tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post6839506620032420108..comments2024-03-12T09:39:48.847-07:00Comments on New Indology: Mahābhārata and archaeology: the chariot of Sanauli and the position of Painted Grey WareGiacomo Benedettihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18418729274995219594noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-59646211028036660282024-02-15T07:39:31.086-08:002024-02-15T07:39:31.086-08:00You're welcome!You're welcome! Giacomo Benedettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18418729274995219594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-41375874847832602852024-02-14T06:36:53.395-08:002024-02-14T06:36:53.395-08:00Well congrats on the broad appeal that your Irania...Well congrats on the broad appeal that your Iranian PIE hypothesis has found in academia. I have followed your blog and supported your work, long before Iran was anywhere in the picture, myself with strong intuitions that PIE was closer to the S. Caucuses. Thanks a lotFinitowilliamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03877607152308845575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-62856848358400426482022-04-04T23:55:35.663-07:002022-04-04T23:55:35.663-07:00Hi, this is Jim R. McClanahan. I thanked you on ac...Hi, this is Jim R. McClanahan. I thanked you on academia.edu for uploading your lovely paper on the drought-causing rishi and his seductress. I was hoping to connect via email as I don't get alerts when someone replies. You can write me at mcclanjr@miamioh.eduGhostexorcisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03012657789039493311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-85120226937186887862021-08-05T22:25:13.825-07:002021-08-05T22:25:13.825-07:00Rightly brought out. Oak goes further into posteri...Rightly brought out. Oak goes further into posterior where he errs. <br />Numerous people, including the Europeans have agreed to the following:-<br />1. Beginning of Kali Yuga in 3102 BC.<br />2. Great War in 3138 BC.<br />3. Movement of the Great Bear into Magha constellation.<br />4. Various dates of events before, during and after the Mahabharata War.<br />But the Biblical story of Genesis blocks the European thought-process and analytical abilities.Anti-Inquisitionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03088599331339315560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-79989941231940545402019-12-21T08:59:00.769-08:002019-12-21T08:59:00.769-08:00Read the works of Vedveer Arya on Academia.edu.Read the works of Vedveer Arya on Academia.edu.Abhihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05292044395567931649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-31030509843843077252019-09-29T14:13:43.789-07:002019-09-29T14:13:43.789-07:00And so you reach 3100 BC. It is easy to do history...And so you reach 3100 BC. It is easy to do history in this way, changing the numbers until you reach the desired date. I wonder why that date fixed by Aryabhatta was so successful, here you can find an interesting explanation and criticism of his intervention and a date for Mahabharata close to the one I have also accepted: http://www.indiaawareness.org/aryabhata-i-niraj-mohanka-indologist/<br /><br />About Nanda, we even have Greek and Roman sources, besides Puranic, Jain and Buddhist ones. He was after Mahavira and Buddha and close to the time of the contacts with the Greek authors that started with Alexander.Giacomo Benedettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18418729274995219594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-35537489338677515722019-09-28T06:03:03.738-07:002019-09-28T06:03:03.738-07:00The modern chronology was distorted. Nanda did not...The modern chronology was distorted. Nanda did not rule in 400 bc, he ruled in 1600 BC. The number was 1500 years from Parikshit to Nanda. For that see Vedveer Arya's paper The Chronology of Ancient India: Victims of Concortations and Distortions.Abhihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05292044395567931649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-5548633634650795742019-06-29T15:14:11.799-07:002019-06-29T15:14:11.799-07:00Dear Jaydeep, sorry for the late publication, I di...Dear Jaydeep, sorry for the late publication, I did not notice the mail with your comment and I was busy with school, forgetting the blog... Thanks a lot for the second link, where there is the long description of OCP in relation to Aligarh and Hathras districts. And thanks for the important points you give above. In that chapter, it is interesting that the OCP area corresponds quite well to the Paurava region in Pargiter's map, from Haryana to Varanasi. <br /><br />On the other hand, this study also says that Ahar-Banas culture, that we can connect with the Yadavas, was similar to OCP, and that OCP was the earliest attempt of a 'pan Indian culture'. In my chronology, Bharata can be placed in this period (2400-2300 BCE), and his reign was from Sarasvati to Ganges according to some sources, so OCP could be not only the Paurava, but the Bhārata culture. It is also interesting that sites were small and houses of wattle and daub, something corresponding to the reconstruction of Vedic way of life.<br /> <br />About the following BRW period, it says that it comes from the eastern corded ware (Middle Ganga Valley), but for PGW it says that the curved and wavy lines are inspired by Aharian BRW, which is from South Rajasthan. This influence from a far region like Ahar is quite surprising, and I think it should be explained by migration. In this perspective, PGW would be the result also of the migration from Rajasthan mentioned in the Mahabharata, while the BRW of the Doab, of eastern origin, can be connected perhaps with the conquest by the Magadha king Jarasandha. I have just read a passage of the Mahabharata about Jarasandha (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02014.htm). It's quite impressive, because it speaks of a sudden invasion by the Magadhan king and a general flight of many tribes. There must be a tradition here of a dramatic political change, that suggests a new importance of the Magadha region and can maybe explain also the change in the settlement pattern between OCP and BRW in the Aligarh district. Probably also some climatic change is involved. The period around 1450-1400 BCE must have been really critical in North India! <br /><br />Giacomo Benedettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18418729274995219594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-13154512928233372652019-03-16T12:45:15.918-07:002019-03-16T12:45:15.918-07:00Hello Giacomo,
How are you doing ?
