I think the issue is the name-proto European. It sounds like it came from non-Indian culture. Colonials used it to justify their invasion or to deny credit to Indian identity. If guest says that it was 'prakrut' or something else ? I get it. Hindu groups attack because he uses the word 'proto-Indo-European'. Hindu groups are worried that guest using the word would help colonials.
Good observation. I also think there need not necessarily be a 'one' Monolith language out of which all other India-euro language emanates from. Multiple Porto-Languages that intermixed with each other could have formed the substratum through which present IE language emerge. But of course evidence for that is requisite.
true but we must get past that most countries/civilisations have had contacts with outsiders before the connceptualisation of a sort of statehood and afterwards too there are no pure people in the world because it would breed inbreds who are mostly diseased and retarded but the issue is in the language ownership where they snatch our claim on unconclusive grounds i mean if we do have an ancestor language then the possibilites are many not one to be the source or close to a source the problem is taking
I have given the distribution of the people of north India as per the records in my books and blogs: the eastern (non-Bharata) Purus were spread out to the east of Haryana over most of Uttar Pradesh, and the Ikshvakus in easternmost Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Sanauli in Baghpat district of U.P. belongs to the OCP-ware culture (in archaeological terms), which also occurs over Uttar Pradesh, so they must have been eastern Purus. The earliest claims made for "Steppe DNA" in India are in 1100 BCE in the Swat valley in northernmost Pakistan, so these people, to the east of the Harappan-Vedic area, dated to 1900 BCE or earlier, were clearly nothing to do with Steppe immigrants.
@@sgtalageri Sir Do you think ramayana is a rig vedic era epic because we find mention about vishwamitra in both rig veda and ramayana...if both are the same person then possibly ramayana was rig vedic epic ....if they are different vishwamitra of different generation then only we can say that ramayana was later compiled incident.Whats your view sir???
@@sgtalageri Sir regarding steppe migration I have few points : 1) We have seen steppe migration in ancient India in the form of shaka and parthavas(earliest) invasion and later in the form Hunas and tocharians(kushanas). Now according to traditional westernized history chronology parthavas(persians) arrived before Nandas period and shakas migrated to india in post mauryan era... 2) But according to many Indologists like Ved veer arya , mrugendra vinod the chronology of indian history has been messed up by western as well as marxist scholars...as per a copper plate record there was actually two shaka era (shaka and shakant era).But the western historians just ignored the copper plate just by saying that its forged..according these indologists 600 years timeline between saka and sakant era has been compressed into one. Plus there is a serious dispute related to buddha nirvana date. So if we can refine the chronology and compare the earliest steppe migration in india (I.e in 1100 BC) ...We can easily establish that those steppe migrations were from one of the earliest saka lineage or parthavas and not rig vedic people....and possibly shakas brought refined sanskrit (classical sanskrit) ....And Dr. NEERAJ RAI has also established in his genetic report that out of india migration has actually happend from Indus saraswati sites in around 2700-2500 BC...and the hydrological data also tells us that the saraswati river dried up around 2500 BC....you can find Dr Neeraj rai's dialogue in charvaka podcast only...and mrugendra vinod arguement in sangam talks and other indology platform .. Ved veer aryas arguement is there in jaipur dialogues and sangam talks
@@sgtalageri sir, do you have a place where we can chat with you? Please enlighten us, if you don't then I hope you do open a social media account soon on insta, twitter, etc.
@@topg2820 Sorry for the very late reply. I was checking out my pending mails (to delete unnecessary ones) when I saw this comment I do not seem to have replied to. I am not on any social media and do not want to be (I don't even have a mobile phone), but I live in Mumbai and will be happy to meet if you ever come to Mumbai
Agree with Talageri that some of right wing are hating non-Purus is unfortunate. I totally agree that some argue like that Ravana was totally bad and wasn't Shiva bhakth. But Ramayan says he had many qualifications and wrote Shiva Tandava.
Well its because the leftist has been trying to potray Ravana as some great guy and Rama only killed him because he was a Dravidian, which is not true. If you read Ramayana it clearly mentions the good qualities of Ravana but it also very clearly points out the wrong doings of Ravana and the crime he committed, which left try to whitewash. I don't think the leftist way is correct 😕, but yeah some right wingers are also gone too far anyway.
