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.
sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 07 Feb 2018 19:35

Dipanker wrote:My assumption is wrong or not can be proved/disproved once I have the the equations to compute the RA's and DEC w.r.t time and then I can run a simulation for a period of 26,000 years. I did think about the boundary conditions in the change of direction of rotational axis in my assumption/hypothesis.

Anyway as soon as I get hold of the equations, I will have the answer and I will post the results here!


Above from page 97, Dec. 16 last year. Did you do the above yet, or have you not yet "got hold of the equations?" Just curious, you are of course free not to do what you said, nobody can force you to do it, but then nobody is obligated to take your silly quibbles on "precision and 100% accuracy" seriously either.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Feb 2018 19:44

sudarshan wrote:
And how did you come up with this particular date of Jan 1, 4713 BC? Just curious.



Jan 1, 4713 BC is the beginning of the Julian date system.
Via Cornell U.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... n-advanced

The Julian Period was proposed by French-Italian astronomer and historian Joseph Justice Scaliger in 1583. It may have been named for his father, Julius Caesar Scaliger, or perhaps it was named after the Julian calendar.

In Scaliger's time, there were no known historical events before 4713 BC, so his calendar would avoid BC/AD or negative dates. He also chose the starting point for a Julian period to be the year when three cycles converge:

1) The solar cycle: The 28 year cycle of the days of the month falling on the different days of the week in the Julian (not Gregorian) calendar.

2) The Metonic or "golden number" cycle: The 19 year cycle of the lunar phases and days of the year.

3) The indiction cycle: a Roman tax cycle of 15 years declared by Constantine the Great. (In period sources, dates were often recorded using this cycle, hence the interest by historians.)

In the *last* year of the solar cycle, January 1 is a Sunday. In the first year of the Metonic cycle, the New Moon falls on January 1. The first indiction cycle began on 1 September 327.


In 1849, the astronomer John F. Herschel turned Scaliger's calendar into the astronomical Julian Date system, taking January 1, 4713 BC as JD=0, and counting day numbers from that date. He also made the starting point of the day at noon, to avoid having the date change in the middle of the night during the observing run . . . at least for observers close enough to the Greenwich Meridian, since JD is usually measured in Universal Time.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 07 Feb 2018 20:43

A_Gupta wrote:
sudarshan wrote:
And how did you come up with this particular date of Jan 1, 4713 BC? Just curious.



Jan 1, 4713 BC is the beginning of the Julian date system.
Via Cornell U.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... n-advanced

The Julian Period was proposed by French-Italian astronomer and historian Joseph Justice Scaliger in 1583. It may have been named for his father, Julius Caesar Scaliger, or perhaps it was named after the Julian calendar.

...


Thanks saar. But I'm sure you know that for the problem at hand, this is an arbitrary (and thus irrelevant) date. There's no reason why this date should be some kind of cut-off for the precision of the Voyager software. So the specific question of "could you tell me about the precision of star positions from your software before Jan 1, 4713 BC" is silly, since it precisely pinpoints a date down to the exact day (or actually, even down to the exact second, since Jan 1, 4713 BC really implies 00:00:00 on Jan 1 of that year) and then asks about star position imprecision before that. :rotfl:

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 08 Feb 2018 00:22

^^^Ideally, the software guys would issue error bars that grew wider as one went back in time. And who knows, their model might not accommodate negative Julian days :)

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 08 Feb 2018 00:24

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... is-reveals
First modern Britons had 'dark to black' skin, Cheddar Man DNA analysis reveals
The genome of Cheddar Man, who lived 10,000 years ago, suggests that he had blue eyes, dark skin and dark curly hair
(picture included).

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 08 Feb 2018 08:34

The Year of Mahabharata war - Some of the Multidisciplinary evidence

(Center for Indic Studies, Indus University)
--
https://youtu.be/BxPBsTf-x_c

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 09 Feb 2018 19:15

Article in Hungarian:
https://24.hu/tudomany/2018/02/07/megle ... a-tudosok/
Excerpts, via Google Translate:

Scientists have surprisingly achieved a 100-year-long debate: the world's largest urban civilization was not due to the abundant rivers flowing from the Himalayas.

The Indus Valley, also known as the Harappa Civilization (named after one of its largest urban settlements, Harappa, which began to be discovered in the 1920s) was largely from 3300 to 1300 BC, which flourished between 2600 and 1900 in the northwestern South Asia, in today's India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. At about the same time, he developed with the mesopotamian and Egyptian urban civilizations that developed along the Nile, the Tigris and the Euphrates. Indeed, as we wrote earlier, the first settlements, according to a new research, could have been created eight thousand years ago.

But in contrast to the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations, they have a much larger area, approx. Indus Valley civilization, which is one million square kilometers, was not necessarily established near the permanent rivers.

Even if the archaeological finds so far found that many cities were located near Ghaggar-Hakra's dry river basin.

So far, scientists have believed that, due to climate change or earth movement, river water has drowned in the river of Ghaggar-Hakra, leading to the slow decline of Indus Valley civilization, the emergence of smaller agrarian communities and ultimately the abandonment of towns.

This assumption was based on the premise that maintaining such an extensive and advanced civilization required a constant flow of water from the high mountain region. However, these assumptions have not been substantiated so far by geographic data, the date of dehydration of the affected rivers and the introduction of new rivers could not be reliably detected.

However, experts at Imperial College London and the Kanpuri Indian Technical University are now pointing to a more than 100-year debate. It has been shown that
there is no correlation between the flourishing of the Indus Valley civilization and the rich rivers flowing from the Himalayas, so it is not true that the ancient civilizations of the city would have been created under similar conditions.

