Chronology of Indian History --Newer discussions

[drrajpalsingh]

I was trying to highlight few things about Vedic and Harappans times. Seems like you agree with it and now you are talking of much earlier time, perhaps early Harappan or pre-Harappan, as we know it.

Before we move to that, can you or somebody please provide some more information on asurology, or even rakshakology and maybe daityalogy. Some of it is already discussed above. Then it will make sense to move to Dev - Asur dishum-dishum ....

Another welcome good probing question which relates to Pre-Historic and Proto-historic times regarding early settlers in the 'Devaloka-Pitrloka' region i.e. people identified as inhabitants of Central Asia in those days.

As regards your effort to " highlight few things about Vedic and Harappans times" could you share with us your findings on the Chronology of very significant value, for the term used by you as 'VEDIC TIMES,' please.

You would kindly appreciate that this would definitely help us to reconcile many important issues involved in 'Devasura Yudha'.

Thanks and regards.

 

[romar]

Another welcome good probing question which relates to Pre-Historic and Proto-historic times regarding early settlers in the 'Devaloka-Pitrloka' region i.e. people identified as inhabitants of Central Asia in those days.

As regards your effort to " highlight few things about Vedic and Harappans times" could you share with us your findings on the Chronology of very significant value, for the term used by you as 'VEDIC TIMES,' please.

You would kindly appreciate that this would definitely help us to reconcile many important issues involved in 'Devasura Yudha'.

Thanks and regards.

ऋग्वेद aur anyain vedon ke anusandhan se pata chalta hai ki Arya log bharat se bahar gaye the. Kaha jata hai ki Arya logon ko bahar se bharata aane ki koi yaad nahin hai parantu bharat se bahar jaane ke parimaan vaidik sahitya mai milte hain.

Aapke anusandhan ke anusar himalya ki paribhasa in scholars ne kya di hai?

 

[drrajpalsingh]

ऋग्वेद aur anyain vedon ke anusandhan se pata chalta hai ki Arya log bharat se bahar gaye the. Kaha jata hai ki Arya logon ko bahar se bharata aane ki koi yaad nahin hai parantu bharat se bahar jaane ke parimaan vaidik sahitya mai milte hain.

Aapke anusandhan ke anusar himalya ki paribhasa in scholars ne kya di hai?

Friend,

Please give quotes from the Vedas to support that the Aryans originally went out of India to other countries. We have quoted our views earlier to show that they lived in Central Asia region in remote past and the region was known as Devaloka to them.

Moreover, the Iranian traditions as enshrined in Avesta also supplement the view that their ancients --Pitrs -- and the Aryans lived together in Devaloka-Pitrloka at the beginning of the civilisation.

The definition of 'Himalya, has not come to my knowledge so far!

Thanks.

 

[romar]

Friend,

Please give quotes from the Vedas to support that the Aryans originally went out of India to other countries. We have quoted our views earlier to show that they lived in Central Asia region in remote past and the region was known as Devaloka to them.

Moreover, the Iranian traditions as enshrined in Avesta also supplement the view that their ancients --Pitrs -- and the Aryans lived together in Devaloka-Pitrloka at the beginning of the civilisation.

The definition of 'Himalya, has not come to my knowledge so far!

Thanks.

[h=1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Inaugural Address delivered at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology,
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]held at University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy on July 2-6, 2007.
[/FONT][/h]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Distinguished fellow delegates and other members of the audience,

I am most grateful to the organizers of this conference, in particular to the President, Professor Maurizio Tosi, not only for inviting me to participate in this Conference but also for giving me the additional honour of delivering the Inaugural Address. Indeed, I have no words to thank them adequately for their kindness. Perhaps this is the first occasion when a South Asian is being given this privileged treatment by the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists.

The conference hall is full of scholars from all parts of the world – from the United States of America on the west to the Land of the Rising Sun, Japan, on the east. All these scholars have contributed in a number of ways to our understanding of the past of South Asia, and I salute them with all the humility that I can muster. However, I hope I will not be misunderstood when I say that some amongst us have not yet been able to shake off the 19th-century biases that have blurred our vision of South Asia’s past.

