Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Jul 2017 03:50

The position we endorse is that of V. S. Sukthankar, who in 1942 dismissed the “‘Analytical Theory’ of the origin and the character of the Mahābhārata” (Sukthankar 1957, 11), and the Critical Edition, which shows that the archetype—that is, the latest common ancestor of all extant manuscripts reconstructed using an objective and mechanical method—contained many episodes that the German critics termed “Brahmanic” interpolations. We acknowledged our debt to Sukthankar and the editors of the Critical Edition in the Acknowledgments.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Jul 2017 03:51

Sukthankar attributes it to Joseph Dahlmann, and, via him, to the Indian tradition. “There is thus no question whatsoever of an ‘epic core’ that had become gradually incrusted with didactic accretions, an idea which is nothing more than a phantasy, just an obsession of the modern critic. The poem is, as Indian tradition has always implied, a conscious product of literary art (kāvya) of the highest order, with a pronounced unity of conception, aim, and treatment” (Sukthankar 1957, 20).

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Jul 2017 03:53

We cite from a recent review: “These approaches [the “analytic” and “synthetic”] reflect divergent perspectives on the Mbh, either as a composite text that grew over centuries with contributions by diverse authors of differing views, producing a text with little unity (the analytic approach), vs. as a unified text with a coherent meaning due to composition according to a plan (the synthetic approach). These two approaches are often seen in the history of Mbh studies. This vital point has been in dispute for over a century: Was the Mbh composed over centuries by numerous contributors or in a short period with an agreed-upon design? […] If a single author in modern times [the reference is to Isaac Asimov] is capable of producing such an array of publications on an impressive range of topics totaling some 100,000 pages, we cannot rule out the possibility that a single author or small committee produced the Mbh. In any case, in the field of Mbh studies, received wisdom and assumptions about how this text was created are ripe for reconsideration” (Bruce M. Sullivan 2016a, 167, italics added).

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Jul 2017 03:54

Hiltebeitel and Sullivan have convincingly refuted this argument. Sullivan writes: “Some have assumed or
argued that the size of the Mahābhārata, the sheer number of words, is evidence of a long compositional
history—it would take a long time to write so much, perhaps 400 or 800 years. Some have assumed or argued
that the diversity of literary styles and religious ideas would require hundreds of years to be composed. These,
however, are assumptions rather than persuasive arguments. As a counter-example, I can cite Isaac Asimov,
who wrote some 500 books—on popular science, history, chess, and science fiction—while also serving as
professor of biochemistry at Boston University. I mention him not only because of the number of his many
works, but also their diversity: he published in all ten major categories of the Dewey Decimal System, so he was
not simply producing quickly written romance novels. Indeed, as another example, Alf Hiltebeitel has written
perhaps as much about the Mahābhārata as he credits Vyāsa’s committee with having accomplished! And
these are individuals working without contributions from committees” (Sullivan 2016b, 188–89). Leibniz’s
literary estate comprises 150,000–200,000 pages, written in Latin, French, and German (what a field day the
Indologists would have identifying “interpolations”). Edmund Husserl’s literary estate comprises 40,000 pages
in Gabelsberg stenography. Bertrand Russell’s literary estate includes 200 manuscripts; the complete archive
comprises 143 meters of textual and other materials. The Indologists appear unacquainted with the standard
of work expected in other fields.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Jul 2017 03:57

The question is irrelevant: we never claimed that the Mahābhārata was written by a single author. It also
suffers from the fallacy of complex question. Franco either does not know our position or knowingly
misrepresents it. The Nay Science’s showed that for two hundred years the German Mahābhārata critics
neglected to read the Mahābhārata as it exists for a fantasy epic of their own devising (variously called the “Urepic,”
“oral epic,” “bardic epic,” “Kṣatriya epic,” “Aryan epic,” “Indo-Germanic epic,” “Bhārata epic,” “Pāṇḍava
Bhārata,” and so on). It argued that their reconstructions of various layers only revealed something about their
ideology, rather than contributing to objective historical research. Thus, critics from Christian Lassen to
Hermann Oldenberg read the Mahābhārata to find evidence of Aryans as well as to show that Brahman
“priests” had enslaved the free-spirited and heroic Aryans. The argument that German Indologists abetted
German nationalism is not new. Michael Dusche (2013, 31–54) shows how Friedrich Schlegel relaunched his
career by reimagining himself as a nationalist. The Nay Science lent precision to this argument by showing how
German nationalism was linked to the German interest in India: “German Indology thus sees itself not merely
as learning and collecting objective knowledge as in the case of natural sciences. It is more: the German
Indologist directly intervenes in history and changes it. On the one hand, Indians are to be shown to be at the
mercy of the tyranny of their misshapen, lecherous, and fantastical gods. Even more urgently, they are to be
shown as being subject to the tyranny of priestly authority. Texts need to be purified of Brahmanical
interpolations and metaphysical speculations. Freedom on a political and cultural level, in this idiom, can only
be secured when the task of securing texts coincides with purifying them. Thus, we have seen in the third
chapter the profuse enthusiasm with which German Indologists vied with each other to find excuses to dissect
the Gītā. If only Brahmanical and bhakti aspects were removed, Indians, as brethren in the world humanitarian
project, could stand up as good, free Kṣatriyas, interpreted here to mean as good Prussian soldiers. Or very
nearly so.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 19 Jul 2017 04:27, edited 1 time in total.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Jul 2017 03:58

As explained in the preceding footnote, the Critical Edition does not use the German scholars’ “method”
(note the ambiguous use of “method” without a qualifier). Indeed, one reason Sukthankar undertook the
Critical Edition was to subject the German scholars’ theories of an original, heroic, Aryan oral epic to a critical
analysis. The Mahābhārata Critical Edition gave him the confidence to reject their views of the Mahābhārata
(see Sukthankar 1957 and see also Hiltebeitel 2001, 106–7). We dedicated The Nay Science to the BORI
editors in full awareness of Sukthankar’s historic achievement (see the Acknowledgments). We also defended
the edition at NS, 75n2: “With the completion of the Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata in 1966, the scope
for oral epic theory was further reduced. Completed on the basis of the rigorous principles of textual criticism,
the Critical Edition offered conclusive evidence that all extant Mahābhārata manuscripts were descendants of
a single written exemplar, and that this archetype contained elements such as the narration of the epic at a
sacrifice, the entire Bhagavadgītā, the Śāntiparvan including the highly theological Mokṣadharmaparvan—
precisely the elements considered by the defendants of oral epic theory to be ‘late’ and ‘Brahmanic.’ The
Critical Edition thus blew a hole not only in their theory of the epic’s genesis, but also in their theory of its
transfer in authority from Kṣatriya warriors to Brahman priests. Since then, their efforts have shifted to highly
complex theories dedicated to explaining how the archetype might have existed and still need not rule out the
existence of an older oral epic tradition such as Andreas Bigger’s nonsensical ‘normative redaction’
hypothesis.”