On the contrary, it was precisely the lack of constant, but often rushing, rivers that allowed the development of civilization to be here. Szandzsiv Gupta, a professor at Imperial College London - the Nature Communications journal study, published one of the authors - by

our results are debating the origins and growth of ancient civilizations and the relationship of natural resources to the present. Contrary to the standard views, it was not the arrival of a large river, but its absence pushed forward urban development in the Indus Valley. "


....
Research associate Radzsiv Szinha, professor of Kanpuri Indian Polytechnic , said:

Now we know that in the right conditions, the valleys that have lost their previous rivers do not necessarily lack water. What's more, besides the civilizations next to the larger rivers, they did not have to fear that devastating floods would sweep them over. "



The Nature publication is (full article is available)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01643-9
Counter-intuitive influence of Himalayan river morphodynamics on Indus Civilisation urban settlements

Abstract:
Urbanism in the Bronze-age Indus Civilisation (~4.6–3.9 thousand years before the present, ka) has been linked to water resources provided by large Himalayan river systems, although the largest concentrations of urban-scale Indus settlements are located far from extant Himalayan rivers. Here we analyse the sedimentary architecture, chronology and provenance of a major palaeochannel associated with many of these settlements. We show that the palaeochannel is a former course of the Sutlej River, the third largest of the present-day Himalayan rivers. Using optically stimulated luminescence dating of sand grains, we demonstrate that flow of the Sutlej in this course terminated considerably earlier than Indus occupation, with diversion to its present course complete shortly after ~8 ka. Indus urban settlements thus developed along an abandoned river valley rather than an active Himalayan river. Confinement of the Sutlej to its present incised course after ~8 ka likely reduced its propensity to re-route frequently thus enabling long-term stability for Indus settlements sited along the relict palaeochannel.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 09 Feb 2018 19:17

^^^ The above paper says
This result strongly suggests that the Sutlej River was the main source of fluvial sediment to the Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel.


I'd say that the headwaters area of Sutlej was the headwaters area of the river that flowed in the Ghaggar-Hakra paleochannel -- one would have to show that the current Sutlej also did not exist to say that it was the Sutlej river.

But, going with what the authors say, what does that do to the Vedic Saraswati?

Our OSL-derived chronologies firmly establish that a major Himalayan river was not contemporaneous with Indus settlements in the Ghaggar–Hakra region and did not sustain the Indus Civilisation in this region. This finding resolves a question that has been debated for well over a hundred years. Our analysis shows that the Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel is a former course of the Himalayan Sutlej River that formed and occupied an incised valley from at least ~23 ka (Fig. 10a). Initial abandonment of this incised valley by the Sutlej River commenced after ~15 ka, with complete avulsion to its present course shortly after ~8 ka.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 10 Feb 2018 03:09

For the reading pleasure of BRFites still stuck in the dogma of 3067 BCE as the year of the Mahabharata war...

This is what Prof. Achar writes..

http://www.pragyata.com/mag/thoughts-on ... ta-war-453

And here are my comments/response...

http://www.pragyata.com/mag/thoughts-on ... ta-war-462

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 10 Feb 2018 05:09

Based on the software I used to explore the so called "AV phenomena", and assuming that the software I used were 100% accurate ( that is wrong assumption ), still Alcor "goes ahead" by by a maximum of ~0.58 arc minutes in RA in a complete precession cycle. Personally I think Such a small difference is RA can not be told without the help of instrumentation like a good quality telescope or better! Interesting thing is when Mizar is ahead its maximum RA separation is ~1.7 arcminute lower than Alcor. It's current RA is about 1.3 arc minute ahead.

Software used:

1. The United States Naval Observatory Novas Software 3.1
2. International Astronomical Union SOFA 4.0
3. Stellarium 0.16
4. Voyager 4.5


So how accurate are the calculations?

Very accurate as long as you are within the prescribed time span of their usage i.e. +/- 300 years or so from the current epoch ( J2000 ). IAU software claims an accuracy of micro-arc-seconds, and USNO software of milli-arc-seconds. But outside the prescribed range they are not accurate. Farther away we get from the range the more error prone the software becomes, primarily, I am guessing, due to break down of higher degree interpolating polynomials.

In case of NOVAS, the advice I got was to use the lower precision version of the software, which would of course make the result still more inaccurate. About the accuracy the author of the software said he had no way telling how accurate it could be that far back.

Stellarium claims an accuracy within few arcminutes for the time period -4000 to +8000 years, so anything before -4000BC will off quite a bit from a few arcminutes . In some other claim Stellarium seemed quite a bit more approximate than the previous claim. I did not see any "AV phenomena in Stellarium.

I already posted the feedback about Voyager 4.5 accuracy.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 10 Feb 2018 05:58

Dipanker wrote:Based on the software I used to explore the so called "AV phenomena", and assuming that the software I used were 100% accurate ( that is wrong assumption ), still Alcor "goes ahead" by by a maximum of ~0.58 arc minutes in RA in a complete precession cycle. Personally I think Such a small difference is RA can not be told without the help of instrumentation like a good quality telescope or better! Interesting thing is when Mizar is ahead its maximum RA separation is ~1.7 arcminute lower than Alcor. It's current RA is about 1.3 arc minute ahead.

Software used:

1. The United States Naval Observatory Novas Software 3.1
2. International Astronomical Union SOFA 4.0
3. Stellarium 0.16
4. Voyager 4.5


First of all - this does seem to be a lot of work, so please accept my appreciation of all this.

Now for the details. The part which I highlighted in blue above - here are two Wikipedia links:

For Mizar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_Ursae_Majoris
For Alcor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcor_(star)

The first link will tell you that Mizar's current RA is: 13h 23m 55.54048s
The second link will tell you that Alcor's current RA is: 13h 25m 13.53783s

So Mizar is ahead by 1.299956 minutes, which seems to be the number you are reporting - 1.3 minutes. However - this is not arc minutes, this is the "time" minutes we are used to. To convert to arc minutes, you need to multiply by a factor of 15 (i.e., 360 degrees = 24 hours, so 1 degree is 1/15th of an hour). The 1.3 minutes you are reporting is time difference, which means that Mizar will rise 1.3 minutes before Alcor. This translates to an angular arc minute difference of 1.3 * 15 = 19.5 arc minutes, or about 1170 arc seconds. This is also the value reported by Nilesh ji (for the year 2010) in his book on the MB (Nilesh ji reports 1167.9 arc seconds - pretty close, as you can see).

