01-24-2006, 03:59 PM
From: Michael Witzel <witzel@...>
Date: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Indo-Eurasia] Comments? witzel_michael
Offline
Send Email
In response to Kat's plea, Steve and now I, have put up soemthing in
the Hall of Ma'at (truth!)
Congrats on the site, Kat!
Here my long re-invention of the wheel....
<http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?4,376713,page=4>
======
With regard to this thread: My attention has been drawn to it several
times, but I really do not have the time to engage; nor do I have the
intention to engage with Indian nationalistic/chauvinist (Hindutva)
proponents: I have done so too many times over the past 10 years; this
is entirely unproductive, as you have already seen in this thread, and
as you will see from the reactions to this post. Rather, read the new
book ed. by Garrett Fagan, on Pseudo-Archeology, visible on this very
website.
That said, nevertheless, some salient points that should put the whole
matter into perspective.
<span style='font-size:25pt;line-height:100%'>1. Importantly, the debate about the so-called Aryan Invasion theory,
that Hindutva people like to call AIT, is a purely political debate,
one current in present day India (with a few Hindutva-inspired
offshoots elsewhere): Any influx of ``Aryans`` from the outside is
strongly denied by Hindutva people, for purely political reasons, as
per their mantra: India must have been and must be now ``one country,
one people, one culture``. Ever heard that before? Only the Fuehrer is
missing (Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer: well, we have Modi of
Gujarat now).</span>2. That apart, informed scholars have not discussed this 19th century
theory for decades; they have moved on. First the philologists, way
back in the fifties and sixties: such as FBJ Kuiper (1955 sqq) and
historians such as Romila Thapar (1968), and only then archeologists,
who have seen that an ``Aryan Invasion`` is not the right way to
explain the presence of Indo-Aryan (this is the correct term)
language, religion, ritual and social set-up in early India (i.e. in
the Greater Panjab during the early Vedic period, c. 1500-1000 BCE).
3. Rather, they looked for an explanation by some sort of influx,
whether trickling in, transhumance movements, immigration (and yes,
occasional takeover), or a combination of all these and other features
and subsequent acculturation of other N.Indian elites and populations.
However, nobody has properly and deeply analyzed the Rgveda (RV), the
oldest Indian text yet to hone in on one or more of these possibilities
(see Witzel 1995).
4. That we indeed have to reckon with such an influx is shown by the
fact that early Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, just as the
closely related Old Iranian of Zoroaster. Both go back to the common
Indo-Iranian (IIr) language, religion and ritual (with Soma, e.g.)
Indo-European (IE) as such is not a ``tropical`` language but one of
the temperate zone, and cannot have come from India as some Hindutva
people say (the ``Out of India`` theory).5. Even the Indo-Iranian language did not develop inside India but in
an area that is close to the C.Asian steppe-taiga (forest) interface,
e.g,, near the Urals. Every language has historical levels, just as
we see in archeology. The earlier forms of IIr. have been loaned in to
Uralic and Yeneseian (such as azoro ``lord`` from asura (not Iranian
ahura) and arta (from rta/arta) into Ket. Or, most amusingly, orja
``slave`` in Finnish (meaning ``southerner`` in Saami/Lapp) --- both
from Arya.
Later levels of loans into Uralic are from later stages, such as Old
Iranian, including pakas from baga-s ``god`` (no longer IIr.
``share``), and ditto into Old Slavic as bogu ``god``, with regular
sound change.
6. A movement south is further seen in the takeover of the word for
Soma (ams’u) and its ritual, substituting for IE mead , Greek ambrosia
(Witzel 2004); and a host of loans from the BMAC culture area of
Bactria-Margiana (Witzel 1999, Lubotsky 2001), including words very
dear to the RV, such as Indra, Atharvan, Gandharva, Usij, yaatu, etc.
The actual move *through* the BMAC area apparently took place only
after 1600 BCE (Witzel, SPP 129, 2004) when this area and Iran mostly
reverted to pastoralism.
7. A further layer can be seen in Hindukush influence (yaksa, snow/ice
Naga deities, etc., kaaca ‘a precious stone, and Burushaski loans into
RV such as kilaala, etc.).
