Re: 'dyeus' chronology

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@> wrote:
> >
> > shivkhokra wrote:
> >>>>I am saying that if dyaus is mentioned for the first time on the planet earth
> >>>>in 2000 BC in Rg Veda and then 800 years later in 1200 B.C he is mentioned
> >>>>again as Zeus with similar functions on Linear B tablets in Crete,
> >>>>many thousand miles away, why is it necessary to assume that Greeks
> >>>>and Rg Vedic people had a common ancestor? Does'nt Occam's razor apply?
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> > >>We already need a common (linguistic) ancestor for Greek and Sanskrit. Occam's
> > >>razor says we shouldn't multiply entities *without reason*.
> >
> > Shivraj wrote:
> > >> Can you please explain what you mean?
> > >
> > Richard wrote:
> > > We already have the linguistic connection between the Greeks and the Indo-Aryans. We should not propose another connection without good reason.
> >
> > But the question is what is the need to invent a ficticious ancestor than accepting the connection that cretan greeks writing linear B in 1200 B.C. got Zeus from Saraswati dwelling Vedic people who were worshipping Dyaus much earlier?
>
> The need is the Greek and Sanskrit languages, which are clearly related.
>

No one doubts closeness of Sanskrit and Greek. But occam's razor should cause us to not multiply without any reason. The simpler explanation would be that it was the same people who did not have a ficticious common ancestor.

We should also think about why on Crete the palaces were called PUR on linear B tablets and not the greek term polis. Pur is what palaces are in Vedas.

***R Wow, living proof that the Indians came from Crete. Well that definitely does away with those pesky Out of India lunatics. Unless, of course, Linear B is lacking /l/.

> > If we consider three geographical regions: India, Iran and mitanni/hurrian region we see that in India and Mitanni region Indra, Varuna, Mitra and Nasatya were considered Gods. So was the case in pre-zarathusthra Iran becuase these gods were turned into demons by the avestan prophet so "pagan" Iran thought of these 4 as Gods.
> >
> > What do you think might be the reason that Vedic, "pagan" or pre Zarathusthra Iranians and Mitanni people all thought of Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Nasatya as Gods?
>
> I assume that by 'Mitanni peoply' you mean the Mitanni Aryans. I accept the usual view that they were all essentially the same people, culturally and linguistically. Of course, such unity is not necessary for the veneration of these gods - Indra and Varuna at least are venerated by some Buddhists.
>

Yes. We know that Rg Vedic people were present near Saraswati before it dried up (1900 B.C). Furthermore a few centuries after 1900 B.C. Mitanni presence is attested to in Mesopotamia region. Why could they have not originated in india?

Buddhist believed in Mitra and Varuna because Buddha was born in India and before his quest for nirvana was very familiar with all these Gods and so were his followers a lot of whom were brahmans and kshatriyas.

-Shivraj