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5751
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby krisna » 19 Jul 2017 05:41

SriJoy wrote:
krisna wrote:Little too preachy. That's ok otherwise.

What science we know is like iceberg. Visible 10% rest unknown.
Empirical evidence and methodology is important but not complete science.


It is through that method and that method alone, do we get a 'complete theory' in a particular topic.
science what we know is basically-- verify if it is replicable . Not the best but that is what we have got now. it is changing.

Only Hinduism I repeat again only Hinduism with no malice against other religions has no problems with science since immemorial times.
Many ancient rishis were keen Observants of nature . Probably scientists of old.


yep. But that hinduism is dead/dying. What we have today, is copy-cat of Abrahamics, where its all about absolute belief in holy books and trying to make nebulous 'fortune-teller language' fit into science.

it depends on who and how one looks at it. if it is trash it falls by wayside- this has happened in the evolution of Indian way of doing things.
The statement is not verifiable by facts. :mrgreen: Indians do not have absolute belief in holy books.
Even today many seers swamijis etc of Hinduism are probably of social sciences variety or something similar types.


Maybe 1 in a thousand. Rest are all con-artists, promising things or claiming things they cannot prove or deliver on. Same with every religion, because whether you are a Christian minister faith-healing or hindu swami, there is a vested interest in peddling BS, conning people and making money off of them.


again your way of seeing things. not verifiable by facts . :mrgreen:

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5751
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby krisna » 19 Jul 2017 05:42

I will stop as my exchnages are not contributing to the thread as it is OT

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Jul 2017 07:43

A_Gupta: Thanks. I have no qualms in saying after reading much of the BORI translations that this vast corpus of knowledge is synthetic or rather I would say congruent in nature, at least to a layman. The critical edition has accomplished this. E.g: Excluding popular stories like Ganesha writing the MBH text or Krishna to the rescue of Draupadi at vastra haran.

It will take some time to settle the debate on dates and time frames or the composers or the actual occurrence of the events. But, one thing we should do. Weed out western or western influenced DIE scholarship from this debate. This thread should not give any space to the arguments from these biased sources, unless the westerner is white only in color but Orange within, like David Frawley.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Jul 2017 08:31

>>SriJoy
>>yep. But that hinduism is dead/dying. What we have today, is copy-cat of Abrahamics, where its all about absolute belief in holy books and trying to make nebulous 'fortune-teller language' fit into science.

>>Maybe 1 in a thousand. Rest are all con-artists, promising things or claiming things they cannot prove or deliver on. Same with every religion, because whether you are a Christian minister faith-healing or hindu swami, there is a vested interest in peddling BS, conning people and making money off of them.

It is statements such as these that makes even your reasonable posts seem suspect. It betrays a certain bias. A bias not rooted in enough fact. We are not a copy-cat of Abrahamics, who's prerequisite is exclusivist belief - not seen much of that at all. A large majority of our seers are not con-artists. Some of these beliefs are popular but imprecise observations. A vast, vast majority of the seers are poor and have no power and not even enough of a social standing anymore. They perform their prescribed duties and try to make a living as best as they can in prevalent circumstances. One data point. The number of pandas at Haridwar has fallen by half in 20 years. The situation is actually quite dire. No one wants to be in these professions anymore.

There was a time in India when socio-economic drivers were NOT the key determinant for a segment of society. It will be difficult for you accept this with your biases. When the British first got administrative control in Bengal and tried to ask questions on ownership of lands in villages, they were surprised to find that land ownership as they understood was not the norm in India. A certain family/families had rights to till the land, a certain family had rights to part of the produce. Of course, they only understood feudalism and went right ahead to create India in their image. We are still fighting this mental colonization.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 19 Jul 2017 13:12

^^ Belief is like religion. You keep reiterating it. But if others don't agree you are alone. Your views on why you are right and why others are wrong matter less than a fart in a hurricane. If that is a problem its yours and yours alone. One can only go so far acting like every one else is wrong. After a point your "rightness" is immaterial. Wrongness wins by a huge margin.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 19 Jul 2017 14:37

SriJoy wrote:
Your views on why you are right and why others are wrong matter less than a fart in a hurricane. If that is a problem its yours and yours alone.


Same applies to you.
And to you sir. You know that as well as I do

SriJoy wrote:Its a matter of context. In a website (this one), with a few thousand members (max), being in minority or majority opinion is irrelevant. But i hope you take your own advice on 'rightness' and see that you are acting like every expert is wrong regarding your belief-based theories about India's past, with zero shred of evidence to back it up and as a result, end up regurgitating nonsense that not a single professional in the field of history will back up your nonsense.


The advice that I take or don't take is irrelevant and why you should have hope about what I do is beyond my comprehension.

The important thing is that with the few hundred people who take part - the posts are all there archived on the internet to be read by tens of thousands more. The credibility of every post depends on the credibility of the poster's views. Your posts too go through that filter and in the long term an arrogant dismissal of other people's views and verbose insistence on the rightness of one's own views - either by you or by me will be judged by the thousands who lurk here. It is that mass of opinion that will matter finally. Intelligence is one thing. Communication is a different ball game and in the long term the better communicator will get away with shit. I can write any crap I like and as long as people agree with me - that is all that matters. Not the content. If the content makes sense and is posted with acceptable etiquette - so much the better for credibility

You need not agree with what anyone else says but no one is going to agree with you either, That says something about the way you communicate. That is what will matter in the long term.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 19 Jul 2017 15:04

SriJoy wrote: Hence i put a Mahabharata-like war at the end of IVC, because logic says, when civilization collapses and people are displaced, it has a larger probability of civilization-wide strife/war, than a petty family succession dispute.

