Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Hapta Hend and Airyanem Vaejah

I had made an edit that discarded mention of Hapta Hend being an Iranian Urheimat along with Airyanem Vaejah in the Vendidad because the Vendidad neither states nor implies that Hapta Hend is at all the homeland of Aryans or the Iranians. According to the Vendidad English translation at www.avesta.org, it is 15th land created, cursed by Ahriman to have abnormal issues in women and excessive heat. Airyanem Vaejah is made first, considered the best, and beset by terrible winters for 10 months per year. While the Airyanem Vaejah, on account of its name (the Aryan connection), has been asserted to represent the homeland or land of the Aryans, this relationship is not seen in the Vendidad regarding Hapta Hend.

A user called WIN undid my edit, with the following explanation,

09:36, 12 December 2006 WIN (Talk | contribs) (Hapta Hendu is Ahura Mazda created land alongwith Airyanam Vaejo .That means Zorastrians were once living in Hapta Hendu like other Vendidad mentioned lands. Refer Talageri's book's Ch.6 I-Ir Urht.)

The first sentence is true, though all sixteen lands mentioned can be described so. Also, "along with" should not be understood as meaning "at the same time", as the creation is ordered in the Vendidad.

While it may just need explanation, the second sentence seems odd. The Vendidad does not say that the lands mentioned necessarily contain Zoroastrians, it just mentions that they are "good lands" along with their Ahrimanic counter-creation. Some are even noted for their lack of belief or following of wrong beliefs. Of course, living in the lands doesn't mean that it must be an Urheimat, so the statement doesn't really support reinstating Hapta Hend as an Iranian Urheimat.

I did refer to Chapter 6 in Talageri's book. While I definitely have some disagreements with the chapter, mostly for running off of dubious references to other writers and for its disgracefully POV approach, I would not object to using its ideas, as they do represent the view of some OIT proponents. However, I cannot stand by if an assertion is included as fact on this page, while disagreeing with the actual text of the Vendidad.

However, WIN has more experience than me, and his logic regarding the mention of Hapta Hend as an Urheimat may be sound, despite my failure to recognize it as sound. So I propose a compromise, following the same logic; that mention as an Ahura Mazda-created land in the Vendidad means that it is inhabited by Zoroastrians and is also the Iranian Urheimat. My compromise shall be to include and mention each of the 16 good lands created in sequence with Airyanem Vaejah in the same way that Hapta Hend was included.

In doing this, I will follow WIN's logic and approach while being fair to each of the 16 good lands under the same criteria.The Behnam 06:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right.By "along with " I did not mean `all at a time'.Due to space constrain there , I had to squeeze explanation.

For your ref. I am giving below notes of Gnoli.

" The crucial geographical list of sixteen Iranian lands, in the first chapter of the VendidAd, is fully identified: “From the second to the sixteenth country, we have quite a compact and consistent picture. The order goes roughly from north to south and then towards the east: Sogdiana (Gava), Margiana (Mourv), Bactria (BAx?I, Nisaya between Margiana and Bactria, Areia (HarOiva), KAbulistAn (VaEkArAta), the GaznI region (UrvA), XnAnta, Arachosia (HaraxvaitI), Drangiana (HaEtumant), a territory between Zamin-dAvar and Qal‘at-i-Gilzay (RaYa), the LUgar valley (Caxra), BunEr (VarAna), PañjAb (Hapta HAndu), RaNhA … between the KAbul and the Kurram, in the region where it seems likely the Vedic river RasA flowed.”

Gnoli notes that India is very much a part of the geographical picture: “With VarAna and RaNhA, as of course with Hapta HAndu, which comes between them in the Vandidad I list, we find ourselves straight away in Indian territory, or, at any rate, in territory that, from the very earliest times, was certainly deeply permeated by Indo-Aryans or Proto-Indoaryans.” "

Now, as per AIT/AMT , Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans divided from farther remote area ( say central asia ) and one came to Iran & other to India.Iranians know lands of India as Ahura Mazda created lands.Talageri also says that geography of Avesta starts from Sapta Sindhu and reaches upto BMAC i.e. just north of Afghanistan. And, in that 16 lands , there is not a single current Iran area name mentioned. Geography of those Zorastrians does not cover Iran which was Zorastrians Iranians' central state at the time of Arab Islamic invasion of Iran ! WIN 10:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hapta Hend is definitely mentioned as one of the Ahura Mazda created lands. I am just concerned about jumping to saying that it means it is the Iranian Urheimat along with Airyanem Vaejah. After all, aside from those two, 14 other lands are mentioned, mostly outside of what is called India. The text of the Vendidad only gives Airyanem Vaejah special discussion and praise, the others are mentioned in lesser but roughly equal fashion. In no way does it say associate Hapta Hend with Aryans any more than it does with the other 14 (excluding Airyanem Vaejah, which does regard Aryans, presumably because of its name).