Can Mr Talageri explain why PIE cant be Sanskrt. This is a better question and it addresses a lot of amount of people who think it is Sanskrit that is the mother of all Indo-European languages.
Hi Srikant ji and Mehra ji.. I had dome a similar study on my on and reached the reached the conclusion that Sanskrit is not a natural language but a created one (with vocab borrowed from nearby dialects( both north + south indian).. Now zero was a disruption on languages which gives higher possibility of out of India (just if we take Sankrit to be a constructed language).. Ur thoughts?
Also ekadash as 11 and dvdash as 12 is similar logic to 21 and 22.. Hindi's gyarah and barah follow similar logic as 11 and 12 in English.. The only way all this can be explained is that other counting systems and languages existed in India.. Sanskrit was created from them as a more perfect language (language of wise the devbhasha).. N it traveled out along with the other dialects and both influenced.. The diversity in language should follow the genetic logic i.e. maximum at source.. Other factors supporting out of India theory are the higher genetic diversity in animals that became domesticated.. Dogs/cows etc again higher diversity in India...
It was certainly not the highlight of the podcast but I find it strange that for so many people it seems to be the only thing they heard and thought worthy of comment in the entire podcast. Something wrong or criminal or particularly anti-intellectual in watching Sham Sharma's videos? I am not a very regular viewer, but yes I have seen and liked many of his videos (long before he interviewed me in one of them). In this particular case, I was waiting nervously (yes, nervously) as usual before the podcast started, and as it was a short 10-minute video I watched it. I also used to watch Dhruv Rathee's videos until he became too disgusting to watch. I also love to watch Marathi sangeet nataks, old Hindi and Marathi songs (see how many I have uploaded on youtube), Gujarati folk songs, Carnatic and Hindustani classical, yakshagana, etc. I love to watch Crime Patrol and have a collection of over 2400 episodes on my computer. In these lockdown days, I have watched numerous English films and serials on Netflix, and gone through hundreds of books from my collection at home (including children's books like Enid Blytons and Harry Potters besides Agatha Christie, P G Wodehouse, Jane Austen, etc). I am happy to have provided so many more things highlighting my anti-intellectual character for those who want to comment on them!
@@sgtalageri Sir, I think you are misunderstanding me. In fact I really admire you for your work and intellectual honesty. I admit that I did not understand many things that you've said in the podcast because it was very technical for me to understand. I am just 19 years old so you are actually more than my father's age. Sham's videos are not anti intellectual but they are full of funny jokes and memes which are generally watched by young audience. I was pleasantly surprised that you also watch such videos and enjoy them. I have seen all your podcasts with kushal Mehra. So, I know you get nervous in front of camera but you still do this podcasts for people like us to understand. My intention was not to hurt you and certainly not to call you anti intellectual. You are actually one of the few people in the Hindu side who can counter Western and leftist lies. Nevertheless I apologize for this.
9:20 ..words are nevr borrowed to my knowledge.. Really? World uses 'computer' in all languages. When India gave number system to the world and when knowledge was copied, isn't it common?
For 'right wing' there is argument that there were universities from Afganistan till Tamil nadu. So, language developed in these. So, Talageri could prove which universities in Russia, Baltic to prove it. For Yavana- agree with his point. Yavanan, mlechchas were external cultures. But he denies Purana's time and says it was written in Maurya time. While I agree that some were written later, did no purana exist in Maha bharaha or earlier time? Strangely, he believes in proto-European through 'viveka budhdhi' while there is no argument.
Languages don't borrow core words. Computers are a western introduction, hence the name. And languages don't require universities to be developed. Things like 'mother', 'father' etc. aren't Indian inventions. Also, India contributed the decimal numeral system, numbers and their names existed earlier. The earliest useage of Indo-European numerals come from a Mittani horse training tablet. Also, Indo-European languages are attested to as early as Mycenaean Greece(1700 BCE) and the Hittites (2000 BCE).