As is well known, it was the renowned German scholar Max Muller who, in the 19th century, attempted for the first time to date the Vedas. Accepting that the Sutra literature was datable to the 6th century BCE, he gave a block-period of 200 years to the preceding three parts of the Vedic literature, namely the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Vedas. Thus, he arrived at 1200 BCE as the date of the Vedas. However, when his contemporaries, like Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilson, objected to his ad-hocism, he toned down, and finally surrendered by saying (Max Muller 1890, reprint 1979): “Whether the Vedic hymns were composed [in] 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever determine.” But the great pity is that, in spite of such a candid confession by the savant himself, many of his followers continue to swear by his initial dating, viz. 1200 BCE.

The ultimate effect of this blind tenacity was that when in the 1920s the great civilization, now known variously as the Harappan, Indus or Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, was discovered in South Asia, and was dated to the 3rd millennium BCE, it was argued that since the Vedas were no earlier than 1200 BCE, the Harappan Civilization could not have been Vedic. Further, since the only other major linguistic group in the region was the Dravidian, it was held that the Harappans were a Dravidian-speaking people.

Then came the master stroke. In 1946, my revered guru Mortimer Wheeler (later knighted) discovered a fortification wall at Harappa and on learning that the Aryan god Indra had been referred to as puramdara (destroyer of forts) he readily pronounced his judgment (Wheeler 1947: 82): “On circumstantial evidence Indra [representing the Aryans] stands accused [of destroying the Harappan Civilization].” In further support of his thesis, he cited certain human skeletons at Mohenjo-daro, saying that these were the people massacred by the Aryan invaders. Thus was reached the peak of the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory.

And lo and behold! The very first one to fall in the trap of the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory was none else but the guru’s disciple himself. With all the enthusiasm inherited from the guru, I started looking for the remains of some culture that may be post-Harappan but anterior to the early historical times. In my exploration of the sites associated with the Mahabharata story I came across the Painted Grey Ware Culture which fitted the bill. It antedated the Northern Black Polished Ware whose beginning went back to the 6th-7th century BCE, and overlay, with a break in between, the Ochre Colour Ware of the early 2nd millennium BCE. In my report on the excavations at Hastinapura and in a few subsequent papers I expressed the view that the Painted Grey Ware Culture represented the early Aryans in India. But the honeymoon was soon to be over. Excavations in the middle Ganga valley threw up in the pre-NBP strata a ceramic industry with the same shapes (viz. bowls and dishes) and painted designs as in the case of the PGW, the only difference being that in the former case the ware had a black or black-and-red surface-colour, which, however, was just the result of a particular method of firing. And even the associated cultural equipment was alike in the two cases. All this similarity opened my eyes and I could no longer sustain the theory of the PGW having been a representative of the early Aryans in India. (The association of this Ware with the Mahabharata story was nevertheless sustainable since that event comes at a later stage in the sequence.) I had no qualms in abandoning my then-favourite theory.

But linguists are far ahead of archaeologists in pushing the poor Aryans through the Khyber / Bolan passes into India. In doing so, they would not mind even distorting the original Sanskrit texts. A case in point is that of the well known Professor of Sanskrit at the Harvard University, Professor Witzel. He did not hesitate to mistranslate a part of the Baudhayana Srautasutra (Witzel 1995: 320-21). In 2003 I published a paper in the East and West (Vol. 53, Nos. 1-4), exposing his manipulation. Witzel’s translation of the relevant Sanskrit text was as follows:

"Aya went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and Kasi Videha. This is the Ayava(migration).(His other people)stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parasu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group).

Whereas the correct translation is:[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ayu migrated eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas. This is the Ayava (migration). Amavasu migrated westwards. His (people) are the Ghandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu (migration).[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to the correct translation, there was no movement of the Aryan people from anywhere in the north-west. [/FONT]
​

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Inaugural Address delivered at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology,
held at University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy on July 2-6, 2007.

