hymns, but sequenced prayers relating to religious ceremonies.

In general, after writing that comment above, I read Doc's comments and agree with them.

On an anecdotal level, I had a German friend who did his doctoral work in Tocharian, of all things (but then, trust a German....etc., etc.). He also was very well up on Iranian, and on Avestan. He found certain verses of the Rg Veda translatable on the fly, as he read them, but struggled with others. That could be due to a wide variance in grammar and syntax of Vedic Sanskrit, or due to the Rg Veda containing material composed across several generations of Vedic Sanskrit.

In terms of geography, most of the Avesta is thought to have been composed in the region familiar to us as Balkh and Khorasan. To have been in close linguistic proximity is not the same thing as having been in close physical proximity, but we are entitled to think that Vedic Sanskrit and Avestan might have been spoken by folk traveling away from a common location where they spoke the same language, perhaps dialects of the same language.

 

[veer bhogya vasundhara]

I am Indian too and I'll go with the Gathas.

Not joking. Just stating.

your views bro for me its rig vedas..... most of the historians also regard rig veda as the oldest of two.... but anything is debatable which u and i or for say anyone has not seen.

 

[Joe Shearer]

your views bro for me its rig vedas..... most of the historians also regard rig veda as the oldest of two.... but anything is debatable which u and i or for say anyone has not seen.

Never heard of THIS one before!

 

[vsdoc]

On an anecdotal level, I had a German friend who did his doctoral work in Tocharian, of all things (but then, trust a German....etc., etc.). He also was very well up on Iranian, and on Avestan.

I have great admiration for Germans. And their philosophy as a people to whatever they do. No half measures there.
They have done more work on Zoroastrianism and indeed the history of Hinduism and the ancient texts than us the direct stakeholders put together.

I like their cars and bikes too.

 

[veer bhogya vasundhara]

Never heard of THIS one before!

so u must have heard it now..... now u can google it if u wish ..... this is debatable..... and till u dont give me a single piece of evidence regarding avestan is the oldest one.... i will keep on saying " Its DEBATABLE"

 

[Rig Vedic]

Per Koenrad Elst, referring to the original work of Talageri -

“In the Rg-Veda, the terms ‘Dasa’ and ‘Dasyu’, which are also known in ethnic meanings in Iranian languages, refer without any doubt to Iranians, i.e. fellow Indo-Europeans, whiter than or at least as white as the Vedic people. Not to Mundas or Dravidians. The Rg-Vedic Battle of the Ten Kings and Varshagira Battle (the first on the Ravi banks in West Panjab, the second beyond the Bolan Pass ..., after the westward expansion rendered possible by Vedic King Sudas's victory in the first battle), were very definitely between Iranians and Vedic Indo-Aryans. The second of these battles is also alluded to in the younger Avesta, where the same battle leaders are mentioned: Rjashva/Arjasp and Somaka/Humayaka on the Indian side, Vishtaspa/Ishtashva on the Iranian side. RV 1:122:13 mentions Ishtâshva, the Sanskrit form of Iranian "Vishtâspa", well-known as Zarathustra's royal patron: "What can Ishtâshva, Ishtarashmi or any other princes do against those who enjoy the protection (of Mitra and Varuna)?" Thus the interpretation of Sayana and SK Hodiwala, as reported by Shrikant Talageri, The Rigveda, a Historical Analysis, p.215-221, and also followed, at least in the names given, by HH Wilson and KF Geldner in their RV translations. It is a rare treat in studies of ancient literature when a single event is reported in two independent sources, which moreover represent the two opposing parties in the event."


Also, an excerpt from the previously cited link -

'In the present book (The Rigveda and the Avesta, the Final Evidence, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi), Talageri strengthens his thesis with a lot of new evidence, and refines it considerably. The master key for discerning historical expansions and migrations is the internal chronology of the Rg-Veda. Basing himself on two centuries of Western scholarship, from 19th-century German Veda scholar Oldenburg to present-day AIT champion Prof. Michael Witzel, Talageri compares the contents of the oldest layer, largely coinciding with books 6, 3 and 7; of the middle layer, books 2 and 4; and the youngest layer, comprising books 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10. Covering every verse and every instance of every category considered, and comparing the three periods, he finds a shifting focus in the names of animals, plants, rivers, landscape features, technology, ancestors, ethnic groups, and in personal name types and verse forms.

The result is of such clarity and consistency that most scholars who have been working in this field will feel envy and embarrassment at never having noticed the contours of the scenario before. It is this: the old layer was indubitably composed in the Yamuna/Sarawati region, which was to remain the centre of gravity of Vedic culture; the middle layer’s horizon expands westwards as far as the Indus; while the youngest parts are also familiar with Afghanistan. This is exactly the opposite of what the AIT predicts. In an invasionist scenario, the oldest layer would obviously be based in Afghanistan and be as yet unfamiliar with India’s interior, which would then only be settled in the younger period.