Now the 0.58 minutes difference you talk about over the precession cycle - this is really 0.58 * 15 arc minutes, or about 9 arc minutes. This means that the maximum time difference by which Alcor will lead Mizar, is 0.58 minutes, but in angular terms, this is about 9 arc minutes (or about 500 arc seconds, which is also the value reported by Nilesh ji in his book, for the year 5900 BC).

So congratulations, your numbers are correct, but the units mean that the angular differences you are reporting are off by a factor of 15. This is because of the convention of reporting RA in time units, rather than angular units, which is pretty confusing at times.

Thanks for verifying Nilesh ji's reported data (with four different pieces of software - and I am sincere when I say - "GREAT WORK"), your numbers seem to be in very good agreement with what he got (just that you confused "time minutes" with "angular arc minutes").

Now, please tell me, the naked eye resolving limit being about 1 arc minute, is 9 arc minutes enough of a difference for a human observer, or not?

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 10 Feb 2018 08:46

To elaborate on what Right Ascension (RA) is in celestial coordinates:

    * On the earth, we pick one particular location as a reference longitude (zero longitude), this being the Greenwich Meridian, and report longitude as angular difference from this meridian, in degrees, arc minutes, and arc seconds.

    * Similarly, in the sky, we pick a reference star (the first point of Aries is the convention), and report RA as the angular difference from this point/celestial meridian.

    * However, RA is usually not reported in angular units, but in hours, minutes, and seconds (the "minutes" and "seconds" here are related to, but very different from the arc minutes and arc seconds in angular units).

    * So if you say "the RA of this star is 3 hours, 5 minutes, and 4 seconds," that means, that if you currently observe the first point of Aries rising above the horizon, then this other star will be observed to rise above the horizon 3 hours, 5 minutes, and 4 seconds from now.

    * So as you can see, if a star is 180 angular degrees away from the meridian defined by the first point of Aries, then it will rise 12 hours after the first point of Aries. So to go from 180 angular degrees to 12 hours, there is a conversion factor of 15 degrees/hour (this being the rate of rotation of the earth itself).

    * Likewise, going from time minutes to arc minutes, or time seconds to arc seconds, there is a factor of 15. This is why the "1.3 minutes RA difference between Mizor and Alcor" and the "0.58 minutes peak RA difference between Alcor and Mizar" that Dipanker is talking about, translate into 19.5 arc minutes and ~9 arc minutes, respectively.


You can see this page for further details about this "Right Ascension" coordinate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension

The above page also clearly mentions the factor of 15 between "angular minutes/seconds" and "time minutes/seconds." The relevant quote from that page:

Since a complete circle contains 24h of right ascension or 360° (degrees of arc), ​1⁄24 of a circle is measured as 1h of right ascension, or 15°; ​1⁄(24×60) of a circle is measured as 1m of right ascension, or 15 minutes of arc (also written as 15′); and ​1⁄(24×60×60) of a circle contains 1s of right ascension, or 15 seconds of arc (also written as 15″). A full circle, measured in right-ascension units, contains 24 × 60 × 60 = 86 400s, or 24 × 60 = 1 440m, or 24h.[5]


Now that the initially skeptical Dipanker has practically replicated the numbers that Nilesh Oak reported in his book (for the years 2010 AD and 5900 BCE, respectively), and that using four pieces of software, no less, this should inspire much greater confidence in Nilesh's numbers.

For reference - the 9 arc minutes peak difference between Alcor and Mizar (when "Arundhati is walking furthest ahead of Vashishta") - how big is this difference? Well, the full moon has an angular width of about 31 arc minutes, while the sun has an angular width of about 30 arc minutes (this is why total solar eclipses are possible). So 9 arc minutes is more than 1/4th the width of either the sun or the full moon. Can your eye resolve any feature on the moon's disk, which is 1/4th of its full width? If so, your eye should have no trouble resolving an angular difference of 9 arc minutes.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 10 Feb 2018 09:02

Dipanker wrote:I did not see any "AV phenomena in Stellarium.


This is surprising. A few years ago, I used Stellarium to verify Nilesh's numbers from Voyager. The plot that Nilesh Oak showed in his book (a saw-tooth representation of angular separation between Mizar/Alcor) was derived from the Voyager software, and it clearly showed the ~500 arc seconds separation between Alcor/Mizar (I forget which is "Arundhati" and which is "Vashishta", but Arundhati was leading Vashishta). I was able to generate practically the same plot using Stellarium.

Let me give that a shot again (i.e., showing the A/V phenomenon using Stellarium) and get back.

EDIT: As an interesting aside on "confusing units with the same names" - like I said, it is unfortunate that people sometimes confuse "time minutes/seconds" with "arc minutes/seconds" (this just being derived from the practice of naming 1/60th of something as "minute" and 1/60th of that "minute" as "second"). But there are other instances where this occurs.

For example, when somebody tells you that your daily calorie requirement is 2000 calories. This is a "food calorie," which is really equal to "1000 heat calories." So in "heat calorie" terms, your daily calorie requirement is 2,000,000 calories, or 2000 kilocalories. This is startling to students in the field of heat transfer. For example, one exercise is to get a student to calculate how much heat is lost by the human body over a single day, simply because of the temperature difference between the body and the surroundings. The student does the calculation and comes up with a humongous number, way more than 2000 calories. The question that then flummoxes the student, is, "how come you can survive on 2000 calories a day, when your basal heat loss is 10's or hundreds of times that number?" The student flounders, and eventually comes to realize that a heat calorie is not the same as a food calorie.

Some wise guy probably came up with the convention of reporting food caloric values in kilocalories - but still referring to it as "calories" (so as not to startle people by saying "you need to eat 2 million calories per day"), and that just stuck. Same with "time minutes" versus "arc minutes," I guess.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 10 Feb 2018 09:37

sudarshan wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Based on the software I used to explore the so called "AV phenomena", and assuming that the software I used were 100% accurate ( that is wrong assumption ), still Alcor "goes ahead" by by a maximum of ~0.58 arc minutes in RA in a complete precession cycle. Personally I think Such a small difference is RA can not be told without the help of instrumentation like a good quality telescope or better! Interesting thing is when Mizar is ahead its maximum RA separation is ~1.7 arcminute lower than Alcor. It's current RA is about 1.3 arc minute ahead.