Distinguished fellow delegates and other members of the audience,

I am most grateful to the organizers of this conference, in particular to the President, Professor Maurizio Tosi, not only for inviting me to participate in this Conference but also for giving me the additional honour of delivering the Inaugural Address. Indeed, I have no words to thank them adequately for their kindness. Perhaps this is the first occasion when a South Asian is being given this privileged treatment by the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists.

The conference hall is full of scholars from all parts of the world – from the United States of America on the west to the Land of the Rising Sun, Japan, on the east. All these scholars have contributed in a number of ways to our understanding of the past of South Asia, and I salute them with all the humility that I can muster. However, I hope I will not be misunderstood when I say that some amongst us have not yet been able to shake off the 19th-century biases that have blurred our vision of South Asia’s past.

As is well known, it was the renowned German scholar Max Muller who, in the 19th century, attempted for the first time to date the Vedas. Accepting that the Sutra literature was datable to the 6th century BCE, he gave a block-period of 200 years to the preceding three parts of the Vedic literature, namely the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Vedas. Thus, he arrived at 1200 BCE as the date of the Vedas. However, when his contemporaries, like Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilson, objected to his ad-hocism, he toned down, and finally surrendered by saying (Max Muller 1890, reprint 1979): “Whether the Vedic hymns were composed [in] 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever determine.” But the great pity is that, in spite of such a candid confession by the savant himself, many of his followers continue to swear by his initial dating, viz. 1200 BCE.

The ultimate effect of this blind tenacity was that when in the 1920s the great civilization, now known variously as the Harappan, Indus or Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, was discovered in South Asia, and was dated to the 3rd millennium BCE, it was argued that since the Vedas were no earlier than 1200 BCE, the Harappan Civilization could not have been Vedic. Further, since the only other major linguistic group in the region was the Dravidian, it was held that the Harappans were a Dravidian-speaking people.

Then came the master stroke. In 1946, my revered guru Mortimer Wheeler (later knighted) discovered a fortification wall at Harappa and on learning that the Aryan god Indra had been referred to as puramdara (destroyer of forts) he readily pronounced his judgment (Wheeler 1947: 82): “On circumstantial evidence Indra [representing the Aryans] stands accused [of destroying the Harappan Civilization].” In further support of his thesis, he cited certain human skeletons at Mohenjo-daro, saying that these were the people massacred by the Aryan invaders. Thus was reached the peak of the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory.

And lo and behold! The very first one to fall in the trap of the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory was none else but the guru’s disciple himself. With all the enthusiasm inherited from the guru, I started looking for the remains of some culture that may be post-Harappan but anterior to the early historical times. In my exploration of the sites associated with the Mahabharata story I came across the Painted Grey Ware Culture which fitted the bill. It antedated the Northern Black Polished Ware whose beginning went back to the 6th-7th century BCE, and overlay, with a break in between, the Ochre Colour Ware of the early 2nd millennium BCE. In my report on the excavations at Hastinapura and in a few subsequent papers I expressed the view that the Painted Grey Ware Culture represented the early Aryans in India. But the honeymoon was soon to be over. Excavations in the middle Ganga valley threw up in the pre-NBP strata a ceramic industry with the same shapes (viz. bowls and dishes) and painted designs as in the case of the PGW, the only difference being that in the former case the ware had a black or black-and-red surface-colour, which, however, was just the result of a particular method of firing. And even the associated cultural equipment was alike in the two cases. All this similarity opened my eyes and I could no longer sustain the theory of the PGW having been a representative of the early Aryans in India. (The association of this Ware with the Mahabharata story was nevertheless sustainable since that event comes at a later stage in the sequence.) I had no qualms in abandoning my then-favourite theory.