8. Early IIr. influence, by now in proto-Vedic form, is also seen in
the Near East, in the Mitanni Realm, around 1400 BCE, with words for
the major Vedic gods, horse training terms, colors, and names of some
Kings (but normally, not Queens!) The IA language of these documents is
slightly older than that of the RV, which gives a handle for dating,
after c.1400 BCE.
9. Thus, a clear linguistic trail, with archeological layers so to
speak, -- of course only visible to those who know the procedure of
linguistics and will be able to follow the tedious details. (I can
answer a few questions on this topic, but will not be around for all
the expected side tracks made by Hindutva people on the list. Most of
these questions have been answered, and even further anticipated, in
the (tedious!) 2001 paper in EJVS ; for all such data see my
website/bibliography).
10. When speakers of the Vedic language arrived in the NW of the
subcontinent, greater Panjab, their language was slightly *later* than
that of the IA element in Mitanni, and earlier than the introduction
of iron in THAT area, at c. 1000 BCE (Possehl & Gullapalli 1999). (Iron
is earlier in some other parts of India, such as at Hallur in Karnataka
at 1200 BCE). There is no iron the RV but in the immediately following
texts (Atharvaveda, Yajurveda). RV has to be date between c. 1400 and
1000 BCE, thus.
IA language, religion and ritual are different from that of the Indus
Civilization and are clear newcomers in the Greater Panjab --- a fact
not allowed under Hindutva point (1), due to the hoary unity of India,
from the Stone Age onwards...
11. So far the linguistic argument. However, in spite of what Hindutva
people, and some archaeologists who follow the (originally Stalinist)
mantra that cultures always evolve *only* locally usually say, there
also are indications in archeology for the inward move of IA speakers.
Though neither pots nor horses do speak, we can see when horses first
occur in S.Asia. Horses are steppe animals and were both imported into
the Near East and into India only around 2000 BCE, the rough date of
the invention of the spoke-wheeled chariot as well . (An earlier form
of the horse, not our caballus, has died out in India at c. 10,000
BCE). The earliest secure date for horses in India is 1800/1700 BCE in
the Pirak/Baluchistan area, both as figurines and in bones.
Any other dates given by archaeologists --- who are not
paleontologists---- are flawed: in order to distinguish the horse from
the local Near Eastern and S.Asian half-ass (hemion/onager) we need a
few phalanges (toe bones): otherwise, you cannot be sure whether you
have a horse or a half-ass. However some archeologists see horses in
figurines of any four-legged creature, such as dogs. Not to speak of
bones.
In the Gandhara Grave culture (1400 BCE --) of the Indian Northwest,
horses also do occur with a bronze age culture than could very well
reflect the RV -- and that occurs in some of the areas that are clearly
mentioned in the RV, Swat Gandhara.
12. However, horses do not speak, so we better take a look at the
similar situation in the Near East where we have written records.
Since c. 2200 BCE, we have one series of raids and real life
invasions after another into Mesopotamia. First, by the Guti and
Lullubi, mountain tribes -- some think of them as Caucasian speaking
(like the modern Chechen). They were followed by the Kassites around
1700 BC, who took over Babylon/Sumer for 500 years. In their
--unclassified--language we find a few IA words such as Maruttas,
Suriyas and maybe Bhaga.
IA influence is still greater in the Mitanni (as above), another
Caucasian (= Hurrite) speaking group in N.Iraq and N.Syria whose
language shows a few traits of having come via the BMAC, just like RVic
IA.
In sum, we see a series sof incursions from the mountains into
Mesopotamia, with eventual takeover by some non-IA invaders (Kassites).
Only, that the IA did not manage to do so, we have to wait for Cyrus in
the 6th c. BCE to manage that.
13. We can imagine a similar series of raids, immigration, trickling
in and some small scale invasions by IAs (and mingled groups similar to
the Kassite/Mitanni) into the post-Indus Civ. area of the Northwest.
Only, that we still need to establish the *exact* data -- very tricky
to do so (Witzel 1995) -- after having set the parameters first: time
and location of the individual hymns in the RV. As mentioned, nobody
has done so satisfactorily yet, for all hymns.
What is clear, however, is that IA language, religion, ritual, and
society plus pastoralism spread throughout the NW, starting from
Gandhara (Peshawar) and the Bolan (Quetta). Anybody who joined the IAs
in speech & ritual was included among the Arya -- that is, at least
until ``the first constitution of India,`` as Paul Mus called it, RV
10.90, was composed that established the 4 varnas (classes), --- the
beginnings of the later class & caste system that set clear social
boundaries.