Another spectacular finding is that the early Avesta, involving Zarathustra, coincides in time with the youngest period of the Rigveda. The material and religious culture, along with the vocabulary and the name-types, allow us to link a number of datable extra-Indian connections to the youngest layer of the Rigveda. The remnants of Indo-Aryan vocabulary in the West-Asian Kassite (17th BC) and Mitanni (15th BC) culture, bequeathed by Indo-Aryan-speaking emigrant groups of at least several generations earlier, belong to the youngest period. This implies that the Rigveda must have been completed by ca. 2000 BC. "

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have great admiration for Germans. And their philosophy as a people to whatever they do. No half measures there.
They have done more work on Zoroastrianism and indeed the history of Hinduism and the ancient texts than us the direct stakeholders put together.

I like their cars and bikes too.

I can understand working on a Porsche, but Tocharian???? Bit extreme, don't you think? Incidentally, 99% of Indians (perhaps of western south Asians, too) wouldn't be able to relate to Tocharian, or the Tocharians.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

........... Continued.


Look guy's the area that is today Pakistan was NOT part of the British India in 1840. If British greed had been satiated by what they had conquered upto 1840, Indus Valley [todays Pakistan] would never have been part of British India and the events of 1947.
So if you guy's think that the 1947 divorce needed some 'ground shaking rational', I ask of you this. How did the marriage of Indus Valley take place with British India in the first place?

Well Jinnah can thank Sir Charles Napier for giving him his finest moment. Napier and a few British gun's were behind the marriage of Sindh to British India in 1843. The Talpur Mir's of Sindh rule ended and she found herself lumped with Bombay Presidency.Why was that FORCED MARRIAGE of Sindh to British India by a Englishman at gunpoint so SACROSANCT? What was the justification in that forced marriage?

All Jinnah did in 1947 was to arrange a divorce settlement exactly 104 years later. Why do people expect a justification for the 1947 divorce but ignore the forced, cruel marriage in 1843 by Napier which cost many Sindhi's their lives? At least the divorce of 1947 was one of choice.

The exact same applies to Punjab, which as we know was ruled by the Sikhs. Sikh rule extended from Punjab well into west all the way to Frontier on the present Afghan border and on the north it included Kashmir. So between the Sikh rule and Talpur Mir's most of Indus Valley [Pakistan] was covered. Again the marriage of Punjab to British India came about because of British greed and done so at gun point. Both Punjab and Sindh saw bloody batles fought and only once defeated did they get annexed. In Punjab's case( that would be all of present day north half of Pakistan ) the forced marruage took place in 1849 exactly 98 years later that marriage was again annuled by Jinnah. Again this annulment was by choice. The 1849 ACTION had a REACTION in 1947.

I go in to detail about this because there is too much pontificating about 1947. Well we don't need to. It happened like 1849 happened. Maybe there was no good reason for 1947 but who cares,. Do we pontificate about the forced marriages of 1840s? Do peole think those forced marriages were good?

I hope u know the difference between British land greed and forced marriage?
British defeated them, and still those regions were called as india.. They cant put a separate governal general for those small regions...
Speaking of forced marriages, i hope u appreciate, that just before Islam, we were still following same cultures, still called oueselves as "Bharatis"...
So for the sake of discussion dont u think that these parts of Bharath was just Rejoined or Reunioned with the former?

 

[vsdoc]

I can understand working on a Porsche, but Tocharian???? Bit extreme, don't you think? Incidentally, 99% of Indians (perhaps of western south Asians, too) wouldn't be able to relate to Tocharian, or the Tocharians.

Extreme defines what it means to be German. I identify strongly with that part of their psyche. Its wishy washy to be otherwise. I cannot see the lure of doing something just because there's something to be done. Or of having neutral views on anything and everything and not taking a stand.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Per Koenrad Elst, referring to the original work of Talageri -

“In the Rg-Veda, the terms ‘Dasa’ and ‘Dasyu’, which are also known in ethnic meanings in Iranian languages, refer without any doubt to Iranians, i.e. fellow Indo-Europeans, whiter than or at least as white as the Vedic people. Not to Mundas or Dravidians. The Rg-Vedic Battle of the Ten Kings and Varshagira Battle (the first on the Ravi banks in West Panjab, the second beyond the Bolan Pass ..., after the westward expansion rendered possible by Vedic King Sudas's victory in the first battle), were very definitely between Iranians and Vedic Indo-Aryans. The second of these battles is also alluded to in the younger Avesta, where the same battle leaders are mentioned: Rjashva/Arjasp and Somaka/Humayaka on the Indian side, Vishtaspa/Ishtashva on the Iranian side. RV 1:122:13 mentions Ishtâshva, the Sanskrit form of Iranian "Vishtâspa", well-known as Zarathustra's royal patron: "What can Ishtâshva, Ishtarashmi or any other princes do against those who enjoy the protection (of Mitra and Varuna)?" Thus the interpretation of Sayana and SK Hodiwala, as reported by Shrikant Talageri, The Rigveda, a Historical Analysis, p.215-221, and also followed, at least in the names given, by HH Wilson and KF Geldner in their RV translations. It is a rare treat in studies of ancient literature when a single event is reported in two independent sources, which moreover represent the two opposing parties in the event."