But linguists are far ahead of archaeologists in pushing the poor Aryans through the Khyber / Bolan passes into India. In doing so, they would not mind even distorting the original Sanskrit texts. A case in point is that of the well known Professor of Sanskrit at the Harvard University, Professor Witzel. He did not hesitate to mistranslate a part of the Baudhayana Srautasutra (Witzel 1995: 320-21). In 2003 I published a paper in the East and West (Vol. 53, Nos. 1-4), exposing his manipulation. Witzel’s translation of the relevant Sanskrit text was as follows:
"Aya went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and Kasi Videha. This is the Ayava(migration).(His other people)stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parasu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group).
Whereas the correct translation is:​

Ayu migrated eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas. This is the Ayava (migration). Amavasu migrated westwards. His (people) are the Ghandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu (migration).​

According to the correct translation, there was no movement of the Aryan people from anywhere in the north-west.
​

Thanks Friend for sharing with us the piece of writing. It would be appreciated if you could put full text of the speech with the name of the addressee or link so that its full contents could be taken into consideration while assessing its implications.

Hope to hear soon on the issue.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

In the meantime I beg permission to reproduce a few lines on the Vedic god Indra which points to a very important battle between the two branches of the Aryas i.e. Devas and Asuras for the perusal of the scholars interested in knowing whether the event of Devasura Yudha happened or not:

"We are surrounded by on all sides by Dasyu Tribes .
They do not perform sacrifices;
They do not believe in anything.
Their rites are different;
They are no men.
O destroyer of foes! Kill them.
Destroy the Dasa race."

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Now let us move to see the fierce battle between Devas and Asuras which lasted for about a thousand years:

Basing his study on the evidences from Vedic literature on the issue of Deva-Asura Yudha, the author of Mahabharata, [Santiparva: Ch. XXXII],sums up the causes and course of the same through a dialogue between Sri Krishana and Arjuna. In reply to Arjuna's question, Sri Krishana says:

"O Arjuna, we have heard that formerly in the Devasura War, the elder brothers, the Daityas, and the younger brothers, the Devas, fought for gaining wealth. the war lasted for a thousand years. The Devas turned the entire earth into an ocean of blood, killed the Daityas and obtained the three Devalokas [Tridiva].''

Link for the above quote: http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...ogy-of-Indian-History-Newer-discussions/page4

The Asuras, the first rulers of the region of the Devaloka had developed animal husbandry and irrigation based agriculture prior to the group of those Aryans who were allied as Devas. The devas wanted to enjoy their share in this agro based economy and this might have led to one of the armed struggles between the two as alluded to in the above quote of the Mbt.

Here is another verse from Rigveda which seems to allude to the cause of war between the two groups led by Vritra, the demon king who had control on the water sources and the Deva god Indra who wanted to make those sources freely available to the Devas. The verse is :

"I will proclaim the manly deeds of Indra,
The first that he performed, the lightning-wielder.
He slew the serpent, then discharged the waters.
And cleft the caverns of the lofty mountains.
He slew the serpent lying on the mountain;
For him the whizzing bolt has Tvastar fashioned.
Like lowing cows, with rapid current flowing,
The waters to the ocean down have glided."

This sums up the end result of the tussle between the two groups in which the Devas stood victorious against the Daityas !

Another noteworthy point is : The scene of the battle is on the Mountain.

 

[romar]

Thanks Friend for sharing with us the piece of writing. It would be appreciated if you could put full text of the speech with the name of the addressee or link so that its full contents could be taken into consideration while assessing its implications.

Hope to hear soon on the issue.

Link post nahi ho pa raha hai. Nichle vakya me se aap saare space mita deven to yeh link ban jayega. Lecture Dr BB Lal dwara diya gaya tha. Yeh shayad ASI ke director thhe.

w w w . a r c h a e o l o g y o n l i n e . n e t/ a r t i f a c t s/ 1 9 th-century-paradigms. h t m l

 

[romar]

In the meantime I beg permission to reproduce a few lines on the Vedic god Indra which points to a very important battle between the two branches of the Aryas i.e. Devas and Asuras for the perusal of the scholars interested in knowing whether the event of Devasura Yudha happened or not:

"We are surrounded by on all sides by Dasyu Tribes .
They do not perform sacrifices;
They do not believe in anything.
Their rites are different;
They are no men.
O destroyer of foes! Kill them.
Destroy the Dasa race."