I am confused Mr Talgeri. Doesn't the Rig Veda describe the Anus and Druhyus as being within India, before they left? Doesn't it describe them leaving during the time when the Rig Veda was being composed?
Indians migrating to Afghanistan or Iran is natural since they were part of Aryavarta so it is not really migration but indicator of the fact that South Asia was an integrated to a large extent politically, and people will migrate where ever there were better rulers.
So the guest's opinion is that these languages didn't borrow words from sanskrit. What if these languages are Sanskrit which changed with time, hence the similarities? Rather than a proto Indo-Aryan language, what if the original language was sanskrit and these later changed? (This conclusion can be drawn only if you believe the indian civilization to be very old, perhaps if you believe Nilesh Nilkanth Oak's research. And I should clarify that I believe their were other languages before Sanskrit, the name itself reveals it, but I believe what I stated above).
Yes, Nilesh ji used empirical methodology to first disprove his points by using geography, geology, astronomy and other texts. The fact that it stood up to it all makes it sensible and verifiable. Ramayan about 20-30 thousand years ago. Mahabharat 10 thousand years ago appx. Stop using max Muller dating. He was fixing up dates to make it less than 4000 BC. This either makes all authors of the scriptures great-grandfathers of Einsteins doing leaps and bounds of phenomenal research or the chronology is messed up.
*I support views of almost all indologists as well as Sir Shrikant Talageri but when I hear nilesh oak's view based on skewed astronomical arguements my intellect resists me.Ofcourse Brahmana literatures ,mahabharata have some astronomical mention but the position of stars changes over periods of time. So pushing those dates to 6000-7000 BC is simply sign of weak arguements* *We have archeological ,hydrological and linguistic evidences by which we can easily date rig vedic era.Rig veda wont be older than 3000 BC*
Bother tell me one thing. Is the n-th published edition of the book of the some date the same as the first edition book being the same as the date of origin of manuscript. None of the scriptures have had any rigourous examination done on them. Britain still pays brown Indologists like the Oxford sarkar guy to write that 'hindu trades caused bengal famine, not Winston Churchill war pogroms to divert grains to Europe'
Wonderful podcast! There are few unbiased scholars in India who study objectively. There is need for top notch research centre and research culture for Indian history.
Sorry. This guest is making silly arguments to justify existence of proto European language while admitting that there is no proof. I make argument that Sanskrit came from Prakrut and others. Sanskrit means 'refined'. i.e. in our own civilization, we had 'un-refined' language. Panini records 26 previous grammar experts. How do you reconcile? As mentioned, Korean has very close sound like Kannada.
The word 'Sanskrit' was probably first used by the 12th Century scholar Shriharsha in his work Naishadhacharitam. He used it in the context of Indian kings assembled and discussing things in a language 'more cultured' than that of the common populace. The Kushan King Kanishka probably referred to Sanskrit when he talked of the Aryan language in his Rabatak inscription. That said, there's nothing whatsoever to suggest that Sanskrit, esp. Vedic Sanskrit was a refined artificial language and Prakrit was older. Vedic Sanskrit has words for very plebeian things like gambling, farming, etc. It must have been a commonly spoken language.
The intro music is like the cherry on the top. Great podcast as usual
Really respect Mr. Talageri and his work. As an ancient history nerd I find his arguments quite scholarly and convincing.
Mr Talagiri is doing great job. Please keep it up and write about Ikshwakuns
Charvaka Podcast should talk to Subhash Kak. These two people could talk face to face all points.
Shrikant Talageri should create his own channel. .
I dont think so. youtube channel is a lot of work. He already has a lot of well-researched books but how many have actually bought and read those?
asmi to ahmi is like asura to ahura or soma to homa. Talageri has done remarkably good job!
I think the issue is the name-proto European. It sounds like it came from non-Indian culture. Colonials used it to justify their invasion or to deny credit to Indian identity. If guest says that it was 'prakrut' or something else ?
I get it. Hindu groups attack because he uses the word 'proto-Indo-European'. Hindu groups are worried that guest using the word would help colonials.