Software used:

1. The United States Naval Observatory Novas Software 3.1
2. International Astronomical Union SOFA 4.0
3. Stellarium 0.16
4. Voyager 4.5


First of all - this does seem to be a lot of work, so please accept my appreciation of all this.

Now for the details. The part which I highlighted in blue above - here are two Wikipedia links:

For Mizar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_Ursae_Majoris
For Alcor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcor_(star)

The first link will tell you that Mizar's current RA is: 13h 23m 55.54048s
The second link will tell you that Alcor's current RA is: 13h 25m 13.53783s

So Mizar is ahead by 1.299956 minutes, which seems to be the number you are reporting - 1.3 minutes. However - this is not arc minutes, this is the "time" minutes we are used to. To convert to arc minutes, you need to multiply by a factor of 15 (i.e., 360 degrees = 24 hours, so 1 degree is 1/15th of an hour). The 1.3 minutes you are reporting is time difference, which means that Mizar will rise 1.3 minutes before Alcor. This translates to an angular arc minute difference of 1.3 * 15 = 19.5 arc minutes, or about 1170 arc seconds. This is also the value reported by Nilesh ji (for the year 2010) in his book on the MB (Nilesh ji reports 1167.9 arc seconds - pretty close, as you can see).

Now the 0.58 minutes difference you talk about over the precession cycle - this is really 0.58 * 15 arc minutes, or about 9 arc minutes. This means that the maximum time difference by which Alcor will lead Mizar, is 0.58 minutes, but in angular terms, this is about 9 arc minutes (or about 500 arc seconds, which is also the value reported by Nilesh ji in his book, for the year 5900 BC).

So congratulations, your numbers are correct, but the units mean that the angular differences you are reporting are off by a factor of 15. This is because of the convention of reporting RA in time units, rather than angular units, which is pretty confusing at times.

Thanks for verifying Nilesh ji's reported data (with four different pieces of software - and I am sincere when I say - "GREAT WORK"), your numbers seem to be in very good agreement with what he got (just that you confused "time minutes" with "angular arc minutes").

Now, please tell me, the naked eye resolving limit being about 1 arc minute, is 9 arc minutes enough of a difference for a human observer, or not?


You are right, I made that mistake in my comment. The programs RA's output was in hours. What this tells me is that the Voyager software is probably using NOVAS software under the hood for positional astronomy computations. It will be a stretch to say that I used all 4 softwares. I mainly used NOVAS and SOFA, which are source code packages and to use them programming is required. Samples files make the task easy though. Stellarium I use for fun, Voyager I checked the interface and fiddled a little, prefer Stellarium.

Yes 9 arc minutes is sufficient separation for a human observar, normally people are able differentiate 3 arcminutes or more (some hawkeys human may be able differentiate upto 1 arcminutes!). Here is my personal experience though, when I looked directly at them they looked fuzzy merged object as one, however when I looked slightly away from them I was able to notice them separately, and this was when I had 20/20 vision! Never had any problem resolving them through a telescope. This was a very powerful telescope and night sky was WOW! Nowadays I don't even bother, too much scattered light makes it for a lousy star gazing.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7886
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

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

Postby anupmisra » 11 Feb 2018 20:06

Harvard University's WorldMap Project
Mapping - Ethnicities of the World.

http://worldmap.harvard.edu/maps/1894

WorldMap is an open source web mapping system that is currently under construction. It is built to assist academic research and teaching as well as the general public and supports discovery, investigation, analysis, visualization, communication and archiving of multi-disciplinary, multi-source and multi-format data, organized spatially and temporally.

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 » 11 Feb 2018 20:15

anupmisra wrote:Harvard University's WorldMap Project
Mapping - Ethnicities of the World.

http://worldmap.harvard.edu/maps/1894

WorldMap is an open source web mapping system that is currently under construction. It is built to assist academic research and teaching as well as the general public and supports discovery, investigation, analysis, visualization, communication and archiving of multi-disciplinary, multi-source and multi-format data, organized spatially and temporally.

At first glance this looks like a modern day version of 19th century racist orientalism and sociology/anthropology. For example India has multiple ethnicities based on language - but US Americans are just one group. I have not yet been able to find divisions of US people into people of Irish, German, Italian, African or other origin. If someone finds that these fellows look at themselves the way they look at us - I might be able to reach a more kind judgement. Or else maybe this goes into the Universalism thread

One of the reasons why India was called many nations was multiple languages. India thrives on different ethnicities that merge and split over time.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 11 Feb 2018 21:32

Sudarshan ji

Since you have used stellarium, will you be kind enough to generate a 2-4 page document (kind of a 'Quick start' guide) that shows how to name nakshatars, draw ecliptic, celestial equator, name stars and basic functions (select date, time, etc.).

I am working on a course (80% complete) on Archaeoastronomy and thinking of using Stellarium so that all the students taking the course would able to use it (without having to pay).

Let me know if you would have something already with you on this and/or can generate something in next 30 days or so.

Appreciate your help,

Nilesh Oak

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Feb 2018 22:04

shiv wrote:
anupmisra wrote:Harvard University's WorldMap Project
Mapping - Ethnicities of the World.

http://worldmap.harvard.edu/maps/1894


At first glance this looks like a modern day version of 19th century racist orientalism and sociology/anthropology. For example India has multiple ethnicities based on language - but US Americans are just one group. I have not yet been able to find divisions of US people into people of Irish, German, Italian, African or other origin. If someone finds that these fellows look at themselves the way they look at us - I might be able to reach a more kind judgement. Or else maybe this goes into the Universalism thread

One of the reasons why India was called many nations was multiple languages. India thrives on different ethnicities that merge and split over time.


US Census 2020 will reportedly ask people about their ethnicities.
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/58233862 ... ut-origins
"2020 Census Will Ask White People More About Their Ethnicities"
Since 1960, when U.S. residents were first allowed to self-report their race on the census, just answering "White" has been enough to complete the race question. But the federal government is now preparing to essentially ask non-Hispanic white people where they and their ancestors are from as part of the Census Bureau's inquiry into their racial identity.