Dasyu Iran mein bhi rahate thhe aur vahan yeh Dahae kahe jaate the. Irani log inhe arya hi maante thhe. Kuch logon ka maan na hai ki Daghestan desh inhi ke naam se chala hai.

Vicharniya baat yeh hai ki Irani arya logon ki Dahae se ladaai nahi hui parantu jo arya bharat ke the unse inki ladaai hui.

Dahae irani rajaon ke shilalekh par bhi likhe milte hain.

 

[lrburdak]

[Wiki]History and study of the Jats/Chapter 2[/Wiki] by Prof. B.S. Dhillon, p.44, mentions:

Furthermore, Sir Cunningham [44] also presents an interesting explanation of the word "Dahae". He says the -

"Sanskrit word "dasyu" means enemy or robber", which in Persian became dahyu, from which the Greeks formed Dahae. The spoken form in India is Daku".

According to Dr. Kephart [19] the Caspian Sea derives its name from the one group of Dahae (Dahiya Jats) known as Caspi.

----------------
44. Cunningham, A. (Sir and General), Coins of the Indo-Scythians, Sakas, and Kushans, reprinted by the Idological Book House, Varanasi, India, 1971, pp. 25, 27-28, 32, first published in 1888.

29. Dahiya, B.S., Jats: The Ancients Rulers, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India, 1980, pp. 170-171, 77, 174-230, 22, 35-37.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Link post nahi ho pa raha hai. Nichle vakya me se aap saare space mita deven to yeh link ban jayega. Lecture Dr BB Lal dwara diya gaya tha. Yeh shayad ASI ke director thhe.

w w w . a r c h a e o l o g y o n l i n e . n e t/ a r t i f a c t s/ 1 9 th-century-paradigms. h t m l

Thanks Friend for providing the link. I have noted it and will revert to the topic after going through the findings of the learned author, Dr. B B Lal.

 

[narenderkharb]

Dasyu Iran mein bhi rahate thhe aur vahan yeh Dahae kahe jaate the. Irani log inhe arya hi maante thhe. Kuch logon ka maan na hai ki Daghestan desh inhi ke naam se chala hai.

Vicharniya baat yeh hai ki Irani arya logon ki Dahae se ladaai nahi hui parantu jo arya bharat ke the unse inki ladaai hui.

Dahae irani rajaon ke shilalekh par bhi likhe milte hain.

I won't comment on BB lal .What I urge you is to use your analysis in understanding these references.

Now as you rightly observed Indian Aryans never fought with dasyu/dahyu but we find Rigvedic references of fights between dahyus and Indra/Aryans.

You are right that Dahyus/dahas were present in Iran as well as Central asia that is well documented in other ancient texts.

Now Just think ....How can these two facts be reconciled???????

It can only be reconciled when Aryans fought Dahe/Daha/Dasa in Cenra Asia/Iran and later recorded these fights in Rigveda when they arrived in Sarswati area.

Reverse of this is not possible as that would mean Rigveda a later day composition by returning Aryans .

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Dasyu Iran mein bhi rahate thhe aur vahan yeh Dahae kahe jaate the. Irani log inhe arya hi maante thhe. Kuch logon ka maan na hai ki Daghestan desh inhi ke naam se chala hai.

Vicharniya baat yeh hai ki Irani arya logon ki Dahae se ladaai nahi hui parantu jo arya bharat ke the unse inki ladaai hui.

Dahae irani rajaon ke shilalekh par bhi likhe milte hain.

If we are not mistaken in corelating the evidences supplied by the traditions enshrined in Indian and Iranian ancient literature and supplemented by aarchaeology they lived together in Devaloka-Pitrloka i.e. Ancient Central Asia region which has been described by us in earlier posts.

There presence in Iran as pointed out by you further confirms that earlier they lived at one place i.e. Devaloka of Indo Aryans and Pitrloka of the Iranian-Aryans.