14. It also is clear that the remnant agricultural people of the Indus
moved upstream (apparently for want of sufficient water in some areas
and as to exploit monsoon rains not found in the Indus area), to
Haryana/Delhi and eastwards to Saurastra and Gujarat. Indeed, we find
non-Aryan (prefixing, Para-Munda) river/place names concentrated in the
Haryana (Kuruksetra) area Witzel 1999), and Dravidian ones in Gujarat
(Southworth 2005), while most of the NW and then the western Gangetic
valley has been overlaid by IA names.
It is indeed in Haryana that we find, as per archeology, the
continuation of small towns and village settlements of the aboriginal
people, ---while the IAs moved around with their cattle for several
more centuries. The RVic IAs made fun of the local people: they speak
strangely, have other gods, and :`` what is the use of cows with the
Kikata?``
15. Genetics may now begin to help in establishing early population
movements. However, the error bars in such studies (like those in raw
C14 dates) usually are thousands of years wide, and therefore useless
for the historical period around 1000 BCE. (All this apart from the
fact that there is a methodological problem of the speed of
mutations that needs to be properly addressed).
The discussion of individual papers would take too long; let me just
point out that the much-touted Kivisild paper of 1999 is contradicted
by --- Kivisild in his later incarnations (2004 etc.). The same authors
who claim proof for persistence of ``Indian`` genes also participate in
papers that show the opposite, ``Aryan`` immigration.
Further, papers such as Kivisild 1999 are about the African exodus
around 60,000 BCE, and cannot tell us anything about immigration or
non-immigration at c. 1500 BCE --- a point that Hindutva people still
have not understood or even realized.
We know that this first settlement of the subcontinent has resulted in
a typical Indian gene pool (mtDNA M2, etc.) , just as it has resulted
in a typical SE Asian and a Near Eastern/European one. That tells
*nothing* about later movements into the subcontinent. Typically,
Pakistan has more such ``western`` influx than the rest of the
subcontinent.
Once more resolutions is reached (beyond the general haplotypes, (A, B,
C etc.) more specific movements *in historical times* may be
established, but it still is too early for that, and as mentioned, the
error bars will have to come down, preferably with DNA analysis of
excavated DNA carrying bones (of which we do not have many after the
Indus period: cremation).
16. In sum. We have clear linguistic, religious/ritual data, some
archeological ones (horses, Gandhara Grave Culture), and incipient
genetic ones. They all point to a limited immigration into the
subcontinent. An immigration, however, that had great direct and
indirect impact on the rest of North India and later on in all of
S.Asia -- by osmosis/acculturation and acceptance of an ``elite kit``
(Ehret) by the various local elites.
Echoed by the Iranian developments: early influx into the East and NW
and then into the SW (Fars). After all , Iranians are speaking
Persian now and not Elamite, and Northern Indians speak IA and not a
prefixing Munda-like language or Dravidian. And, they follow Vedic
ritual to this day in marriage and death, even if religion as such
has changed beyond recognition to result in Hinduism.
17. Attempts to deny this general timeline and scheme are based on the
belief in the Hindutva mantra of (1), but they cannot explain the
presence of IIr/IA language, religion and ritual, horses, etc. (and
some West and C. Asian genes)...
However, it is high time to get away from such fruitless political
discussions (that I left out here, not to speak of the usual personal
attacks seen in this thread). It rather is time get down to the
nitty-gritty details. Let a Hindutva person do a proper analysis of the
RV --- Talageri’s (2000) is mistaken as he did not even follow the
indigenous arrangement of the text (as per Rsi, Devata and Chandas,
exemplified in detail by H. Oldenberg way back in 1888, now available
in English 2005) but made up this own. I have given some indications
(1995) how to go about it. Then we can talk.
18. Other (Hindutva inspired) ``discussions`` such as already seen in
this thread and those that inevitably will evolve out of individual
points made here, usually are tangential, lead into cul de sacs, and
thus are a waste of time. And, all to many times we have to reinvent
the wheel for them, as I did in this post.
However, if serious questions are put (information, clarification) I
may answer when I get time.
Cheers!