Also, the commentary at www.avesta.org for the relevant section of the Vendidad seems to propose a different identification, including some areas of modern Iran, though these are tentative. While I personally disagree with these identifications, it is important not to portray any set of identifications as something almost everyone agrees upon. I do agree that emphasis should be placed on your identification references, since it doesn't directly contradict the Vendidad, and it is more appropriate to describe OIT by the sources that its proponents respect.

However, the Urheimat remark is most important, and as I haven't seen in your sources a good Vendidad-based explanation of why Hapta Hend is somehow Urheimat along with Airyanem Vaejah without the other 14 being just as Urheimat. As I said, I may follow this approach you have included, and thus mention all 16 in equal light here.

However, I am trying to avoid having to do this, because I think that it would be both ugly and meaningless. But, as of now, if talking about all of them or some of them would be meaningless or otherwise not acceptable, Hapta Hend should not be placed in line with Airyanem Vaejah in the article. Do you see where I am coming from?

Perhaps, if OIT proponents happen to regularly place Hapta Hend on par with Airyanem Vaejah, that may be mentioned just to describe common OIT views. However, the current article places too much factual tone into the assertion, considering that the Vendidad can be seen not to make such statements. So maybe a tone change is needed, or some other type of relocation. I think the whole thing doesn't seem safe include overall.

So that you know what my source is, the following URL is the Vendidad translation I have been using. Fortunately, it is honest, in that it notes that some of the identifications are not written in stone. Also, I am interested in the methods used in Gnoli and/or Talageri's Vendidad place identifications. I find it odd that they would regard any part of Aryan India as having 10 months of winter.

http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm

Perhaps we should just mention Airyanem Vaejah alone? The association of it with the Iranian Urheimat seems to be much stronger and have much more consensus than those that include others of the 16 lands. And including it alone probably won't detract very greatly from the article; in fact, it may strengthen it. At least for now? The Behnam 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Gnoli notes that there are 3 land area of Avestan people viz. VarAna, RaNhA and Sapta Sindhu which are clearly an Indian land area. ( here Indian means before partition of India area ). If Avestan people came from central asia and they splited with IA people in Bactria - Sodgiana area to move towards Iran and IA towards India, then how come they mention VarAna, RaNha and Sapta Sindhu as their god Ahura Mazda created land. Avestan geography moves from Airyanem Vaejah to Sapta Sindhu and then towards NW areas. So, that means Airyanem Vaejah is north of Sapta Sindhu and that area is Kashmir. Now, if you know about current waether of Kashmir then you can understand that out of any Indian area , only Kashmir will be cool in Indian summer ( and Hill stations ). Kashmir valley's weather is always much more cooler than rest of Indian plains. Right now, it's snowfall in Kashmir but it's hard to find snowfall in Indian plains ( except in Himalayas ). Kashmir valley will have temp. above 25 deg. C only during peak summer of months.

Also, Anu people who fought battle with Rig-Vedic people are called as coming from north to Sapta Sindhu area. Anu people were driven away to NW of India in main Rig-Vedic battle of ten kings. They were called as Dasa by Rig-Vedic people which is similar to Daha people of Iran. Historiacally Iranians were called Daha or Dahae. So, it matches with Anu ( or Dasa ) people driven away to NW of India & beyond.

Now, Avestan & Rig-Vedic people had animosity due to religious beliefs and they are called as `mrdhravacah' - Sanskrit word which means "having defective organs of speech" (Rg Veda 1854-57:3.276 n.). That means that they were not able to pronounce Rig-Vedic Sanskrit properly. And, exact pronounciation of Sanskrit words / verses is given upmost importance even today. That means Sanskrit words exact pronunciation was highly stressed since Rig-Vedic time ( now this time can be any as per AMT or OIT , but definitely atleast 3,500 years old ). Read Dasa's full article.