Kindly also share what do you think about Devasura battles mentioned in our ancient literature.

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

History and study of the Jats/Chapter 2 by Prof. B.S. Dhillon, p.44, mentions:

Furthermore, Sir Cunningham [44] also presents an interesting explanation of the word "Dahae". He says the -

"Sanskrit word "dasyu" means enemy or robber", which in Persian became dahyu, from which the Greeks formed Dahae. The spoken form in India is Daku".

According to Dr. Kephart [19] the Caspian Sea derives its name from the one group of Dahae (Dahiya Jats) known as Caspi.

----------------
44. Cunningham, A. (Sir and General), Coins of the Indo-Scythians, Sakas, and Kushans, reprinted by the Idological Book House, Varanasi, India, 1971, pp. 25, 27-28, 32, first published in 1888.

29. Dahiya, B.S., Jats: The Ancients Rulers, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India, 1980, pp. 170-171, 77, 174-230, 22, 35-37.

Thanks Burdakji for your post.

We shall concentrate on the history of the Jats only after reaching the final stage of discussion on the ancient abode of the Aryans and then would take up their spread in different directions.

In the meantime, it is requested to help us in resolving the issue of identification and presence of the group of people known as Bhutas, Pretas and Pishachas in the Devaloka as referred to in our ancient literature like the Puranas.

Regards.

 

[romar]

I won't comment on BB lal .What I urge you is to use your analysis in understanding these references.

Now as you rightly observed Indian Aryans never fought with dasyu/dahyu but we find Rigvedic references of fights between dahyus and Indra/Aryans.

You are right that Dahyus/dahas were present in Iran as well as Central asia that is well documented in other ancient texts.

Now Just think ....How can these two facts be reconciled???????

It can only be reconciled when Aryans fought Dahe/Daha/Dasa in Cenra Asia/Iran and later recorded these fights in Rigveda when they arrived in Sarswati area.

Reverse of this is not possible as that would mean Rigveda a later day composition by returning Aryans .

Aapne shayad kuch galat padh liya. Bharat ke aryon ki dasyu se ladai hui. Irani aryon ki ladai nahi hui. Irani arya log dasyu ko arya hi maante the. Aur dasyu iran evam bharat mei paaye jaate thhe.

Isse to yahi jahir hota hai ki jo arya bharat ke the unka dasyu se kuch takrar raha.

Agar Irani Arya aur Bharat ke arya ek hote to unka ravaiyya Dasyu ke prati ek samaan hone chaiye tha.

 

[romar]

If we are not mistaken in corelating the evidences supplied by the traditions enshrined in Indian and Iranian ancient literature and supplemented by aarchaeology they lived together in Devaloka-Pitrloka i.e. Ancient Central Asia region which has been described by us in earlier posts.

There presence in Iran as pointed out by you further confirms that earlier they lived at one place i.e. Devaloka of Indo Aryans and Pitrloka of the Iranian-Aryans.

Kindly also share what do you think about Devasura battles mentioned in our ancient literature.

Thanks.

Aap se seekhne ka avasar mil raha hai iske liye bahut dhanyavad! Mera mat hai ki bharatiya arya bharat ke bahar se nahi aaye. Jaisa ki BB lal bhi kah rahe hain.

 

[narenderkharb]

Aapne shayad kuch galat padh liya. Bharat ke aryon ki dasyu se ladai hui. Irani aryon ki ladai nahi hui. Irani arya log dasyu ko arya hi maante the. Aur dasyu iran evam bharat mei paaye jaate thhe.

Isse to yahi jahir hota hai ki jo arya bharat ke the unka dasyu se kuch takrar raha.

Agar Irani Arya aur Bharat ke arya ek hote to unka ravaiyya Dasyu ke prati ek samaan hone chaiye tha.

Thanks for making it clear.

I don't know what you mean by Indian Aryan and Iranian Aryan .Do you mean tribes considered Aryan in Rigveda(Purus of pancha jana) as Indian Aryans.