Good observation. I also think there need not necessarily be a 'one' Monolith language out of which all other India-euro language emanates from. Multiple Porto-Languages that intermixed with each other could have formed the substratum through which present IE language emerge. But of course evidence for that is requisite.
true but we must get past that most countries/civilisations have had contacts with outsiders before the connceptualisation of a sort of statehood and afterwards too there are no pure people in the world because it would breed inbreds who are mostly diseased and retarded but the issue is in the language ownership where they snatch our claim on unconclusive grounds i mean if we do have an ancestor language then the possibilites are many not one to be the source or close to a source the problem is taking
Kushal bhaiya ubshould give an option to ask question via patym apne pass to abhi yahi hai use karne ke liye.
*Srikant ji what's your views on sanauli excavation and dwarka preliminary excavation* ?Who were those people?
I have given the distribution of the people of north India as per the records in my books and blogs: the eastern (non-Bharata) Purus were spread out to the east of Haryana over most of Uttar Pradesh, and the Ikshvakus in easternmost Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Sanauli in Baghpat district of U.P. belongs to the OCP-ware culture (in archaeological terms), which also occurs over Uttar Pradesh, so they must have been eastern Purus.
The earliest claims made for "Steppe DNA" in India are in 1100 BCE in the Swat valley in northernmost Pakistan, so these people, to the east of the Harappan-Vedic area, dated to 1900 BCE or earlier, were clearly nothing to do with Steppe immigrants.
@@sgtalageri Sir Do you think ramayana is a rig vedic era epic because we find mention about vishwamitra in both rig veda and ramayana...if both are the same person then possibly ramayana was rig vedic epic ....if they are different vishwamitra of different generation then only we can say that ramayana was later compiled incident.Whats your view sir???
@@sgtalageri Sir regarding steppe migration I have few points :
1) We have seen steppe migration in ancient India in the form of shaka and parthavas(earliest) invasion and later in the form Hunas and tocharians(kushanas). Now according to traditional westernized history chronology parthavas(persians) arrived before Nandas period and shakas migrated to india in post mauryan era...
2) But according to many Indologists like Ved veer arya , mrugendra vinod the chronology of indian history has been messed up by western as well as marxist scholars...as per a copper plate record there was actually two shaka era (shaka and shakant era).But the western historians just ignored the copper plate just by saying that its forged..according these indologists 600 years timeline between saka and sakant era has been compressed into one.
Plus there is a serious dispute related to buddha nirvana date. So if we can refine the chronology and compare the earliest steppe migration in india (I.e in 1100 BC) ...We can easily establish that those steppe migrations were from one of the earliest saka lineage or parthavas and not rig vedic people....and possibly shakas brought refined sanskrit (classical sanskrit) ....And Dr. NEERAJ RAI has also established in his genetic report that out of india migration has actually happend from Indus saraswati sites in around 2700-2500 BC...and the hydrological data also tells us that the saraswati river dried up around 2500 BC....you can find Dr Neeraj rai's dialogue in charvaka podcast only...and mrugendra vinod arguement in sangam talks and other indology platform ..
Ved veer aryas arguement is there in jaipur dialogues and sangam talks
@@sgtalageri sir, do you have a place where we can chat with you? Please enlighten us, if you don't then I hope you do open a social media account soon on insta, twitter, etc.
@@topg2820 Sorry for the very late reply. I was checking out my pending mails (to delete unnecessary ones) when I saw this comment I do not seem to have replied to. I am not on any social media and do not want to be (I don't even have a mobile phone), but I live in Mumbai and will be happy to meet if you ever come to Mumbai
Agree with Talageri that some of right wing are hating non-Purus is unfortunate. I totally agree that some argue like that Ravana was totally bad and wasn't Shiva bhakth. But Ramayan says he had many qualifications and wrote Shiva Tandava.
Well its because the leftist has been trying to potray Ravana as some great guy and Rama only killed him because he was a Dravidian, which is not true. If you read Ramayana it clearly mentions the good qualities of Ravana but it also very clearly points out the wrong doings of Ravana and the crime he committed, which left try to whitewash. I don't think the leftist way is correct 😕, but yeah some right wingers are also gone too far anyway.
Being a Konkani speaker , I am sure of what Shrikant ji is saying . We have very little similarities with Marathas.