Avestan people's initial Avestan geography is not reaching proper Iran or areas beyond Bactria , Sodgiana. Now, initial Avestan geography includes min. 3 Indian land areas. So, it means they started from Kashmir and came to Sapta Sindhu where they fought battle of ten kings and being defeated driven away to Afghan areas of NW. Opposite meaning for Deva and Asura confirms this animosity. Otherwise Avestan people can not come on tour to 3 Indian areas and return back. WIN 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you would address my points more directly.

First, realize that I am not talking about the AMT and its "Pontic Steppes", some random part of Central Asia that is supposed to be the Indo-European Urheimat. So you do not need to "refute" AMT to me in every post; while it may be enjoyable, it does not address my Vendidad-related concerns.

Also, you say that the Avestan geography "moves" from Airyanem Vaejah to Hapta Hend, then toward NW areas. Correct me if I am wrong in this, but when you say "moves", I assume you are speaking of the order of mention and direction. Such as, it starts by mentioning this place, and moves towards that place, or a similar sentence. Now, if you are using "moves" to indicate this, the primary source (the Vendidad) displays this clearly. Now, out of sixteen lands, it mentions Airyanem Vaejah first, and Hapta Hend 15th. It cannot possibly move towards "NW areas" after Hapta Hend, considering there is only one area left. This area is Rangha, or as your source spells, RaNha; thus your Indian identification (based upon Gnoli) probably doesn't fall under "NW area" in the larger picture. Still, the plural issue would exist. Also, in this Avestan geographical movement, the variety of directions involved in moving between the lands between Airyanem Vaejah and Hapta Hend may compromise the description of the geography as moving from Airyanem Vaejah to Hapta Hend. If I describe, in this order, New York, Riyadh, Paris, Casablanca, Tokyo, it is odd to say that my description started with New York and moved toward Tokyo, since the direction is hardly straight.

Also, since Sogdiana is moved to first, the same logic of "movement" may be applied to say that Airyanem Vaejah was north of Sogdiana, since you mention that the general direction is from North to South.

Truly, this focus on areas on the eastern side of the Iranian plateau is expected; the mainstream view is that the Avestan culture is indeed from eastern Iran. Hence, Sogdia, Balkh, the Harahvaiti and the Haetumant, as well as others. According to the Vendidad page I linked above, even Varkana is described with certainty. Take a look at that page, both the main text and the certain identifications, and you will see that Hapta Hend is the only certain land that is not Iranian, and that the Iranian picture goes as far west as Ray.

So, Hapta Hend is a certain part of India, and the other two you mention based on Gnoli, both are of uncertain identification, and so there is no major conflict between our sources.

Now to address your question, how could they mention three Indian lands (according to Gnoli) as created by their Supreme God? Identifying these lands that they knew about, and called "good", as created by Ahura Mazda doesn't mean that they had to live in India or come from India. If it were to be that by mentioning lands, they must be from the lands, then all sixteen would have to be considered. AGAIN, you do not clarify why Hapta Hend should be held at the same level of Airyanem Vaejah.

I think it is important that only Airyanem Vaejah be mentioned as the Aryan homeland or land based upon the Vendidad. It should be mentioned alone, though you want to push Hapta Hend to its side, and have consistently failed to provide a sound reason that this should be done, considering our primary source, the Vendidad.

Next, the tangents. About the Anu; realize that the description you gave doesn't seem to indicate anything except that a supposedly Iranian people attacked Hapta Hend from elsewhere. Now, even if you assert that these particular Iranian people were living in Kashmir (which I guess has 10 months of severe winter) or somewhere else in the north of India, it doesn't follow that Iranian peoples originated in India. They could be from elsewhere; there is no way to establish that this group. By the way, Dahyu in Iranian language means a tribe or land in generic (this is mentioned in the Dasa article with a source), and hence is a general term.

Another tangent, the word `mrdhravacah'. Perhaps you are right by saying that the Sanskrit speakers thought that the Avestan dialect was improper. That doesn't say anything. They could recognize similarities and differences just as easily as us, this doesn't affect the Urheimat. I feel you may have intended to go along the lines that currently discredit the Dasa article, which claims that Avestan culture was a derivative of Rigvedic culture. However, this is not clear, and even if that was your meaning, it is not justified.

I don't know if you intended these tangents to be relevant or not; they didn't come out so. If you did, please be clear in connecting these topics with the question of Hapta Hend being considered the Iranian Urheimat based upon the Vendidad.