M. Witzel
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasia...ch/message/2838
Date: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Indo-Eurasia] Comments? witzel_michael
Offline
Send Email
In response to Kat's plea, Steve and now I, have put up soemthing in
the Hall of Ma'at (truth!)
Congrats on the site, Kat!
Here my long re-invention of the wheel....
<http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?4,376713,page=4>
======
With regard to this thread: My attention has been drawn to it several
times, but I really do not have the time to engage; nor do I have the
intention to engage with Indian nationalistic/chauvinist (Hindutva)
proponents: I have done so too many times over the past 10 years; this
is entirely unproductive, as you have already seen in this thread, and
as you will see from the reactions to this post. Rather, read the new
book ed. by Garrett Fagan, on Pseudo-Archeology, visible on this very
website.
That said, nevertheless, some salient points that should put the whole
matter into perspective.
<span style='font-size:25pt;line-height:100%'>1. Importantly, the debate about the so-called Aryan Invasion theory,
that Hindutva people like to call AIT, is a purely political debate,
one current in present day India (with a few Hindutva-inspired
offshoots elsewhere): Any influx of ``Aryans`` from the outside is
strongly denied by Hindutva people, for purely political reasons, as
per their mantra: India must have been and must be now ``one country,
one people, one culture``. Ever heard that before? Only the Fuehrer is
missing (Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer: well, we have Modi of
Gujarat now).</span>2. That apart, informed scholars have not discussed this 19th century
theory for decades; they have moved on. First the philologists, way
back in the fifties and sixties: such as FBJ Kuiper (1955 sqq) and
historians such as Romila Thapar (1968), and only then archeologists,
who have seen that an ``Aryan Invasion`` is not the right way to
explain the presence of Indo-Aryan (this is the correct term)
language, religion, ritual and social set-up in early India (i.e. in
the Greater Panjab during the early Vedic period, c. 1500-1000 BCE).
3. Rather, they looked for an explanation by some sort of influx,
whether trickling in, transhumance movements, immigration (and yes,
occasional takeover), or a combination of all these and other features
and subsequent acculturation of other N.Indian elites and populations.
However, nobody has properly and deeply analyzed the Rgveda (RV), the
oldest Indian text yet to hone in on one or more of these possibilities
(see Witzel 1995).
4. That we indeed have to reckon with such an influx is shown by the
fact that early Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, just as the
closely related Old Iranian of Zoroaster. Both go back to the common
Indo-Iranian (IIr) language, religion and ritual (with Soma, e.g.)
Indo-European (IE) as such is not a ``tropical`` language but one of
the temperate zone, and cannot have come from India as some Hindutva
people say (the ``Out of India`` theory).5. Even the Indo-Iranian language did not develop inside India but in
an area that is close to the C.Asian steppe-taiga (forest) interface,
e.g,, near the Urals. Every language has historical levels, just as
we see in archeology. The earlier forms of IIr. have been loaned in to
Uralic and Yeneseian (such as azoro ``lord`` from asura (not Iranian
ahura) and arta (from rta/arta) into Ket. Or, most amusingly, orja
``slave`` in Finnish (meaning ``southerner`` in Saami/Lapp) --- both
from Arya.
Later levels of loans into Uralic are from later stages, such as Old
Iranian, including pakas from baga-s ``god`` (no longer IIr.
``share``), and ditto into Old Slavic as bogu ``god``, with regular
sound change.
6. A movement south is further seen in the takeover of the word for
Soma (ams’u) and its ritual, substituting for IE mead , Greek ambrosia
(Witzel 2004); and a host of loans from the BMAC culture area of
Bactria-Margiana (Witzel 1999, Lubotsky 2001), including words very
dear to the RV, such as Indra, Atharvan, Gandharva, Usij, yaatu, etc.
The actual move *through* the BMAC area apparently took place only
after 1600 BCE (Witzel, SPP 129, 2004) when this area and Iran mostly
reverted to pastoralism.
7. A further layer can be seen in Hindukush influence (yaksa, snow/ice
Naga deities, etc., kaaca ‘a precious stone, and Burushaski loans into
RV such as kilaala, etc.).