Do you believe this? There is no evidence as you have admitted.

Or do you "hold this view based on reasonable assumptions" but do not go quite as far as to actually believe what you have written. You accept your own words as true but what you accept as true is not what you believe.

You write a lot of stuff, but you don't believe it. Because you "try to stay clear of belief" as per your own admission

:D

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 19 Jul 2017 16:32

Srinivas Kalyanraman ji forwarded this just now. This is one more data point to the already existing (enormous) database that further corroborates my predicted timeline for early Rigveda Manadalas (long before Ramayana & 14K BP), dryng of Sarasvati, post 6.5K BP, etc.

What gave me pleasant surprise was the evidence & extent of land elevation over a short period of time. This is the kind of evidence I refer to in the context of Dwarka, but also in potentially solving the problem of Nala-setu (between India and SriLanka).

The authors write...

Discussion
Presence of foraminifera throughout the core section indicates marine sedimentation throughout6, 30. To allow
for fine-grained marine sedimentation at ~18ka30, when the eustatic sea level in the Arabian Sea was below 100m
relative to present level31, 32, the Dhordo site must have been uplifted significantly since then. GRK is largely compressional
and uplift of ca. 5m is recorded for a marine sedimentary sequence on Khadir Island in the last 500
years5 , so uplift at Dhordo is not surprising.


The link to the article, fresh from the press (14 July 2017)

https://pdf.nature.com/redirect-nature? ... ntType=pdf

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6975
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby JE Menon » 19 Jul 2017 17:14

Nilesh, can you please put that in plain English for the less geologically literate amongst us (including myself, mainly I suspect). How does it bolster your case boss?

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 19 Jul 2017 18:31

JE Menon wrote:Nilesh, can you please put that in plain English for the less geologically literate amongst us (including myself, mainly I suspect). How does it bolster your case boss?


Dwarka:

I have proposed that the original Dwarka is now under the sea and distant from the current ocean/land line. Similar (if not identical) proposal is made by Shri Graham Hancock.

To identify this, not only study of rise of sea levels important (we have great data, here) but also critical study of what happened to land levels (both above sea levels + bottoms of the sea near Gujarat coast are desired.

(1) The MSL simluations lead to an island (existing around 6000 BCE) go under the sea by 5000 BCE. In this youtube videos https://youtu.be/nQZFS9Hij0M ... from 9:45 through 11:30 min

(2) The location of this island (island in 6000 BCE) closer to the current place called - Mul Dwarka (south of Somanath). Current Dwarka is further north of Somanath, i.e. Mul Dwarka (small village) and current Dwarka are on the two opposite sides of Somanath.

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2015/06 ... e-records/

Nala-Setu

If one goes back to 14K BP (to be specific to year 12209 BCE) and compare the current level of sea bottom (between India-Srilanka) with MSL (mean sea level) of that time (this data is, again very good), one realizes that there was land between India-Sri Lanka and no water.. so where comes the question of building a bridge?

The potential/plausible answer lies in the realization that the level of sea bottom does not remain steady but actually goes through significant upheavels .

The evidence I quoted (from the paper) makes a case of the location where this team (authors of the paper) collected samples, makes a case of significant rise of altitude of that location from the sea level.. since they found marine sediments in the 18K BP levels. This would be problematic if one ONLY considers the MSL (mean sea level) of 18K BP, which was 100 meters below today's level.

The portion I quoted (form this latest paper) refers to The Great Rann of Kachchh (GRK) in the compression zone in describing/explaing/justifying significant rise of land (location of samples) above the sea in last 18K years.

I referred to 3 such plausible mechanisms (brittle fracture, elongation, compression) for change in land level (above or below sea) during my talk 1:35-1:39 (https://youtu.be/RedV48OCEFg). This was in the context of understanding the dynamics of land level (both above and below the sea) between India and Sri Lanka.

Plate tectonics, earth crust displacement, Earthquakes/Tsunamis can cause slow and/or sudden changes.



Early mandalas of Rigveda

Based on relative chronolgy, per works of Shri Shrikant Talageri, sequence of Rigveda mandalas goes likes this.. from early to late...

6, 3, 7, .....4, 2.....5, 8, 9 and after a long gap.........10.

Mandala 1 sukta are distributed over this entire length.

Oldest/older Manadalas (6,7,2) contain references to grand Sarasvati. Newest mandalas (10) contain references to premier status of Sindhu (as opposed to Sarasvati).

The current study talks of vibrant Sarsavati during 14-18 K BP and its dessication/disappearance after that. This current study also talks of increasing influence of Sindhu (Indus) in later times.

For example

The Nd and Sr isotopic composition of sediments from our Dhordo core site in the Great Rann of Kachchh suggests
that a large Himalayan or Sub-Himalayan Saraswati-like river may have discharged into the Arabian Sea
until 10 ka.


AND

Indus-derived sediment accelerated the infilling of GRK after ~6 ka when the Indus delta started to
grow.


These are supported by descriptions of statements of Ramayana (Satluj and Yamuna, already no longer part of Sarasvati)

Ramayana

See Ramayana descriptions of Sarasvati, Satluj, Yamuna above even during 14K BP (my claim for the timing of Ramayana) corroborated by numerous hydrology evidence. This paper re-confirms it, again.