Last month, the Census Bureau announced it's adding a write-in area for the "White" category on the 2020 census questionnaire so that participants can provide their "origins."

"Print, for example, German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, Egyptian, etc.," read the instructions on the form the bureau is using in a practice run of the 2020 census in Rhode Island's Providence County beginning in March.

Those suggested answers are among the largest U.S. population groups descending from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa — regions with "original peoples" classified by the U.S. government as "White," according to the federal standards for race and ethnicity data.

The Census Bureau has not responded to NPR's questions about why this change is being made to the "White" category for 2020. A similar write-in area will be added under the "Black and African American" category.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 11 Feb 2018 22:05

I've used Stellarium, but the version I have is from a few years ago. I can download the latest version. When you say "Quick Start guide," do you mean a guide for using the software to do all the functions you mentioned? I can do that, but is there no software manual or online guide which already tells how to do all this? I can check, if there is no such manual or guide, I can try to write a document like you described.

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Feb 2018 02:30

sudarshan wrote:I've used Stellarium, but the version I have is from a few years ago. I can download the latest version. When you say "Quick Start guide," do you mean a guide for using the software to do all the functions you mentioned? I can do that, but is there no software manual or online guide which already tells how to do all this? I can check, if there is no such manual or guide, I can try to write a document like you described.

Sudarshan ji

There may be a manual. I have not used Stellarium and thus don't know. If the manual exists, and if it is concise and/or has section on 'Quick start' etc, there may not be a need of creating another document.

What I had in mind, was something like.. if a short quick start guide can be written (assuming one does not exist already) that can be used by students to quick set them up in Stellarium to do some basic stuff and quickly get to the stage of some 'ah ha' moments such as 'A walking ahead of V' or 'Abhijit becoming pole star in ~12000 BCE' or able to reproduce a specific eclipse, etc.

Appreciate your help,

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 12 Feb 2018 22:52

https://www.booksfact.com/archeology/qu ... dhwaj.html

Qutub Minar in Delhi was actually Dhruv Sthambh or Vishnu Dhwaj that existed even before the times of King Vikramaditya and had arabic scripts and motifs retro-installed by Qutb-ud-din Aibak between 1191 – 1210 AD, followed by his successors Iltutmish, Alauddin etc till 1315 AD.
If we look at Qutub Minar from top angle, it shows a lotus of 24 petals.
Lotus is definitely not islamic symbol, but it is ancient vedic symbol and the creator Brahma is said to have been born from a lotus that emerged from Lord Vishnu’s navel.

Image

There is a township adjoining the Kutub Minar is known as Mehrauli. That is a Sanskrit word Mihira-awali. It signifies the town- ship where the well known astronomer Varaha-Mihira of Vikramaditya’s court lived along with his helpers, mathematicians and technicians.

They used the so-called Qutub tower as an observation post for astronomical study. Around the tower were pavilions dedicated to the 27 constellations of the Vedic Astrology.

Image
Even the dome of this tower from inside view has a multiple lotuses embeded within each other (similar to Sri Yantra).

Qutubuddin has left us an inscription that he destroyed these pavilions. But he has not said that he raised any tower. The ravaged temple was renamed as Quwat-ul-Islam mosque.
Indian archaeologists have recorded wrong history without studying the destroyed and defaced Hindi gods statues and motifs in and around this tower.
Image

Stones dislodged from the so-called Qutub Minar have Hindu images on one side with Arabic lettering on the other. Those stones have now been moved to the Museum. They clearly show that Muslim invaders used to remove the stone- dressing of Hindu buildings, turn the stones inside out to hide the image facial and inscribe Arabic lettering on the new frontage.

Bits of Sanskrit inscriptions can still be deciphered in the premises on numerous pillars and walls. Numerous images still adorn the cornices though disfigured.

Muslims never use flower symbols on their constructions, but this tower has multiple lotus symols in stone !!
Image
Makara Toranam in Qutub Minar !

Image

A panel of the so-called Qutub Minar in Delhi. The exquisite serpentine Hindu pattern in the upper part is the wreath called ‘Makar Torana‘ because it emanates from the mouth of a crocodile. This is a very common sacred Hindu motif in historic buildings. The Islamic tampering and forgery in stone may be seen in the lower portion. An attempt has been made to plant Koranic lettering. Such forgery in stone fooled even historians who thereby inadvertently ascribed those buildings to Muslim authorship.

qutub minar makara toranam
qutub minar hindu makara toranam

Muslim captors dismantled surface stones of the so-called Kutab tower in Delhi, reversed them and inscribed Koran on the exterior. This Muslim forgery in stone came to light as those stones started falling off the tower. Below is picture of two such pieces with Hindu images carved on one side and subsequent Islamic lettering on the other.
qutub minar hindu scripts defaced

The frieze Patterns on the tower show signs of tampering, ending abruptly or in a medley of incongruent lines. The Arabic lettering is interspersed with Hindu motifs like lotus buds hanging limp.
Sayyad Ahmad Khan, a staunch Muslim and a scholar, has admitted that the tower is a Hindu building.

Image

The Hindu title of the tower was Vishnu Dhwaj (i.e. Vishnu’s standard) alias Vishnu Stambh alias Dhruv Stambh (i.e., a polar pillar) obviously connoting an astronomical observation tower.

Qutub Minar still faces north towards the pole star Dhruv ( north star ), unlike any Islamic structures.

This tower had seven storeys representing the week of those only five exist now. The sixth was dismantled, hauled down and re-erected on the lawns closeby.

The seventh storey had actually a statue of the four-faced Brahma holding the Vedas at the beginning of creation. Above Brahma was a white marble canopy with gold bell patterns laid in it.

Arabic the term ‘Qutub Minar‘ signifies an astronomical Tower. That was how it was described to Sultan and later referred to in court correspondence. In course of time the name of Sultan Qutubuddin came to be unwittingly associated with the Qutub Tower leading to the misleading assertion that Qutubuddin built the Qutub Minar.