8. Early IIr. influence, by now in proto-Vedic form, is also seen in
the Near East, in the Mitanni Realm, around 1400 BCE, with words for
the major Vedic gods, horse training terms, colors, and names of some
Kings (but normally, not Queens!) The IA language of these documents is
slightly older than that of the RV, which gives a handle for dating,
after c.1400 BCE.
9. Thus, a clear linguistic trail, with archeological layers so to
speak, -- of course only visible to those who know the procedure of
linguistics and will be able to follow the tedious details. (I can
answer a few questions on this topic, but will not be around for all
the expected side tracks made by Hindutva people on the list. Most of
these questions have been answered, and even further anticipated, in
the (tedious!) 2001 paper in EJVS ; for all such data see my
website/bibliography).
10. When speakers of the Vedic language arrived in the NW of the
subcontinent, greater Panjab, their language was slightly *later* than
that of the IA element in Mitanni, and earlier than the introduction
of iron in THAT area, at c. 1000 BCE (Possehl & Gullapalli 1999). (Iron
is earlier in some other parts of India, such as at Hallur in Karnataka
at 1200 BCE). There is no iron the RV but in the immediately following
texts (Atharvaveda, Yajurveda). RV has to be date between c. 1400 and
1000 BCE, thus.
IA language, religion and ritual are different from that of the Indus
Civilization and are clear newcomers in the Greater Panjab --- a fact
not allowed under Hindutva point (1), due to the hoary unity of India,
from the Stone Age onwards...
11. So far the linguistic argument. However, in spite of what Hindutva
people, and some archaeologists who follow the (originally Stalinist)
mantra that cultures always evolve *only* locally usually say, there
also are indications in archeology for the inward move of IA speakers.
Though neither pots nor horses do speak, we can see when horses first
occur in S.Asia. Horses are steppe animals and were both imported into
the Near East and into India only around 2000 BCE, the rough date of
the invention of the spoke-wheeled chariot as well . (An earlier form
of the horse, not our caballus, has died out in India at c. 10,000
BCE). The earliest secure date for horses in India is 1800/1700 BCE in
the Pirak/Baluchistan area, both as figurines and in bones.
Any other dates given by archaeologists --- who are not
paleontologists---- are flawed: in order to distinguish the horse from
the local Near Eastern and S.Asian half-ass (hemion/onager) we need a
few phalanges (toe bones): otherwise, you cannot be sure whether you
have a horse or a half-ass. However some archeologists see horses in
figurines of any four-legged creature, such as dogs. Not to speak of
bones.
In the Gandhara Grave culture (1400 BCE --) of the Indian Northwest,
horses also do occur with a bronze age culture than could very well
reflect the RV -- and that occurs in some of the areas that are clearly
mentioned in the RV, Swat Gandhara.
12. However, horses do not speak, so we better take a look at the
similar situation in the Near East where we have written records.
Since c. 2200 BCE, we have one series of raids and real life
invasions after another into Mesopotamia. First, by the Guti and
Lullubi, mountain tribes -- some think of them as Caucasian speaking
(like the modern Chechen). They were followed by the Kassites around
1700 BC, who took over Babylon/Sumer for 500 years. In their
--unclassified--language we find a few IA words such as Maruttas,
Suriyas and maybe Bhaga.
IA influence is still greater in the Mitanni (as above), another
Caucasian (= Hurrite) speaking group in N.Iraq and N.Syria whose
language shows a few traits of having come via the BMAC, just like RVic
IA.
In sum, we see a series sof incursions from the mountains into
Mesopotamia, with eventual takeover by some non-IA invaders (Kassites).
Only, that the IA did not manage to do so, we have to wait for Cyrus in
the 6th c. BCE to manage that.
13. We can imagine a similar series of raids, immigration, trickling
in and some small scale invasions by IAs (and mingled groups similar to
the Kassite/Mitanni) into the post-Indus Civ. area of the Northwest.
Only, that we still need to establish the *exact* data -- very tricky
to do so (Witzel 1995) -- after having set the parameters first: time
and location of the individual hymns in the RV. As mentioned, nobody
has done so satisfactorily yet, for all hymns.
What is clear, however, is that IA language, religion, ritual, and
society plus pastoralism spread throughout the NW, starting from
Gandhara (Peshawar) and the Bolan (Quetta). Anybody who joined the IAs
in speech & ritual was included among the Arya -- that is, at least
until ``the first constitution of India,`` as Paul Mus called it, RV
10.90, was composed that established the 4 varnas (classes), --- the
beginnings of the later class & caste system that set clear social
boundaries.