Mahabharata

Sarasvati in flux during Mahabharata time (numerous descriptions of Sarasvati from Mahabharata text). My claim (5561 BCE, i.e. 7.5K BP) corrborated by numerous hydrology studies (Francfort - 1992, Clfit - 2012, many more). This paper re-confirms it, again. Drying of river Sarasvati post 6.5K BP

--
I presented paper at River Sarasvati conference that Poly-angulates (!) (similar to triangulation) my dates based on astronomy for Ramayana (12209 BCE), Mahabharata (5561 BCE) and limits on the last sections of Rigveda (e.g. Mandala 10 and also recasting/editing of it by Vyasa as attested in Mahabharata text) and thus same as ~5561 BCE...i.e. absolute chronology of Ramayana, Mahabharata and timing of recasting/editing of Rigveda by Vyasa with...

(1)hydrology (hydrology and geology research) [Marie Courty, Henri Francfort, Peter Clift, Lost river by Michel Danino, current paper]


(2) genealogies of Rishis/sages from Epics and Rigveda (Vasishtha, Vishwamitra, etc.),

(3) genealogies of Kings from Ikshwaku and Bharata dynasties ( Trishanku, Rama, Vena, Pruthu, Shantanu, Devapi) from Rigveda/Ramayana/Mahabharata,

(4) Relative chronology of Rigveda (Shrikant Talageri)
--
I will post it one of these days on my blog and then share link, here.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Jul 2017 22:55

ShauryaT wrote:A_Gupta: Thanks. I have no qualms in saying after reading much of the BORI translations that this vast corpus of knowledge is synthetic or rather I would say congruent in nature, at least to a layman. The critical edition has accomplished this. E.g: Excluding popular stories like Ganesha writing the MBH text or Krishna to the rescue of Draupadi at vastra haran.

It will take some time to settle the debate on dates and time frames or the composers or the actual occurrence of the events. But, one thing we should do. Weed out western or western influenced DIE scholarship from this debate. This thread should not give any space to the arguments from these biased sources, unless the westerner is white only in color but Orange within, like David Frawley.


I would say that we need to do purva-paksha, or find credible purva-paksha of any commentator that we are giving weight to; understand what their base assumptions are and what their ideological commitments are, before giving space to their arguments.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6975
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby JE Menon » 19 Jul 2017 23:40

Thanks a ton for taking the trouble on that one Nilesh. It definitely helps understanding the situation.

It definitely looks like puzzle by puzzle the whole jigsaw of civilizational flux in our neck of the woods is getting clarified, and eventually I suspect will give us all an idea of the reality that will likely surprise a lot of us, even among the jingoes, and will definitely upset a lot of apple carts among the established theories of civlisation, migration, etc..

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 20 Jul 2017 07:34

Dunno if the origin of dog domestication helps or hinders, but there is a new paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16082

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1427
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 20 Jul 2017 09:53

^^^It is important to consider Ancestral North Indian Dogs - ANID vs. Ancestral South Indian Dogs - ASID - the affinity is with ANID onlee!
An European Dog would be caught dead having affinity with a ASID. Also the ANID are TFTA and ASID are SDRE - what to do with comparison no?
Please bark for this kutta is outta here theory! :mrgreen:

PS: seriously thanks for the link!

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 20 Jul 2017 18:03

Many can not even formulate their questions properly. No wonder they never reach the answers, even tentatively. The questioner below was not bad at all. In fact he asked straightforward question(s). Unfortunately even they were packed with wrong assumptions and much ignorance of scientific method or how evidence is gathered and how inferences are drawn, the logical/rational inferences that is.

Note: He missed asking me about obvious lack of 'horses' on SSVC seals but chose to focus on 'lack of violent depictions'.

Someone (after watching one of my youtube videos) asked...

"If you date the Mahabharata war in 5000 BCE, how do you correspond it to a thriving Saraswati River during that time ? Also the lack of violent depictions in Indus-Saraswati civilisation does not corroborate with a great war taking place. Since you are dating the war , you need to take into the hard geological facts as well"

--
MY RESPONSE:

For the first question, you will have to read my books (both of them) and blogs. River Sarasvati has relevance for Rigveda, Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Regarding your second question, why limit to only geology. I have researched in the areas of hydrology, geology, geophysics, anthropology, astronomy (additional evidence), oceanography, paleontology, genetics, genealogies of Rishis/sages, genealogies of kings of Ikshwaku and Bharata dynasties, Seismology, domestication of animals and agriculture, ancient medical case studies and more...and all of these corroborate well not only for my 5561 BCE timeline of Mahabharata or 12209 BCE timeline of Ramayana, but also specific limits, 5561 BCE or before, I have assigned for the specific Mandalas of Rigveda.

Cheers!

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Marten » 20 Jul 2017 22:56

Does this mean you've finally read his book and are now prepared/ready to pronounce judgment based on your readings and observations? Or is this Pindi Chana again!?!

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5751
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby krisna » 20 Jul 2017 23:31

SriJoy wrote:^^
Genealogically, it is impossible for Mahabharata war to be >5561 BCE. All Puranas are emphatic for the number of years between Parikshit and Mahapadma Nanda and the latter is garanteed to be between late 400s/early 300s BCE. For Mahabharata to be >5561 BCE , Mahapadma Nanda has to be 2000 BCE or even more ancient. Which is pretty much impossible thanks to Ashokan pillars.

Also, dates of 12000 BC for Ramayana is absurd, since that would make it the longest unaltered story transmitted in human consciousness by a factor of 8,000 years, if not longer. Quite a tall claim for a Smriti literature.
Not to mention, the conditions described in Ramayana have no evidence of occurring as early as 12,000 BCE anywhere in the world.


please avoid using these terms in certain sciences which cannot be replicated and final verdict is still not sealed
By using these terms you are pretty much dogmatic with not much interest in searching for truth.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2259
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Jarita » 21 Jul 2017 02:26

An amateur question - can the existence of other human sub species be taken as anchors for timing of the Ramayana and Mahabharata?
I know this is a diversion from the "oh so scientific discussions relying on carbon dating and such" but Ramayana clearly references other human sub species whereas by the time of Mahabharata they are gone.
Afterall some of the Human sub species such as Neanderthal and Homo Florensis were supposed to have co-existed with Homo Sapien Sapien. To me the that the Ramayana contains so many references to human sub species, suggests a time where these sub species were at their end (they were no longer prolific). Perhaps the 10,000 BC reference may not be so fool hardy afterall.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 21 Jul 2017 02:27

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40651473
Australia human history 'rewritten by rock find'
The lead author of the new research, Associate Prof Chris Clarkson, from the University of Queensland, said: "We have managed to establish a new age for first occupation in Australia and pushed it back by about 18,000 years beyond what was the previous established age of about 47,000 years."