Try to focus in your response on whether or not Hapta Hend should be included with Airyanem Vaejah alone with description as Urheimat. You should argue not only why Hapta Hend is deserving of this, but also why the other lands cannot qualify. I'm trying to make sure we can agree, and I feel I have done well overall in being direct and relevant in my arguments. I do not want to make edits until we have agreement, though more irrelevant exhortations may lead to me making the edits anyway (since this would mean my points were not answered).

Ideally, Airyanem Vaejah will be mentioned alone, though I am willing to compromise and include all 16. And of course, if you persuade me to your view, I will not make any change. Thanks a lot! The Behnam 07:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am refering Gnoli and Talageri for Vendidad I's list of 16 land areas.I have modified wordings that may be OK with you. It's correct that those 16 land areas names given without any sequence. Dahyu's meaning tribe , province and district suggests that Daha naming tribe who occupied Iran state in ancient times.So, that why it's wholesale meaning of tribe or province.( it's like telling Madrasi - from Madras or Chennai - to all south Indians by north indians or naming whole of India as Hindustan from Sindhu river.) Note that Dahistan name of area east of caspian relates to Daha. And, Daha is Iranic version of Dasa as indic `s' is known to change to iranic `h'. Refer Rig-vedic tribes.

Avesta is younger to Rig-Veda and it's confrimed on linguistic basis. You have to consider overall, taking Rig-Veda and Avesta accounts to get clear idea. Geography moves means place, area or river names appearing from younger to older sections of Avesta or Rig-Veda.

In IVC excavations, vedic fire ritual doing pits are found at Kalibangan & other. IVC was having trade contact with BMAC - central asia from 4200 BC ( Purpola )and Arkaim was burnt & left in 1700 BC when IVC trade contact with central asia totally died. Where as IVC towns were not burnt & left. Arkaim has to be IVC people's trading post as it was planned town with sewage and with thick outer wall, bronze smelting oven & systematically placed fire pits. If Arkem was not IVC trade post then why it was burnt and people left it in 1700 BC. Why there is no other such 2,000 persons living place in that area ? And, if it was central asian inhabitated place then other people were not found living in similar way ( like plenty of IVC towns ) ? One can not ignore all such points in overall picture. WIN 09:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I never said anything about Arkaim, it has nothing to do with the question of listing Hapta Hend as an Urheimat along with Airyanem Vaejah. Save it for the IVC-related pages, though I am not sure if you have good sources or if these are just your personal questions regarding it. Frankly, I am not interested in speculating about some mysterious civilization. We don't know enough; we don't even understand their script. We just know that they made high quality bricks. And a few other things, but it is aside from the point.