And who were Iranian Aryans as per your understanding? I mean that group who had no fight with Dahyus.

 

[lrburdak]

Thanks Burdakji for your post.

We shall concentrate on the history of the Jats only after reaching the final stage of discussion on the ancient abode of the Aryans and then would take up their spread in different directions.

In the meantime, it is requested to help us in resolving the issue of identification and presence of the group of people known as Bhutas, Pretas and Pishachas in the Devaloka as referred to in our ancient literature like the Puranas.

Regards.

More on Bhuta people

[Wiki]Bharhut[/Wiki] is a location in Madhya Pradesh, Central India, known for its famous Buddhist stupa. Bharhut stupa is one of the earliest extant Buddhist structures and due to the presence of dedicatory inscriptions, it was patronized by almost exclusively by monks, nuns and the non-elite laity. The Bharhut stupa may have been established by the Maurya king Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE,
There is one inscription on Bharhut which mentions Bhuta:

No. II. Pillar.

2. Bhadantasa Aya Bhuta Rakhitasa Khujati-dakhiyasa dānam. =

Meaning: " Gift of the lay brother (Bhadanta) the reverend Bhuta-rakshita of Khujati-dakhiya."

There is one more inscription on Bharhut which mentions Bhutisa

1. Kapa (Dhana)

2. Bhutisa * * * Vatsi

3. Putrasa (Vadha Pa) lasa

4. Dhanabhutisa dānam Vedika

There can be little doubt that this inscription refers to the family of Dhanabhuti of Bharhut, as the name of Vātsi putra of the Mathura pillar is the Sanskrit form of the Vāchhi putra of the Bharhut Pillar.

Mount Abu Vimala Temple Inscription of v.s. 1378 (1322 AD)

17. [lha]kah sakala-bhuta .... [।] tat-putrah su-charitra[h] puṇya-nidhih.

Pārasah sadhuh ।। 25 Sohi-Degā-Desala-Kuladhara-nāmnā tad-amgaja jātāh |

chatvarah kulamamdira-sudriḍhastambh-abhirāmā [ye ||] 26

[Wiki]A glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose Vol II/A[/Wiki] says:

But the Bhuttas claim descent from Raja, Bhuta, fifth in descent from Raja Karn and say they were forcibly converted...

Thus we know that Bhuta was a King descended from Raja Karna.

नेपाल - यह नाम नयपाल से बना है। आरम्भ में यह देश भूट लोगों से भरा हुआ रहा होगा। मध्यकाल में यहां ठाकुरी वंश का राज हुआ था। डॉ. भगवानलालजी इन्द्र ने यहां शिलालेखों के आधार पर कुछ खोज की थी, जिससे ठाकुरी वंश की दो तीन पीढ़ियों का पता चल जाता है। यह ठकुरी सम्भवतया अलीगढ़ जिले के ठकुरेले हो सकते हैं जो कि वैशाली के ज्ञात (जाटों से) निकले हुये कहे जा सकते हैं। (जाट इतिहास:ठाकुर देशराज, पृष्ठ 178-179)

Bhut in Jats

Bhut (भूत) Jat clan is found in Bahawalpur, Pakistan. (Ref: [Wiki]A glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose Vol II/B[/Wiki] , p.109)

The Bhut tribe found in the Sādiqābād kaārdāri of Bahawalpur where they are landowners and tenants. They are formed from two distinct groups, one a Baloch, the other a Jat sept, the former being few, and the latter numerous. The Bhut Jats are possibly a branch of the Abrahs, with whom they intermarry, but they are also said to be a branch of the Bhattis. (Ref: [Wiki]A glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose Vol II/B[/Wiki] , p.109)

H A Rose gives more similar Jat tribes on p.109:

Bhutar (भूतार), M., a landowner.

Bhutha (भुतहा), a Jat clan (agricultural) found in Shahpur.

Bhutri (भूतरी), a Jat sept.

Bhuts (भुत्स), a Jat sept.