What dating techniques did the new research use?

Radiocarbon dating was used on charcoal samples but this has a limit of about 50,000 years.

To go beyond that, the team used the method of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL).

It is used on buried material, measuring the time that has elapsed since mineral grains were last exposed to sunlight. It was used to date some 28,500 individual grains of sand.

This led to a far more accurate timeframe than was previously known.


So what artefacts were discovered?

The rare artefacts found in the dense lowest layer of the Madjedbebe shelter indicate an "innovative and dynamic early Aboriginal occupation of Australia", Assoc Prof Clarkson told the BBC.

"We found these beautiful ground stone-edge axes with grooves at one end where the handle would have been attached with resin," he said.

The team found pieces of reflective art minerals such as mica wrapped around ground ochre, along with a slab covered in red ochre that was mixed with mica.

"It really tells us that people were heavily into artistic activity," Associate Prof Clarkson said.


Link to the Nature article:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v ... 22968.html

Abstract:
The time of arrival of people in Australia is an unresolved question. It is relevant to debates about when modern humans first dispersed out of Africa and when their descendants incorporated genetic material from Neanderthals, Denisovans and possibly other hominins. Humans have also been implicated in the extinction of Australia’s megafauna. Here we report the results of new excavations conducted at Madjedbebe, a rock shelter in northern Australia. Artefacts in primary depositional context are concentrated in three dense bands, with the stratigraphic integrity of the deposit demonstrated by artefact refits and by optical dating and other analyses of the sediments. Human occupation began around 65,000 years ago, with a distinctive stone tool assemblage including grinding stones, ground ochres, reflective additives and
ground-edge hatchet heads. This evidence sets a new minimum age for the arrival of humans in Australia, the dispersal of modern humans out of Africa, and the subsequent interactions of modern humans with Neanderthals and Denisovans.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 21 Jul 2017 02:35

This article is from 2015:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 144709.htm
Until now, researchers believed farming was "invented" some 12,000 years ago in the Cradle of Civilization -- Iraq, the Levant, parts of Turkey and Iran -- an area that was home to some of the earliest known human civilizations. A new discovery by an international collaboration of researchers from Tel Aviv University, Harvard University, Bar-Ilan University, and the University of Haifa offers the first evidence that trial plant cultivation began far earlier -- some 23,000 years ago.

The study focuses on the discovery of the first weed species at the site of a sedentary human camp on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. It was published in PLOS ONE and led by Prof. Ehud Weiss of Bar-Ilan University in collaboration with Prof. Marcelo Sternberg of the Department of Molecular Biology and Ecology of Plants at TAU's Faculty of Life Sciences and Prof. Ofer Bar-Yosef of Harvard University, among other colleagues.

"While full-scale agriculture did not develop until much later, our study shows that trial cultivation began far earlier than previously believed, and gives us reason to rethink our ancestors' capabilities," said Prof. Sternberg. "Those early ancestors were more clever and more skilled than we knew."


"Because weeds thrive in cultivated fields and disturbed soils, a significant presence of weeds in archaeobotanical assemblages retrieved from Neolithic sites and settlements of later age is widely considered an indicator of systematic cultivation," according to the study.

The site bears the remains of six shelters and a particularly rich assemblage of plants. Upon retrieving and examining approximately 150,000 plant specimens, the researchers determined that early humans there had gathered over 140 species of plants. These included 13 known weeds mixed with edible cereals, such as wild emmer, wild barley, and wild oats.

The researchers found a grinding slab -- a stone tool with which cereal starch granules were extracted -- as well as a distribution of seeds around this tool, reflecting that the cereal grains were processed for consumption. The large number of cereals showing specific kinds of scars on their seeds indicate the likelihood of those cereals growing in fields, and the presence of sickle blades indicates that these humans deliberately planned the harvest of cereal.

The new study offers evidence that early humans clearly functioned with a basic knowledge of agriculture and, perhaps more importantly, exhibited foresight and extensive agricultural planning far earlier than previously believed.


Link to publication:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0131422

Abstract:
Weeds are currently present in a wide range of ecosystems worldwide. Although the beginning of their evolution is largely unknown, researchers assumed that they developed in tandem with cultivation since the appearance of agricultural habitats some 12,000 years ago. These rapidly-evolving plants invaded the human disturbed areas and thrived in the new habitat. Here we present unprecedented new findings of the presence of “proto-weeds” and small-scale trial cultivation in Ohalo II, a 23,000-year-old hunter-gatherers' sedentary camp on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Israel. We examined the plant remains retrieved from the site (ca. 150,000 specimens), placing particular emphasis on the search for evidence of plant cultivation by Ohalo II people and the presence of weed species. The archaeobotanically-rich plant assemblage demonstrates extensive human gathering of over 140 plant species and food preparation by grinding wild wheat and barley. Among these, we identified 13 well-known current weeds mixed with numerous seeds of wild emmer, barley, and oat. This collection provides the earliest evidence of a human-disturbed environment—at least 11 millennia before the onset of agriculture—that provided the conditions for the development of "proto-weeds", a prerequisite for weed evolution. Finally, we suggest that their presence indicates the earliest, small-scale attempt to cultivate wild cereals seen in the archaeological record.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10593
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 21 Jul 2017 02:40

Here is another:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 031630098X
Abstract

When and where cereal cultivation and domestication took place in the Near East are still matters of debate. This quantitative analysis, using confocal microscopy to study “sickle gloss” texture on flint tools used for cereal harvesting, shows that wild cereals were most probably cultivated during the 13th millennium BP in the Middle Euphrates. At that moment, a local and continuous process of cereal domestication began to unfold in this region of the Northern Levant, lasting for over 3 millennia and culminating at the end of the 10th millennium BP. Thus, our research provides a new method for investigating the origins of agriculture, while the data gathered allow us to support the hypothesis of early cereal cultivation during the Younger Dryas and the protracted model of plant domestication, pointing to the Middle Euphrates as one region where this process occurred.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Virupaksha » 21 Jul 2017 02:42

SriJoy,

I think you are confusing two things, The edicts name him as devanampriya, not ashoka. We assume devanampriya to be ashoka based on divyavadana and mahavamsa and the dating of ashoka comes from these. However both do not him confirm him to maurya. That he is maurya was a leap of faith of historians and remains so.

the link from mauryas to nanda comes from literary sources, not edicts.- mostly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudrarakshasa.