Anyway, you did not address the main issue. The closest you came it was by saying that "It's correct that those 16 land areas names given without any sequence". While this isn't the most clear sentence, I could interpret it as agreeing to have all 16 lands mentioned in the article. Of course, I will use Vendidad as the source; you do not need to worry since I will use the Avestan names. The reason for inclusion will be, simply put, an adherence to the logic of your inclusion of Hapta Hend but while taking the other 14 lands into account, as you have not provided a reason that these lands should get listed as Urheimat under the same criteria. I would like to get this edit done soon, but I will appreciate any further remarks regarding my main issue. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have written wrong about 16 land areas' sequence as I had read that chapter long back.Avestan people's homeland is Airyanem Vaejah and not other land areas of Vendidad. They are just later occupied areas ( should be evident as their mention as Ahura Mazda created lands ). Ref. Talageri's book. Ch. 6 , I-Ir Ur. http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch6.htm. I believe more in Talageri's book as it quotes many known scholars in I-Ir subject and finds I-Ir Ur from their written books alongwith Rig-Veda. I feel that that considers quiet a bit overall picture. I have changed that sentence in main article and hope that it should be OK with you. WIN 08:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you have realized the necessity of the change I proposed. However, I notice that you have changed the article, but have not changed the sentence you said you did, regarding Hapta Hend being placed alongside Airyanem Vaejah as an Iranian Urheimat. Based on our discussion here, it seems we both agree that Airyanem Vaejah alone is the Urheimat, based upon the Vendidad. My guess is that you just forgot to get around to it, so I'm just saying this to remind you, in case you didn't see the message I left you on your talk page. I could make the change myself based upon our discussion here; however, I think it is best that you do, since this would bring closure to our debate. Thanks again! The Behnam 10:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you accidentally responded to my post on your own talk page, instead of mine. Back to the subject, even if you feel that Talageri equates Kashmir and Airyanem Vaejah, it still does not make sense to include Hapta Hend as the Urheimat, since they are clearly different locations. You seem to acknowledge this in your last response here, but you did not remove the Hapta Hend reference. If OIT proponents identify Kashmir with Airyanem Vaejah based upon Talageri, you probably should mention this after the sentence identifying Airyanem Vaejah as the Urheimat. Just make sure not to mention it in a way that is more persuasive than encyclopedic(this seems to be an issue in this and related articles; let's avoid it). However, it is important that Hapta Hend not be listed as the Iranian Urheimat, since we both agree that it is not, and the source backs this up. I hope you make the desired change, so that we can settle this without incident. Thanks! The Behnam 10:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two different issues here, which may be getting mixed up. Talageri believes that Kashmir is the Indo-Iranian urheimat, but he also claims that the Indo-European urheimat is in the Eastern Gangetic interior of India. Paul B 12:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to keep discussion of Indo-European Urheimat away from this topic, since my concern is indeed with the Indo-Iranian Urheimat. At this point, I am waiting for WIN to make the change to that sentence as he said he would. Its clear that Talageri believes Airyanem Vaejah to be Kashmir, which makes it incorrect to mention Hapta Hend along with Airyanem Vaejah as the Urheimat. I think WIN should mention Talageri's Kashmir belief after stating that Airyanem Vaejah is considered the Indo-Iranian Urheimat. However, it remains inappropriate for Hapta Hend to be mentioned. The Behnam 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WIN, I have waited a long time for the change you agreed to, and I do not yet see it. I don't know you reason for not acting based upon our discussion, but I will make the change myself if you do not. I hope you make the change soon. Thanks. The Behnam 07:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change, WIN. dab's revert got rid of it, however, so I will restore the change you made, since no reason has been given by dab for reverting that particular change. Thanks again. The Behnam 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I will make one slight adjustment to your original wording to reflect that the Kashmir identification is Talageri's argument, rather than some sort of universally accepted fact. The Behnam 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly Unfair Revert by dab

dab, I think that the sweeping revert against WIN's edits may have been unfair. While you two may have already discussed those particular edits before, and hence you have changed based upon previous discussion, I think that the approach may be wrong. After all, this page should describe the beliefs of the OIT; it shouldn't be an article refuting the OIT. Still, it shouldn't exhort the OIT either, so try to address WIN's edits by making them neutral if you believe they are being to "pamphlet" in their content. Of course, discuss with WIN if there is disagreement. I have been discussing with WIN on an issue of disagreement(see Hapta Hend and Airyanem Vaejah discussion above) and feel that it there is a good chance at agreement between us. It takes more work, but in the end, may lead to a more stable result. Even if a discussion does not work out, an edit can justified if the other person failed to respond properly in defense of the edit. But please, try to discuss before simply wiping out his contributions, however absurd you may consider them. Neutralization is better than destruction. I think that by wiping out, you aren't solving any problems. Of course, your greater experience here may justify your revert in a way I do not yet see, so I await your reply. The Behnam 10:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because WIN removed the link to the "substrate" main article, restoring the exported material. I have never "discussed" with WIN, since he never showed any sign of faculty for coherent thought. dab (𒁳) 10:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil dab. I do think that dab's way is the best way to spend the bytes in this article. There is no need to take the full discussion here when we can summarize it and link to the main article.Maunus 11:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had trouble getting coherent responses from him too, but you shouldn't be mean. He hasn't been hostile towards me, and I think he still can learn to be more on-topic in his responses. I think that being polite is very important to having a constructive discussion, so I hope you will at least try, despite your frustration. Thanks. The Behnam 11:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not frustrated, I simply do not accept that I am required to 'discuss' with people who show no sign of understanding the topic, per WP:ENC. I am not incivil or hostile, I simply call it like it is. I have shown all readiness to discuss with people who actually contribute encyclopedic material, but I will not discuss with those who do not. Lal's article dug up by WIN is fine, and I wish we had Lal to discuss with rather than clueless pov pushers. Lal takes the "geological Rigveda" position, which is not considered reasonable in philology, but which can certainly be quoted, no problem. My issue is with trolls and vandals who consistently try go misrepresent the debate, rather than simply reporting positions for what they are worth. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)