Image

No body could explain why a muslim ruler have sacred heart chakra (Anahata) symbol all over Qutub Minar.. (This was later adapted by Jews as STAR OF DAVID)

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 13 Feb 2018 01:17

Nilesh Oak wrote:Sudarshan ji

There may be a manual. I have not used Stellarium and thus don't know. If the manual exists, and if it is concise and/or has section on 'Quick start' etc, there may not be a need of creating another document.

What I had in mind, was something like.. if a short quick start guide can be written (assuming one does not exist already) that can be used by students to quick set them up in Stellarium to do some basic stuff and quickly get to the stage of some 'ah ha' moments such as 'A walking ahead of V' or 'Abhijit becoming pole star in ~12000 BCE' or able to reproduce a specific eclipse, etc.

Appreciate your help,


Nilesh ji, sure, happy to help. Sounds like you're talking more about a tutorial or set of walk-through examples, than a manual. I can do something along those lines.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 13 Feb 2018 01:23

Dipanker wrote:The programs RA's output was in hours. What this tells me is that the Voyager software is probably using NOVAS software under the hood for positional astronomy computations.

Not necessarily, reporting RA in hours is the convention in astronomy, most if not all software would follow that convention.
Yes 9 arc minutes is sufficient separation for a human observar, normally people are able differentiate 3 arcminutes or more (some hawkeys human may be able differentiate upto 1 arcminutes!). Here is my personal experience though, when I looked directly at them they looked fuzzy merged object as one, however when I looked slightly away from them I was able to notice them separately, and this was when I had 20/20 vision! Never had any problem resolving them through a telescope. This was a very powerful telescope and night sky was WOW! Nowadays I don't even bother, too much scattered light makes it for a lousy star gazing.


Yes, it's easier to distinguish objects when you're not looking directly at them. The Pleiades cluster is similar, I've always had to look sideways at it to really distinguish the stars.

Also to note, when Voyager or Stellarium tell you that their error is "of the order of several arc-minutes," that error (unless explicitly specified) is equally likely in both directions. IOW, if Voyager tells you that the max. separation between A/V over the precession cycle (when A is leading V) is ~8.5 arc minutes, the real value could be less (i.e., as an example, 2 or 3 arc minutes), but it could also be greater (i.e., again as an example, more like 14 or 15 arc minutes).

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

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Feb 2018 19:15

sudarshan wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote:Sudarshan ji

There may be a manual. I have not used Stellarium and thus don't know. If the manual exists, and if it is concise and/or has section on 'Quick start' etc, there may not be a need of creating another document.

What I had in mind, was something like.. if a short quick start guide can be written (assuming one does not exist already) that can be used by students to quick set them up in Stellarium to do some basic stuff and quickly get to the stage of some 'ah ha' moments such as 'A walking ahead of V' or 'Abhijit becoming pole star in ~12000 BCE' or able to reproduce a specific eclipse, etc.

Appreciate your help,


Nilesh ji, sure, happy to help. Sounds like you're talking more about a tutorial or set of walk-through examples, than a manual. I can do something along those lines.


Thank you. See what you can do.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 13 Feb 2018 21:32

sudarshan wrote:
Dipanker wrote:The programs RA's output was in hours. What this tells me is that the Voyager software is probably using NOVAS software under the hood for positional astronomy computations.

Not necessarily, reporting RA in hours is the convention in astronomy, most if not all software would follow that convention.


Yes I know that. My comment was in context of the programs I wrote to use NOVAS and SOFA routines.

Varoon Shekhar
BRFite
Posts: 1708
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

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

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 13 Feb 2018 22:33

One of the tactics, if it is a tactic and not simply contemptuous dismissiveness, is for the critics of the Indian origin of monuments, like the Qutub Minar, Taj Mahal and Red Fort, to cite really extreme or outrageous claims made by certain Hindus for the Indian origin of other achievements or things. For example, Shakespeare is really Sheshapiar, or Argentina is Arjunasthan, or that Indians mastered interplanetary travel 3000 years ago.

These are conflated with very compelling arguments for the monuments traditionally credited to the Mughals or Delhi sultanate. So then every Indic origin theory becomes suspect.

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 » 14 Feb 2018 07:13

Varoon Shekhar wrote: These are conflated with very compelling arguments for the monuments traditionally credited to the Mughals or Delhi sultanate. So then every Indic origin theory becomes suspect.

Absolutely true and I have wondered about this and have asked myself - "Are the dates and links that I claim to be Indian more true than these seemingly outrageous claims?" My heart says yes - but my head tells me these Indians are not the first or only people to make outrageous claims that later on became "historic fact". We can see it all around us - starting from AIT itself.

So I told myself - when it comes to theories/hypotheses about what is "Indic" - it may be a better tactic to swamp the environment with a thousand outrageous and less outrageous claims and let them all compete freely with "established" information which may be rubbish. Let rubbish compete with rubbish and let the truth ultimately bubble up. So yes - I have been telling myself - if someone says "Arjunastan" - I say "OK, fine. No more outrageous than Aryans and Dravidians and Horse burial Kurgans in the Veda"

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 15 Feb 2018 19:58

https://www.booksfact.com/archeology/va ... 0-bce.html

Vanaras in Temple of Hathor, Dendera, Egypt 2250 BCE

Temple of Hathor at Dendera, built by Pharaoh Pepi I ca. 2250 BCE has carvings of Vanaras (as described in Valmiki Ramanaya), snakes, eagles, dogs, hippos with human bodies.
Evidences prove ths temple’s existence since 1500 BCE.
It is historically called as the Temple of Tentyra. It has been modified on the same site during the Middle Kingdom (2030 – 1650 BCE), and continuing right up until the time of the Roman emperor Trajan.
The existing structure was built around the late Ptolemaic period (300 BCE).
There are numerous structures and elements in this temple, but the most striking are Vanaras (monkey faced humans with tails as in Ramayana) and Ancient Light Bulb of Egypt.