Also absence of proof is not proof of absence in any half decent scientific paper except in the idiotic area known as indian history, where hand waving like the above has been the norm. There is no consensus except from Christian missionaries who forcefitted indian history dates to suit the 4000 BC of adam-eve. Modern Indian history led by romila's and co started from that work, they didnt go back to the sources. The ayodhya judgement gave a proper view of what "historical consensus" is.

Please read the edicts, the translations are available online.

that ashoka is a maurya is not confirmed. That link is little tenuous and very clearly forcefed.

There is exactly one confirmed in BC history of India - the invasion of alexander. Every other date in 1800s was calculated to make sure that the overall dating didnt go beyond the Bible. Buddha's date of birth by multiple Indian traditions is older than 1000BC.

For example : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... pal-durham
An attempt: https://controversialhistory.blogspot.i ... uddha.html
Another study: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Qbs ... BC&f=false
Last edited by Virupaksha on 21 Jul 2017 02:49, edited 2 times in total.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2259
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Jarita » 21 Jul 2017 02:44

The challenge is that there is a sub conscious biblical limit in most of our minds where nothing civilizational can exist beyond 5000 years ago and we are constrained by that linearity.
Given the limitations of carbon dating why can human civilization not be cyclical - destroyed again and rising? That might explain the Ramayana and it's times where we might have had agriculture and human advancement of a different flavor and where homo sapiens lived with other human sub species - Hanuman belonged to the Vanar sub specie.
https://www.ancienthistorylists.com/peo ... ted-earth/

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50400
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby ramana » 21 Jul 2017 02:53

Jarita wrote:The challenge is that there is a sub conscious biblical limit in most of our minds where nothing civilizational can exist beyond 5000 years ago and we are constrained by that linearity.
Given the limitations of carbon dating why can human civilization not be cyclical - destroyed again and rising? That might explain the Ramayana and it's times where we might have had agriculture and human advancement of a different flavor and where homo sapiens lived with other human sub species - Hanuman belonged to the Vanar sub specie.

https://www.ancienthistorylists.com/peo ... ted-earth/




jarita, Welcome back. How have you been. Answer in nukkad!

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Virupaksha » 21 Jul 2017 02:56

The limitations put by christian missionaries because of the bible limitations have caused havoc with indian history and because the thapars and co are lazy to even do first hand research, we are left with great titbits like below

For example look at the handwaving below, and this passes of as historical science :rotfl: :rotfl:

(author talking about dating Buddha's birthdate before 1000 BC.
- but on no grounds - mythological, traditional or historical- can the honour of such a high antiquity be admitted.


Think about it, that something has happened in some year is an "honour", giving it very old year cannot "be admitted". and these are historians :rotfl: writing books :rotfl: :rotfl:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50400
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby ramana » 21 Jul 2017 02:58

So there is ancient DNA i.e. Neanderthal and Denisovian. Genome analysis has show these genes in modern humans.

However there is a concept called 'archaic' genes which are older than the ancient genes.

Recent papers (yet to be published) indicate ~70% probability that archaic genes are in human genome.

Recent archaeological finds of Homo Naledi and the skeletal remains in North Africa push back the date to 300,000 years before present.

Archaic genes are much earlier than that.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2259
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Jarita » 21 Jul 2017 02:59

Good indeed - In Nukkad
Look i am retrofitting this model but for some reason the generous references to other human sub species in our supposedly older tales are very telling and I am surprised they have not been used as anchors for timing (probably because of biblical biases).
If I were to be so adventurous, maybe the key protagonists of Ramayana may not have been Homo Sapiens at all but another Human species or perhaps some variant.
Human evolution does not take that long. We are talking 1000 years and less for key traits to show up and disappear.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2259
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Jarita » 21 Jul 2017 03:13

The dates keep shifting
It Wasn't Just Neanderthals: Ancient Humans Had Sex with Other Hominids
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ds/338117/

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3168
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Rudradev » 21 Jul 2017 03:15

Sorry Ramana garu, I'm not understanding your post.

ramana wrote:So there is ancient DNA i.e. Neanderthal and Denisovian. Genome analysis has show these genes in modern humans.


Ancient (human) DNA is any DNA from samples of human remains that are very old. Not only Neanderthal and Denisovan but can be H Sapiens, H Ergaster, H Erectus etc. as well.

What has been shown is that in the genomes of some populations of modern Homo Sapiens, certain DNA sequences found in these non-Sapiens human populations are present. For example, all Homo sapiens of non-African descent have somewhere between 1.5-2.1% of Neanderthal DNA sequences in their genomes.

This is not the same as "genes" because this Neanderthal DNA typically does not "code" for anything... it does not belong to that small proportion of the genome which is actually responsible for encoding functioning proteins and transmitting the recipe for these proteins to offspring as a heritable unit (the definition of a "gene").

However there is a concept called 'archaic' genes which are older than the ancient genes.

Recent papers (yet to be published) indicate ~70% probability that archaic genes are in human genome.


I have not heard of this.

There are of course some genes that humans possess which have changed very little from their homologues in much more primitive species. That's because the evolution of these genes (and the proteins they encode) is said to be "conserved".

And why not... after all, if a certain protein in a mouse is doing some specific job perfectly well in all the evolutionary intermediates from the mouse to the human, then there is no reason for natural selection to favour any significant changes to the gene encoding that protein. The net result of stochastic and selective processes operating over evolutionary timescales will be that the gene remains more or less the same.