I am not recollecting one more reference which tells us that Bhuta people used to come in nights around villages and were engaged on looting people so the villagers were afraid of these people. They became synonymous with mythological super natural human beings.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

................ Mera mat hai ki bharatiya arya bharat ke bahar se nahi aaye. Jaisa ki BB lal bhi kah rahe hain.

Friend

I have gone through the contents of the 28 pages long address delivered by B B Lal which was referred to by you earlier in support of your 'mat'.

I welcome to an extent his illuminating comments on the findings of ancient remains collected by archaeologists in 'Region of Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex--BMAC' relating to the period between c. 2100 BCE and c.1700 BCE.

But what about the earlier eras! And then learning from his paper as how vainly he tries to absolve Indra from all warfare causalities, is beyond comprehension.

Moreover, I am amazed to learn that the learned author [who does not fail to write in this very paper that: "I had the privilege of obtaining in 1943 my Master's Degree in Sanskrit (with the Vedas included), with a First class first, from a first class University of India, namely Allahabad], has not written a single word about the existence of 'Devaloka-Pitraloka' or the 'occurrence of 'Devasura Yudha' and 'Shirsaagar Manthan' which are so well documented in the traditions recorded in Indian and/or Iranian ancient literature in abundance.

This very vital aspect of the life and ancient abode of the Devas and Pitras cannot be sweepped under carpet taking shelter under the comparative study of the later day cultures of the two regions i.e. India and Bacteria.

When no other source of information comes to our help tradition is a very useful tool of research and should get precedence over non existent sources to solve any vexing question, so say the research gurus. Then how one can take recourse to overlooking the presence of literary sources full of information on the topic of discussion under the thread.

At present, we are discussing to locate the region about which the present day descendants of the Devaloka-Pitraloka so reverently cling to and consider their precious heritage !

Therefore, this is once again requested to all the participants to rise to the occasion and contribute their studies to enable us to understand the factual history with the help of the available and accessible data in any form, literary, archaeology, biology and so on.

Aap se nivedan hai ki aap bhi apne paksh ki support mein source based arguments se humen labhanvit karane ka kasht kijiyaga !

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Now let us move to see the fierce battle between Devas and Asuras which lasted for about a thousand years:

Basing his study on the evidences from Vedic literature on the issue of Deva-Asura Yudha, the author of Mahabharata, [Santiparva: Ch. XXXII],sums up the causes and course of the same through a dialogue between Sri Krishana and Arjuna. In reply to Arjuna's question, Sri Krishana says:

"O Arjuna, we have heard that formerly in the Devasura War, the elder brothers, the Daityas, and the younger brothers, the Devas, fought for gaining wealth. the war lasted for a thousand years. The Devas turned the entire earth into an ocean of blood, killed the Daityas and obtained the three Devalokas [Tridiva].''

Link for the above quote: http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...ogy-of-Indian-History-Newer-discussions/page4

The Asuras, the first rulers of the region of the Devaloka had developed animal husbandry and irrigation based agriculture prior to the group of those Aryans who were allied as Devas. The devas wanted to enjoy their share in this agro based economy and this might have led to one of the armed struggles between the two as alluded to in the above quote of the Mbt.

Here is another verse from Rigveda which seems to allude to the cause of war between the two groups led by Vritra, the demon king who had control on the water sources and the Deva god Indra who wanted to make those sources freely available to the Devas. The verse is :

"I will proclaim the manly deeds of Indra,
The first that he performed, the lightning-wielder.
He slew the serpent, then discharged the waters.
And cleft the caverns of the lofty mountains.
He slew the serpent lying on the mountain;
For him the whizzing bolt has Tvastar fashioned.
Like lowing cows, with rapid current flowing,
The waters to the ocean down have glided."

This sums up the end result of the tussle between the two groups in which the Devas stood victorious against the Daityas !

Another noteworthy point is : The scene of the battle is on the Mountain.

We would welcome and be happy to learn what Dr. B.B. Lal or adherents/followers of the views of the learned authors have arguments to refute the above quoted references from Rigveda and Mahabharata !