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Can Mr Talageri explain why PIE cant be Sanskrt. This is a better question and it addresses a lot of amount of people who think it is Sanskrit that is the mother of all Indo-European languages.
Hi Srikant ji and Mehra ji..
I had dome a similar study on my on and reached the reached the conclusion that Sanskrit is not a natural language but a created one (with vocab borrowed from nearby dialects( both north + south indian)..
Now zero was a disruption on languages which gives higher possibility of out of India (just if we take Sankrit to be a constructed language)..
Ur thoughts?
Also ekadash as 11 and dvdash as 12 is similar logic to 21 and 22..
Hindi's gyarah and barah follow similar logic as 11 and 12 in English..
The only way all this can be explained is that other counting systems and languages existed in India..
Sanskrit was created from them as a more perfect language (language of wise the devbhasha)..
N it traveled out along with the other dialects and both influenced..
The diversity in language should follow the genetic logic i.e. maximum at source..
Other factors supporting out of India theory are the higher genetic diversity in animals that became domesticated..
Dogs/cows etc again higher diversity in India...
People are here for intellectual discussions but the main highlight of the podcast is Shrikant sir watches sham's videos 😂
Time stamp ?
@@neon-astronaut 1:23:27
It was certainly not the highlight of the podcast but I find it strange that for so many people it seems to be the only thing they heard and thought worthy of comment in the entire podcast. Something wrong or criminal or particularly anti-intellectual in watching Sham Sharma's videos? I am not a very regular viewer, but yes I have seen and liked many of his videos (long before he interviewed me in one of them). In this particular case, I was waiting nervously (yes, nervously) as usual before the podcast started, and as it was a short 10-minute video I watched it. I also used to watch Dhruv Rathee's videos until he became too disgusting to watch.
I also love to watch Marathi sangeet nataks, old Hindi and Marathi songs (see how many I have uploaded on youtube), Gujarati folk songs, Carnatic and Hindustani classical, yakshagana, etc. I love to watch Crime Patrol and have a collection of over 2400 episodes on my computer. In these lockdown days, I have watched numerous English films and serials on Netflix, and gone through hundreds of books from my collection at home (including children's books like Enid Blytons and Harry Potters besides Agatha Christie, P G Wodehouse, Jane Austen, etc). I am happy to have provided so many more things highlighting my anti-intellectual character for those who want to comment on them!
@@sgtalageri Sir, I think you are misunderstanding me. In fact I really admire you for your work and intellectual honesty. I admit that I did not understand many things that you've said in the podcast because it was very technical for me to understand. I am just 19 years old so you are actually more than my father's age. Sham's videos are not anti intellectual but they are full of funny jokes and memes which are generally watched by young audience. I was pleasantly surprised that you also watch such videos and enjoy them.
I have seen all your podcasts with kushal Mehra. So, I know you get nervous in front of camera but you still do this podcasts for people like us to understand. My intention was not to hurt you and certainly not to call you anti intellectual. You are actually one of the few people in the Hindu side who can counter Western and leftist lies. Nevertheless I apologize for this.
@@surabhizol9199 That's all right. I should say sorry for my hasty reaction.
20:27 "Indo-Aryans of the Vedas, Indo-Aryans of..." What did he say?
"Indo Aryans of the Mittani"
9:20 ..words are nevr borrowed to my knowledge.. Really? World uses 'computer' in all languages. When India gave number system to the world and when knowledge was copied, isn't it common?
For 'right wing' there is argument that there were universities from Afganistan till Tamil nadu. So, language developed in these. So, Talageri could prove which universities in Russia, Baltic to prove it.
For Yavana- agree with his point. Yavanan, mlechchas were external cultures.
But he denies Purana's time and says it was written in Maurya time. While I agree that some were written later, did no purana exist in Maha bharaha or earlier time?
Strangely, he believes in proto-European through 'viveka budhdhi' while there is no argument.
Languages don't borrow core words. Computers are a western introduction, hence the name. And languages don't require universities to be developed.
Things like 'mother', 'father' etc. aren't Indian inventions. Also, India contributed the decimal numeral system, numbers and their names existed earlier. The earliest useage of Indo-European numerals come from a Mittani horse training tablet.