So in that sense we do have many genes that could be said to be "archaic". But this has been well understood for a long time. Are you referring to something different?

Recent archaeological finds of Homo Naledi and the skeletal remains in North Africa push back the date to 300,000 years before present.

Date of what?

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2259
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Jarita » 21 Jul 2017 03:22

SriJoy wrote:As i said multiple times- when one analyzes genome of food grains to their wild counterparts, dates emerge for their divergence sequence. those dates have some wiggle room- for e.g., 9500 BC COULD be as early as 11,000 BC (but still not in India, as India is not native land of wheat,barley,millet or rice) but not significantly prior to that.
Only way to support Ramayana or any settled civilization much prior to these dates, one needs to find genetic evidence of domestication of any food crop prior to 9500 BC. Or else, the concept of food surplus leading to urbanism does not occur.

2. Western academia has long-since moved past the '5000 BC terminus post quem' of world history because of nebulous biblical calculations. hence academia acknowledge existence of cultures much prior to 5000 BC - such as Mehrgarh culture or Bhirrana culture or Ubaid period Mesopotamia.

3. Vanar doesn't have to mean different species of mankind. Kazanas once made an interesting observation when i spoke to him, saying Vanar could be 'Van nara', meaning 'forest men', which over time got contracted into Vanar and applied to monkeys instead.


Some Questions
Why do you assume that the India of Ramayana is the same as the Geographic India of today? Perhaps it was a much larger spread and spoke to a civilization rather than just a Geographic area?
That said, we need to wait for evidence on agriculture in India. Perhaps there were older grains that we have lost (such as spelt and farro and others - ancient grains that have disappeared - we will not have much evidence of it as these things decompose)
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-foo ... nt-grains/

You mean to say these forest people had tails since they are awful lot of references to tails in the Ramayana.


Look, all your points are valid and one can nit pick so much. However, if we abandon linearity and use the coexistance of human species as a model, it is a way to explain a lot. albeit with huge gaps. That is all I am trying to explore here.
Perhaps during Ramayana they ate other grains. Perhaps, another human sub specie was supreme. Whatever it is, later stories lose references to "Other human forms". I am not talking spirits, yaksha's and yakshis. Another example is the story of Nahusha with Hunda the giant asura who was a cannibal. This story of giant cannibals exists in Nordic lands too. I am talking about OTHER people/humans. The later texts lose references. We have no such references in Mauryan texts.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3168
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Rudradev » 21 Jul 2017 04:00

A_Gupta ji, thanks for those informative links about cultivation.

They nicely illustrate how every single new study carried out in what is presently a data-desert may necessitate a fundamental rewriting of current assumptions regarding the origins of agriculture... assumptions so inherently volatile that only the hopelessly dogmatic and/or feeble-minded would be dense enough to use them as the basis for reconstructing history.

Attempts to impose a hard date on the beginnings of agriculture ("cannot have been before 9500 BCE or anywhere outside the Levant" :(( ) invariably come from people completely uninformed about the mechanics of how agriculture actually began, as well as completely ignorant of the type of evidence genetics is able to provide.

We did not domesticate dogs because one day people said..." look at that cute animal with a wagging tail, I'm going to put a collar on him and walk him twice a day." Over several millennia, wild dogs evolved the habit of following human hunter-gatherer bands around and scavenging leftovers. At some point they were seen to be more useful than harmful by a majority of hunter-gatherer bands whom they accompanied. Thus the gradual process of domestication evolved in incremental stages.

Nobody can say when the process of canine domestication began, or became institutionally accepted, with any degree of certainty. Most definitely, the genetic analysis of modern-day domestic dogs can never place anything but a late bound on the process (i.e. "by XYZ time, the ancestors of dog breeds that are alive today must surely have been domesticated, because the effects of artificial selection pressure can be traced to that time by genotyping samples of dogs that are alive today").

So: Genetics CAN show that dogs were definitely domesticated as of time XYZ.

However, genetics can never show that dogs were NOT domesticated before time XYZ. Genetics can never establish that ancestors of dog breeds that have died out before today, were NOT domesticated at some before time XYZ. Genetics can never demonstrate that dog breeds that are considered "wild" today (hence, have not been sampled in a study of present-day domestic breeds) are not descended from ancestral breeds that were domesticated before time XYZ.

Altogether there is a FAR more vast spectrum of possibilities that genetics must be silent about, than the small sliver of possibilities for which it is currently able to provide positive proof.

It is exactly the same deal with cultivation of grains or any other crop. It didn't happen overnight that people decided to settle in villages and plough fields. Yuval Noah Hariri describes how, in a process lasting several millennia, grain kernels that were robust and highly adaptive traveled along with the hunter-gatherer bands who would collect, store and consume them from time to time (just as pollen, burrs, seeds, etc. will use motile animals for geographic dispersal today). These kernels fell off and germinated, quite naturally, along the paths most frequently and habitually traveled by hunter-gatherer bands. The earliest instances of "cultivation" were thus a circumstance of biological dispersal of grain kernels that happened to coincide with the migratory patterns of hunter-gatherers. It was only after several thousand years that hunter-gatherer tribes decided that their search for food became more efficient by settling down in those areas where edible grains were abundantly growing. That was the beginning of cultivation-- hunter-gatherers incrementally adapting to a lifestyle where they focused on staying in one place and helping the grains to grow more abundantly, rather than engaging in a mobile search for food. We didn't domesticate wheat. It domesticated us, and chained us to the land.

Genetic studies work the same way for grains as they do for dogs. They can establish a late bound for the common ancestor of grain species that are prevalently cultivated today. They cannot establish an early bound. They cannot exclude earlier dates for cultivation. They can by no means exclude other geographical origins for cultivation, even if they can establish one particular geographical area where cultivation definitely occurred. They cannot presume to address the near-certainty that many other species of grains were cultivated in the past whose descendants no longer happen to be cultivated today (they either died out or were abandoned to grow wild).