14. It also is clear that the remnant agricultural people of the Indus
moved upstream (apparently for want of sufficient water in some areas
and as to exploit monsoon rains not found in the Indus area), to
Haryana/Delhi and eastwards to Saurastra and Gujarat. Indeed, we find
non-Aryan (prefixing, Para-Munda) river/place names concentrated in the
Haryana (Kuruksetra) area Witzel 1999), and Dravidian ones in Gujarat
(Southworth 2005), while most of the NW and then the western Gangetic
valley has been overlaid by IA names.
It is indeed in Haryana that we find, as per archeology, the
continuation of small towns and village settlements of the aboriginal
people, ---while the IAs moved around with their cattle for several
more centuries. The RVic IAs made fun of the local people: they speak
strangely, have other gods, and :`` what is the use of cows with the
Kikata?``
15. Genetics may now begin to help in establishing early population
movements. However, the error bars in such studies (like those in raw
C14 dates) usually are thousands of years wide, and therefore useless
for the historical period around 1000 BCE. (All this apart from the
fact that there is a methodological problem of the speed of
mutations that needs to be properly addressed).
The discussion of individual papers would take too long; let me just
point out that the much-touted Kivisild paper of 1999 is contradicted
by --- Kivisild in his later incarnations (2004 etc.). The same authors
who claim proof for persistence of ``Indian`` genes also participate in
papers that show the opposite, ``Aryan`` immigration.
Further, papers such as Kivisild 1999 are about the African exodus
around 60,000 BCE, and cannot tell us anything about immigration or
non-immigration at c. 1500 BCE --- a point that Hindutva people still
have not understood or even realized.
We know that this first settlement of the subcontinent has resulted in
a typical Indian gene pool (mtDNA M2, etc.) , just as it has resulted
in a typical SE Asian and a Near Eastern/European one. That tells
*nothing* about later movements into the subcontinent. Typically,
Pakistan has more such ``western`` influx than the rest of the
subcontinent.
Once more resolutions is reached (beyond the general haplotypes, (A, B,
C etc.) more specific movements *in historical times* may be
established, but it still is too early for that, and as mentioned, the
error bars will have to come down, preferably with DNA analysis of
excavated DNA carrying bones (of which we do not have many after the
Indus period: cremation).
16. In sum. We have clear linguistic, religious/ritual data, some
archeological ones (horses, Gandhara Grave Culture), and incipient
genetic ones. They all point to a limited immigration into the
subcontinent. An immigration, however, that had great direct and
indirect impact on the rest of North India and later on in all of
S.Asia -- by osmosis/acculturation and acceptance of an ``elite kit``
(Ehret) by the various local elites.
Echoed by the Iranian developments: early influx into the East and NW
and then into the SW (Fars). After all , Iranians are speaking
Persian now and not Elamite, and Northern Indians speak IA and not a
prefixing Munda-like language or Dravidian. And, they follow Vedic
ritual to this day in marriage and death, even if religion as such
has changed beyond recognition to result in Hinduism.
17. Attempts to deny this general timeline and scheme are based on the
belief in the Hindutva mantra of (1), but they cannot explain the
presence of IIr/IA language, religion and ritual, horses, etc. (and
some West and C. Asian genes)...
However, it is high time to get away from such fruitless political
discussions (that I left out here, not to speak of the usual personal
attacks seen in this thread). It rather is time get down to the
nitty-gritty details. Let a Hindutva person do a proper analysis of the
RV --- Talageri’s (2000) is mistaken as he did not even follow the
indigenous arrangement of the text (as per Rsi, Devata and Chandas,
exemplified in detail by H. Oldenberg way back in 1888, now available
in English 2005) but made up this own. I have given some indications
(1995) how to go about it. Then we can talk.
18. Other (Hindutva inspired) ``discussions`` such as already seen in
this thread and those that inevitably will evolve out of individual
points made here, usually are tangential, lead into cul de sacs, and
thus are a waste of time. And, all to many times we have to reinvent
the wheel for them, as I did in this post.
However, if serious questions are put (information, clarification) I
may answer when I get time.
Cheers!
M. Witzel
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasia...ch/message/2838