Also, Indo-European languages are attested to as early as Mycenaean Greece(1700 BCE) and the Hittites (2000 BCE).
I am confused Mr Talgeri. Doesn't the Rig Veda describe the Anus and Druhyus as being within India, before they left? Doesn't it describe them leaving during the time when the Rig Veda was being composed?
Indians migrating to Afghanistan or Iran is natural since they were part of Aryavarta so it is not really migration but indicator of the fact that South Asia was an integrated to a large extent politically, and people will migrate where ever there were better rulers.
So the guest's opinion is that these languages didn't borrow words from sanskrit. What if these languages are Sanskrit which changed with time, hence the similarities? Rather than a proto Indo-Aryan language, what if the original language was sanskrit and these later changed? (This conclusion can be drawn only if you believe the indian civilization to be very old, perhaps if you believe Nilesh Nilkanth Oak's research. And I should clarify that I believe their were other languages before Sanskrit, the name itself reveals it, but I believe what I stated above).
Yes, Nilesh ji used empirical methodology to first disprove his points by using geography, geology, astronomy and other texts.
The fact that it stood up to it all makes it sensible and verifiable.
Ramayan about 20-30 thousand years ago. Mahabharat 10 thousand years ago appx.
Stop using max Muller dating. He was fixing up dates to make it less than 4000 BC. This either makes all authors of the scriptures great-grandfathers of Einsteins doing leaps and bounds of phenomenal research or the chronology is messed up.
*I support views of almost all indologists as well as Sir Shrikant Talageri but when I hear nilesh oak's view based on skewed astronomical arguements my intellect resists me.Ofcourse Brahmana literatures ,mahabharata have some astronomical mention but the position of stars changes over periods of time. So pushing those dates to 6000-7000 BC is simply sign of weak arguements*
*We have archeological ,hydrological and linguistic evidences by which we can easily date rig vedic era.Rig veda wont be older than 3000 BC*
Bother tell me one thing.
Is the n-th published edition of the book of the some date the same as the first edition book being the same as the date of origin of manuscript.
None of the scriptures have had any rigourous examination done on them.
Britain still pays brown Indologists like the Oxford sarkar guy to write that 'hindu trades caused bengal famine, not Winston Churchill war pogroms to divert grains to Europe'
Nilesh oak ka bs chle to har chij ko lakho sal purana bol de.
Wonderful podcast! There are few unbiased scholars in India who study objectively. There is need for top notch research centre and research culture for Indian history.
Sorry. This guest is making silly arguments to justify existence of proto European language while admitting that there is no proof. I make argument that Sanskrit came from Prakrut and others. Sanskrit means 'refined'. i.e. in our own civilization, we had 'un-refined' language. Panini records 26 previous grammar experts. How do you reconcile?
As mentioned, Korean has very close sound like Kannada.
After watching some more, I think he is really unbiased scholar whether what he produced is correct or not. Will buy and read his book.
Prakrut has come from Sanskrit not vice versa
There were multiple languages in India out of which Sanskrit was one and slowly it took up all the India
Yes there is a clue in the name Sanskrit. It was developed and structured from whatever the languages were existing then.
Vedic sanskrit was different from classical sanskrit refined by panini
The word 'Sanskrit' was probably first used by the 12th Century scholar Shriharsha in his work Naishadhacharitam.
He used it in the context of Indian kings assembled and discussing things in a language 'more cultured' than that of the common populace. The Kushan King Kanishka probably referred to Sanskrit when he talked of the Aryan language in his Rabatak inscription.
That said, there's nothing whatsoever to suggest that Sanskrit, esp. Vedic Sanskrit was a refined artificial language and Prakrit was older. Vedic Sanskrit has words for very plebeian things like gambling, farming, etc. It must have been a commonly spoken language.
He lost Kushal for a bit there
Bank clerk who can't read Sanskrit taking pot shots at others
Traditional scholars are the most mediocre.
Hindi kyun nhi banayi video sirf padhe likhe logon ko hi samjhana chahte ho. Meiene subscribe krke unsubscribe kr dia.