Anyone who denies this not being scientific... they are not CAPABLE of being scientific, because they understand neither the mechanics of history nor the scientific basis for genetics. In fact, anyone who denies this is as intensely obtuse as the proverbial Blind Man feeling an elephant's tail and insisting dogmatically that the entire animal must look like a rope.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5751
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby krisna » 21 Jul 2017 06:01

SriJoy wrote:
krisna wrote:
please avoid using these terms in certain sciences which cannot be replicated and final verdict is still not sealed
By using these terms you are pretty much dogmatic with not much interest in searching for truth.


I don't think you understand.
Ashokan pillars, by themselves, decisively tie Ashoka to 270-240 BC period. this is because some of the pillars talk about Ashoka's missionary missions, along with names of several kings in west Asia and Egypt, independently verified in the same range. Do you realize, how precise a dating is, if an inscription names 4 seprate rulers and we find the same 4 separate rulers existing during each other's reign via independent evidence ? This is as close to a 'historical anchor' one can come to, unless you wish to argue that 4 rulers with same names ruling 4 different nations during each other's reign can happen multiple times.the final verdict on datng Ashoka is sealed. Finito.

We also know from every single source of literature that Mahapadma Nanda was the founder of the dynasty before the Mauryas. Now, we also know for a fact that Ashoka is preceded by 2 rulers of Maurya dynasty ( Bindusara & Chandragupta), who are immediately preceded by the Nanda dynasty. We know for a fact that Mahapadma Nanda was founder of Nanda dynasty and he had 10 successors. the historical consensus is that Nanda dynasty didn't have 11 successive rulers but most of the 10 rulers succeeding Mahapadma ruled concurrently. We also see such an example for Kakavarna Kalashoka's multiple sons ruling concurrently.


Either way, even if we were to assume Mahapadma's successors were one after the other and making an extremely unlikely assumption that ALL Nanda rulers ruled for average of 30 years, we end up with Mahapadma Nanda at around 650 BC. Which, genealogically again puts Mahabharata war at <2000 BC.

So as i said, genealogically, we cannot support a 5000 BC date for Mahabharata war according to the Puranas. Whichever way you slice it and dice it, Puranas are emphatic for the number of years between Parikshit and Mahapadma. And since Ashokan pillars are the best established anchor for Indian history (and compares very favorably to other anchors in world history dating), there is no chance that Mahapadma was >3000 BC, something that would be absolutely essential to argue Mahabharata = 5000 BC date. Unless of course, you have another source of evidence for genealogically dating Mahapadma relative to Parikshit, strong enough to trash all the Puranas.


As for your bolded part : Its already been discussed here. there is zero evidence of agriculture or urban culture ANYWHERE in the world for 12,000 BC.
Genetic research has placed domestication of rice, wheat, barley and millet all in the 9500 -7000 BC range. So its also a zero chance of Ramayana occurring before agriculture existed, unless of course, you can find genetic evidence of a food domestication event prior to 12,000 BC.


I repeat nothing is emphatic or 100% conclusive. what some said a few decades has been changed today. similar stuff happens in few decades. dates have been all over the place. dates of huan origin have been changed time to time with more evidence.

there is so much confusion on puranas. many say they were transmitted orally intially later written.
one can never be emphatic about dates here. Also many new were written later.

dates of domestication of animals crops etc have been speculative with some evidences being unearthed all the time every few years or decades. again nothing perfect but coming closer likely.

It is dogmatic to hold a view despite having no evidence, just because it comes from one's favorite book/religion. How is it dogmatic to hold a view that is supported by evidence/reject a view that is a big fat zero in terms of evidence and be open to change ?!

being emphatic is no substitute for accuracy of dating methods. Till today all the dates are in estimates which can vary with time with more methodology and discoveries along with improvement in detection methods. Till then kindly refrain from using certain words which looks outright stupid and dogmatic.

as aside note you seem to believe the Ramayana and Mahabharata except for dates. that is good.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 21 Jul 2017 07:07

SriJoy wrote:
I believe the core of the events, not that there is anything divine or divine angle to it. Certain things for example , *are* pretty accurate. One of them is when did Ashoka rule. the answer may vary for a year or two or atmost a decade, but its as fixed as it can get without direct historical date-keeping.

I have highlighted the key words.

If you look at all the conclusions about dates that have been made by linguists and "historians" LOL

The dated for the Vedas varies by 500-1000 years

The dates for Panini - by your own estimate varies by a century or so

The Aihole inscription carved in stone dated the Mahabharata to 3102 BC - which is 2000 years earlier than your estimate and 2000 years later than Nilesh's estimate

It is when dates can be variable and "adjusted" this way or that way to suit a story by a few years, decades centuries or millenniums and then declared dogmatically to be "as fixed as dates can get" - the final story is complete rubbish, or absolute truth depending on what one chooses to believe. Of course if you choose not to believe your own story on the grounds that you do not go by belief then that is a different issue

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 21 Jul 2017 07:32

SriJoy wrote:
shiv wrote:I have highlighted the key words.

If you look at all the conclusions about dates that have been made by linguists and "historians" LOL

The dated for the Vedas varies by 500-1000 years

The dates for Panini - by your own estimate varies by a century or so

The Aihole inscription carved in stone dated the Mahabharata to 3102 BC - which is 2000 years earlier than your estimate and 2000 years later than Nilesh's estimate

It is when dates can be variable and "adjusted" this way or that way to suit a story by a few years, decades centuries or millenniums and then declared dogmatically to be "as fixed as dates can get" - the final story is complete rubbish, or absolute truth depending on what one chooses to believe. Of course if you choose not to believe your own story on the grounds that you do not go by belief then that is a different issue



Completely irrelevant to Ashoka's dating.

<blah blah>

I will challenge you or anyone


Indeed. completely irrelevant to Ashoka's dating but completely relevant and devastatingly true about how people, including yourself are willing to accept approximate dates in the absence of accurate dating and then boastfully pretend to represent the epitome of truth and scientific accuracy. This is how dates have been fudged and fixed and no new dates are allowed despite obvious fudging.

The challenge-vallenge business is simply a wholly irrelevant diversion from the subject of dogmatic belief in one's own dates and ideas, which you display, but deny.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gaurav.p and 37 guests