Also, an excerpt from the previously cited link -

'In the present book (The Rigveda and the Avesta, the Final Evidence, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi), Talageri strengthens his thesis with a lot of new evidence, and refines it considerably. The master key for discerning historical expansions and migrations is the internal chronology of the Rg-Veda. Basing himself on two centuries of Western scholarship, from 19th-century German Veda scholar Oldenburg to present-day AIT champion Prof. Michael Witzel, Talageri compares the contents of the oldest layer, largely coinciding with books 6, 3 and 7; of the middle layer, books 2 and 4; and the youngest layer, comprising books 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10. Covering every verse and every instance of every category considered, and comparing the three periods, he finds a shifting focus in the names of animals, plants, rivers, landscape features, technology, ancestors, ethnic groups, and in personal name types and verse forms.

The result is of such clarity and consistency that most scholars who have been working in this field will feel envy and embarrassment at never having noticed the contours of the scenario before. It is this: the old layer was indubitably composed in the Yamuna/Sarawati region, which was to remain the centre of gravity of Vedic culture; the middle layer’s horizon expands westwards as far as the Indus; while the youngest parts are also familiar with Afghanistan. This is exactly the opposite of what the AIT predicts. In an invasionist scenario, the oldest layer would obviously be based in Afghanistan and be as yet unfamiliar with India’s interior, which would then only be settled in the younger period.

Another spectacular finding is that the early Avesta, involving Zarathustra, coincides in time with the youngest period of the Rigveda. The material and religious culture, along with the vocabulary and the name-types, allow us to link a number of datable extra-Indian connections to the youngest layer of the Rigveda. The remnants of Indo-Aryan vocabulary in the West-Asian Kassite (17th BC) and Mitanni (15th BC) culture, bequeathed by Indo-Aryan-speaking emigrant groups of at least several generations earlier, belong to the youngest period. This implies that the Rigveda must have been completed by ca. 2000 BC. "

This is deep in the territory of the AIT VS. OOI (or OIT) controversy, and much dust has to settle before we can draw conclusions from hypotheses that have been put forward recently. These independent publications, by independent scholars working outside the sphere of academic discipline, have simply not gone through the peer review that academic publications Or academic work does. It might yet be that his views are borne out and vindicated other than by the self-referential claque that surrounds OOI theories, but that time is not yet. He has been attacked by Winzel, whose work he addresses at great length, and by Erdosy, but won back considerable credibility by pointing out inaccuracies in Winzel's review. No one has as yet engaged with him, and the main publicity he has got has been from OOI groupies like Rajaram, Koenraad Elst and everyone else in the revisionist school.

Until these views are examined critically and subjected to thorough examination, they remain views, very interesting because of the apparent detail in which the material surroundings in which the Vedas were composed were examined, but unproven, unaccepted views.

In writing this, I am considerably amused at the thought that the stricture of self-referential claque might be used against western academicians by Indian revisionists and their western trophy authors. Until there is a greater effort to engage with each other, and to bring in some common understanding of the rules of engagement, this will remain political literature, not academic finding. I say this on the understanding that the western methods are more reliable at present, in a manner that they were not two centuries ago, on this subject. Further, that Indian writing on the subject is today, whether Rajaram or others of his generation, or the new team of Talageri and Elst, more a matter of seeking evidence to bear out preconceived conclusions, just as some of the original western speculation used to be.

For the purposes of this discussion, a school of thought apparently developed hand-in-hand with a political ideology that demanded such academic explanations is not going to find much common ground. This school of thought resonates with a political ideology that resents and rejects European criticism of the decayed state of Indian culture and society in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, seeks vindication in the transcendent virtues of its inherited culture, including its vast literature, and rejects any parallel between their culture and other, subsequent Conquistador cultures by proclaiming that it arose entirely within the geographical boundaries of India. It is in order to justify this Brahminical counter-attack that a mass of literature has been generated, mostly by autodidacts in the fields, whose education and training was otherwise elsewhere (mathematics and statistics for Rajaram, in Chinese healing for Frawley), and who have never won acceptance of their views in western academic circles. This failure to gain acceptance has led, ironically, to a situation where western sympathisers enjoy an enormous premium, Frawley earlier, the rather more sinister Elst currently.

In general, it has to be acknowledged that both Talageri and Elst are more credible figures, in terms of scholarship and knowledge of their subject, than perhaps Rajaram and Frawley were.

Caveat: I have not read Talageri yet.