Image

Ceilings and walls of this Temple of Hathor has many structures and paintings.
They show dogs, snakes with human like legs, monkey faced humans with tail, different animals like hippopotamus, eagle etc with human bodies seen along with humans.
Ramayana, the first poem in this world, composed by Valmiki, describes that Lord Brahma, the creator, ordered devas to send their energies to earth and few new races like Vanaras, Rikshas (Jambavan was Riksha-Raja) were created by mixing genetic material of celestial beings.
They had mighty physiques and super-human power+stamina to fight long wars.
The term Vanara can also be described as forest-dweller (vane carati iti vanara).
So, this must a special species and described as group of monkey-like humanoids.
The epic Mahabharata describes them as forest-dwelling, and mentions their being encountered by Sahadeva, a Pandava general who led a military campaign to south India.
Infact, Vanaras were genetically engineered from multiple species.
Image

In picture above, a Vanara is shows 2 knives in front of a light bulb.
Appearance of this Vanara matches with the description in Ramayana.

Kishkinda-Kanda of Ramayana indicates that Sugreeva ordered all subraces of Vanaras from all over the world to assemble in his capital. They were divided into 4 teams and sent into 4 different directions to search for Seetha, who was kidnapped by Ravana.
Within few days, almost 2 crores (20 million) Vanaras assembled in Kishkinda and later they all of them marched on Rama Sethu to reach Lanka and fight a war for 7 days, 7 nights with Ravana’s army.
Few must have arrived from Egypt too. Or few survivors of war must have settled there and continued their race for some time.

Image
This temple of Tentyra even depicts snakes with human like hands, wings and walking on 2 legs.
Birds and dogs with human bodies are also seen.

Image
Many such carvings prove that people travelled between India and Egypt for more than 4000 years.

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 » 15 Feb 2018 20:51

SBajwa wrote:Many such carvings prove that people travelled between India and Egypt for more than 4000 years.

The Vedic Mitanni kings of 1800 BC (3800 years ago) had treaties with Egypt. This is "recorded history"


sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 17 Feb 2018 07:05

A_Gupta wrote:https://www.seshmedewnetcher.com/blog/articles/86-dendera-light-bulb-explained


Thanks, but please do include a little description of what the link is all about, with your post :).

WRT the above - this Erich Von Daniken style of "I see a light bulb, so it is a light bulb!" analysis is pretty irritating. The guy was featured on some "history" documentary, and he kept doing this. He'd point to an Egyptian painting in which there were guys with some kind of belts which held something (like drums, maybe) close to their waists, and this guy (Erich) would point to that as irrefutable evidence of space suits and life-support systems in ancient Egypt! Because, come on, what else could they possibly be? (That was actually the extent of his analysis - i.e., "what else could it possibly be?"). He's written books like "Chariots of the Gods?" in exactly this style, and I LOLed at some of his musings on Hanuman's brave deeds, about how Hanuman dropped bombs and grenades (because the description in the Ramayana could only be deciphered in that precise way). He kept referring to the "Indra Gods" (by which he meant Devas, I suppose) and how they destroyed the "other Gods" (shades of Judaism and monotheism here?), and making other such gaffes. I was pretty young when I read this stuff, so I might not be recollecting all this accurately, but I distinctly remember "Indra Gods," "Hanuman deploying bombs and grenades," and also the TV documentary with this guy and his "space suits in ancient Egypt."

So when I see something like these Egyptian carvings, which supposedly depict Vanaras, Erich Von Daniken comes to mind. Not that the monkey figures in those carvings could not depict Ramayana scenes in some form, but some more credible analysis would be called for, than simply "what else could they be?"

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 17 Feb 2018 07:13

sudarshan wrote:Now, please tell me, the naked eye resolving limit being about 1 arc minute, is 9 arc minutes enough of a difference for a human observer, or not?


I'm guilty of a little oversight in my earlier post. The RA difference between Mizar and Alcor is indeed 19.5 arc minutes currently, and (if Voyager, Stellarium, etc. can be trusted) was around -8.7 arc minutes (Alcor being ahead of Mizar) back in 5900 BC. But this is not the same as angular separation.

Whether or not the stars can be distinguished by the naked eye, depends on the angular separation (not the RA difference), but which one is "ahead" on the celestial sphere depends on the RA difference (not on the angular separation).

I'll elaborate in a later post.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 18 Feb 2018 05:47

shiv wrote:Absolutely true and I have wondered about this and have asked myself - "Are the dates and links that I claim to be Indian more true than these seemingly outrageous claims?" My heart says yes - but my head tells me these Indians are not the first or only people to make outrageous claims that later on became "historic fact". We can see it all around us - starting from AIT itself.

So I told myself - when it comes to theories/hypotheses about what is "Indic" - it may be a better tactic to swamp the environment with a thousand outrageous and less outrageous claims and let them all compete freely with "established" information which may be rubbish. Let rubbish compete with rubbish and let the truth ultimately bubble up. So yes - I have been telling myself - if someone says "Arjunastan" - I say "OK, fine. No more outrageous than Aryans and Dravidians and Horse burial Kurgans in the Veda"


Balu: http://www.hipkapi.com/2018/02/13/heuri ... -to-avoid/
In certain phases of thinking, unbridled speculations have a serious contribution to make. After some time, it teaches one that there is a very interesting difference between disciplined speculations and speculations of other sorts and that one has to learn the former. However, the only way to learn the former is through the latter.


http://www.hipkapi.com/2011/04/23/argum ... -theories/
I have discovered that there is a fundamental difference between arguments and theory-building. As a philosopher, I have come to think that one could argue almost any position, within reasonable limits. Mostly, they consist of putting across plausible, or even logically possible considerations in order to show that either some point is plausible or that it could be true. Up to a point, arguments have a function: they force you to reason, check for inconsistencies, train your thinking process, etc. However, you must remember that ultimately all you have done is make a sentence or a set of sentences sound plausible or shown it to be logically consistent and possible. More often than not, it has a psychological purpose as well: that of shooting down some person, demonstrate intelligence, exhibit stupidity and so on. However exhilarating it might be at times, this is a very unproductive occupation, if carried on too far: one does not advance knowledge a great deal.