About a coupl...Hello Giacomo,<br /><br />How are you doing ?<br /><br />About a couple of days back I re-read a brief preliminary article by archaeologist Vijay Kumar on the Sanauli chariots.<br /><br />http://www.ijarch.org/Admin/Articles/9-Note%20on%20Chariots.pdf<br /><br />In that article, Vijay Kumar refers to a monograph written by him on OCP. Fortunately enough, I was able to find the whole book of which the monograph is a part.<br /><br />http://www.ijarch.org/Admin/CompleteIssue/IJAVOL2NO4.pdf<br /><br />The monograph on OCP is wonderful and very informative. It gives us a glimpse of the current archaeological view in India about OCP, Harappan, BRW & PGW cultures.<br /><br />The following points are worth noting :-<br /><br />1. The OCP culture is older to the mature Harappan phase and it is atleast as old as 3200 BC and likely to be even older.<br /><br />2. The OCP culture has connections to the Sothi-Siswal pottery and Ganeshwar Jodhpura archaeological complex. It borders on its West, the Harappans and on its East the 'Corded Ware' culture. This 'corded ware' culture is that which originates in the Neolithic of the Middle Ganga plain exemplified by sites such as Lahuradewa, Koldihwa, Jhusi etc. BRW & PGW are considered to be derived from this 'corded ware' pottery tradition and is therefore an Eastern tradition.<br /><br />3. There is significant overlap between OCP and Mature Harappan at several sites in Haryana, Rajasthan, Western UP etc. OCP is often found before, during and after the Mature Harappan phase at those particular sites. <br /><br />4. OCP is apparently very different from 'corded ware' culture to its east and is being considered to have had local cultural roots. <br /><br />Jaydeephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336330713605021262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-20164801759028030322019-01-21T19:44:41.450-08:002019-01-21T19:44:41.450-08:00The following paragraph from Clackson's paper ...The following paragraph from Clackson's paper jumped out at me as a native speaker of the Marathi language.<br /><br />"Thus for example modern Indic languages which show ergative structures, so that the subject of a transitive verb is not always the same as the subject of an intransitive verb, could no longer be classed as Indo-European (see the same criticism made already by Allen (1953: 92))."<br /><br />I wonder if Marathi falls into this category and can no longer be considered "Indo European." Please see below:<br /><br />https://www.quora.com/Is-Marathi-a-Dravidian-Language<br /><br />As one can infer from the discussion in the above forum , passions run high while debating language classifications. <br /><br />Also from Clackson's paper<br /><br />"His (Trubetzkoy's) main goal, in my view, was to highlight the divergence between the results of the comparative method and the spoken parent language of the Indo-European language family, and in particular the attempts by scholars (especially German scholars of the 1930s) to associate specific archaeological cultures and ethnic types (‘races’) with the Indo-Europeans."<br /><br />Leaving aside the issue of pots and pans for now, this is another problem I have for dating Indo Aryan languages and by extension the history of the peoples living on the Indian subcontinent solely on the basis of the Rig Vedic texts. Linguistic "evolution" can work in reverse as opposed to Darwin's biological evolution. Humans cannot borrow tails from monkeys. But it IS possible for a grammarian to "purify" spoken languages just for liturgical purposes creating chronological confusion. Thank you for your time.<br /><br />Mayuresh Kelkar<br />Mayuresh Madhav Kelkarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18418844256177729386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-50845988332815060902019-01-21T06:37:48.710-08:002019-01-21T06:37:48.710-08:00Dear Mayuresh Kelkar, the second paper seems reaso...Dear Mayuresh Kelkar, the second paper seems reasonable, and rightly refutes Marcantonio's criticism. The affinities between IE languages are too strong, lexically and morphologically, compared to other languages, if we find some similar words in other families they are more isolated cases, that can be explained in two main ways: prehistoric kinship/contact and historical borrowing. Both seems to be present in the list of Turkic words given by the first webpage you give. But about Turkic 'ber', already Bomhard has compared it with IE *bher, although he gives as meaning in Turkic 'to give', which is not properly the same as 'to bear, to carry'. So, we must be very careful. Giacomo Benedettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18418729274995219594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-33199918770627138682019-01-20T07:17:59.475-08:002019-01-20T07:17:59.475-08:00Hello Professor Benedetti:
An anonymous professor...Hello Professor Benedetti:<br /><br />An anonymous professor of linguistics from the University of Rome has commented on Angela Marcantonio's groundbreaking piece on the present status of IE linguistics and the IE family<br /><br />FYI:<br /><br />http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/MarcantonioA2009IELanguageFamilyEn.htm<br /><br />Marcantonio's main thesis is that the IE family is the cause of the comparative method and not the result of it. Looking at the list of Turkisms in English the verb for "to carry" or "bear" that is often cited as the prime example of how IEL reconstruction works has a striking counterpart "ber" in Turkish.<br /><br />Another important and related paper by James Clackson<br /><br />https://www.academia.edu/9452122/_The_Origins_of_the_Indic_Languages_the_Indo-European_model_in_Angela_Marcantonio_and_Girish_Nath_Jha_eds._Perspectives_on_the_origin_of_Indian_civilization_New_Delhi_259-287<br /><br />shading light on what these reconstructed language families can and cannot say about actual cultures and movements of people.<br /><br />Abstract<br />": This paper presents the basic assumptions underlying the hypothesis that the Indic languages belong to the Indo-European language family, whose other members include Latin, Greek, Hittite, Persian and many of the major European languages. However, it is argued that this model of language relationship on its own can tell us very little, if anything, about the homeland or society of the original speakers of the language ancestral to the Indo-European family."<br /><br />Mayuresh Kelkar<br /><br />Mayuresh Madhav Kelkarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18418844256177729386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-54162226467657164592019-01-17T18:47:32.077-08:002019-01-17T18:47:32.077-08:00Oak's dates are too early for the 4500 BCE dat...Oak's dates are too early for the 4500 BCE date calculated independently fo Rig Veda by Tilak and Jakobi in the late 19th century when the AIT was a fully accepted theory. <br /><br />https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/explore/dawn-of-the-vedas/article8682325.eceMayuresh Madhav Kelkarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18418844256177729386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-54434452841634875272019-01-15T08:25:47.417-08:002019-01-15T08:25:47.417-08:00some of this is explained in this article
http://...some of this is explained in this article<br /><br />http://indiafacts.org/can-veda-shakha-pravachana-rescue-bharata-itihasa/<br /><br />mb says sarasvati flowing from plaksha prasravana to vinashana which does not match geologist claim that it dried out 2000 bce<br /><br />both places pp and v are now identified<br /><br />so you will need to get geologists to revise and state it was still flowing in 1500 bce from pp to v to support such dates and until then the 2000 bce date should stand<br /><br />the shatapatha brahmana does mention drought and migration and indus era style bricks too and atleast one part is very accurately datable to 2900 bce<br /><br />https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/nakshatra-krittka-rising-due-east-part-1/<br /><br />so these early dates should not be a surprise<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-68114893690632586342019-01-15T04:02:19.121-08:002019-01-15T04:02:19.121-08:00The traditional date of 3102 BC was given by the a...The traditional date of 3102 BC was given by the astronomer Aryabhata, I wonder why it is so popular in India. I think it would be more traditional to follow the Puranic statement about the 1015/1050 years between the Parikshit and Mahapadma Nanda. <br /><br />About the Sarasvati, it is not true that it was completely dry by 2000 BCE, actually the upper course had a lot of sites in the Late Harappan period 1900-1500 BC. And the Mahabharata describes a river that ends at Vinashana.Giacomo Benedettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18418729274995219594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-35421139401096974332019-01-14T18:05:33.228-08:002019-01-14T18:05:33.228-08:00nilesh oak and koenraad elst debated these dating ...nilesh oak and koenraad elst debated these dating issues in this video<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxPty4bvUmY<br /><br />this was recorded before the sinauli find<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222229208055459153.post-67976210159284287812019-01-13T20:18:50.640-08:002019-01-13T20:18:50.640-08:00these people are just creating sensationalism by t...these people are just creating sensationalism by trying to link mahabharatam to some pots<br /><br />traditional timeline of mb is pre 3102 bce and recent analysis by astronomy is c 5561 bce<br /><br />if mb clearly mentions sarasvati river flowing and we know from geology it dried out by 2000 bce what is the sense or logic in post 2000 bce mb dating?<br /><br />for some actual analysis nilesh oak has some books and videos out<br /><br />another person mrugendra vinod has a geneological estimate based on aihole inscription here<br /><br />http://indiafacts.org/epoch-of-bharatas-as-indicated-by-direct-records/<br /><br />and more recent updated analysis in this video<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb7cGJQhXtQ<br /><br />video is in hindi but puranic timeline is displayed in english slide <br /><br />these timelines are conflicting and need to be resolved but in anycase before 3000 bce only<br /><br />indian archaeologists should drop the marxist racist aryan invasion timelines and think independently<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com