The second too involves reasoning, logic, etc but it tries to build some kind of a theory. Such an activity advances hypotheses, rejects or reformulates them, tries to solve problems and so on. Even where proved wrong, a fruitful hypothesis tells us something about the world. I find this an entirely different kettle of fish: it is far more difficult; it is subject to many more constraints than the first one; but it is even more exhilarating than the first one.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 18 Feb 2018 06:02

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ma ... 953074.cms
Nearly 20 skeletons of ancient Indians of the Indus Valley civilisation have been excavated in Rakhigarhi in Haryana in the last decade. Their DNA test results are supposed to be finally out this month. Leaked reports so far suggest nothing as surprising as the Cheddar Man’s skin tone or even the fact that there are living descendants of the 5,000-year-old Otzi the Iceman who was found in the Tyrollean Alps in 1991. Indeed, it seems today’s Haryanvi Jats are not very genetically different from those antediluvian Indians. Many Indians would not dispute that.


Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12856
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Postby Lalmohan » 21 Feb 2018 02:18

i see a fish head on a human body with a lion's tail... and the lightbulb appears to be a leaf with a snake on it...

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 22 Feb 2018 00:19

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature2 ... Bq0hmKQSEw
The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe
From around 2750 to 2500 BC, Bell Beaker pottery became widespread across western and central Europe, before it disappeared between 2200 and 1800 BC. The forces that propelled its expansion are a matter of long-standing debate, and there is support for both cultural diffusion and migration having a role in this process. Here we present genome-wide data from 400 Neolithic, Copper Age and Bronze Age Europeans, including 226 individuals associated with Beaker-complex artefacts. We detected limited genetic affinity between Beaker-complex-associated individuals from Iberia and central Europe, and thus exclude migration as an important mechanism of spread between these two regions. However, migration had a key role in the further dissemination of the Beaker complex. We document this phenomenon most clearly in Britain, where the spread of the Beaker complex introduced high levels of steppe-related ancestry and was associated with the replacement of approximately 90% of Britain’s gene pool within a few hundred years, continuing the east-to-west expansion that had brought steppe-related ancestry into central and northern Europe over the previous centuries.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12856
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Postby Lalmohan » 22 Feb 2018 02:32

beaker people continue to provide the base genetic stock of most modern britons and recent genetic studies also raises the prospect that the celts did not migrate to the british isles but are evolved beaker people, i.e. there are no celts, just a roman descriptor for the wild people they found on britannia

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 23 Feb 2018 08:17

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/ ... amily-tree
Ancient DNA upends the horse family tree

Horses radically changed human history, revolutionizing how people traveled, farmed, and even made war. Yet every time we think we’ve answered the question of where these animals came from, another study brings us back to square one. Such is the case with an extensive new study of ancient horse DNA, which largely disproves the current theory: that modern horses arose more than 5000 years ago in Kazakhstan. Instead, the new work suggests that modern-day domestic horses come from an as-yet-undiscovered stock.


Until now, many researchers had thought that the Botai culture, an ancient group of hunters and herders that relied on horses for food and possibly transport in what today is northern Kazakhstan, first harnessed horses 5500 years ago. Researchers have discovered horse meat fat and milk fat in Botai pottery, suggesting these people ate horses and kept mares in captivity for milking. Markings on horse teeth indicate that the Botai tethered the horses with bits and either rode or herded them, suggesting some degree of domestication. The site is also home to lots of horse bones, and modern genetic evidence has pointed to the region as the source of domestic horses.


With this history in mind, paleogeneticist Ludovic Orlando at CNRS, the French national research agency in Toulouse, and the University of Copenhagen decided to analyze the ancient DNA of these horses. “I expected to catch evolution red-handed, when domestication first started,” Orlando recalls.

He teamed up with longtime Botai zooarchaeologist Alan Outram from the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, and together they discovered an ancient corral at the site, another sign of domestication. They collected and later sequenced DNA from 20 Botai horse remains; they did the same for a similar number of horses living in various regions over the past 5000 years. They then compared these sequences to scores of already existing sequences, including Przewalski’s horses, and built a family tree showing which breeds were most closely related. The tree “was really quite a shock,” Orlando says.


For one, Przewalski’s horses were in the same part of the tree as the Botai horses. From their relationship, it was clear that these “wild” horses were escaped Botai horses, the team reports today in Science. “We have now found that there are no truly wild horses left” anywhere in the world, Outram says.

Another surprise was that all the other horses were on a separate branch of the tree, suggesting they were not Botai descendents as many have long thought. “We are now back to the intriguing question—who were the ancestors of our modern horses, and who were the peoples that were responsible for their early husbandry?” says Emmeline Hill, an equine scientist at University College Dublin who was not involved with the study.


Orlando and his colleagues lay out two possible scenarios to explain their family tree. In one, as Botai horsemen expanded to other parts of Europe and Asia, they bred their herds with so many wild species that almost none of the original Botai DNA remained. As a result, those horses don’t seem related to the Botai, even though they actually are.

In the second scenario, the Botai horses didn’t survive, and were replaced by horses domesticated elsewhere, creating at least two centers of horse domestication (as there may have been for dogs, cats, and other animals). Outram suspects that in addition to the Botai horses east of the Ural Mountains, there may have been domesticated horses to the west that won out thanks to migrations, he explains.

One major barrier remains to knowing which scenario is right: a dearth of DNA samples from between 4000 and 5000 years ago. So Orlando and his colleagues are collecting more. But another kind of DNA might help them in their work—ancient human DNA that details migration and population patterns from that time. Indeed, they already have some evidence from unpublished studies. But Outram is keeping quiet about that work. “My mouth is zipped for now.”

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10589
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 23 Feb 2018 08:21

The paper:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/e ... ce.aao3297
bstract

The Eneolithic Botai culture of the Central Asian steppes provides the earliest archaeological evidence for horse husbandry, ~5,500 ya, but the exact nature of early horse domestication remains controversial. We generated 42 ancient horse genomes, including 20 from Botai. Compared to 46 published ancient and modern horse genomes, our data indicate that Przewalski’s horses are the feral descendants of horses herded at Botai and not truly wild horses. All domestic horses dated from ~4,000 ya to present only show ~2.7% of Botai-related ancestry. This indicates that a massive genomic turnover underpins the expansion of the horse stock that gave rise to modern domesticates, which coincides with large-scale human population expansions during the Early Bronze Age.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: yensoy and 37 guests