Indus Valley Civilization.

Random older topics of discussion

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Re: R1a

Post by Beagle » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:09 pm

Cognito wrote:
Beags, you're missing out on yDNA R1a vis a vis India.

Cogs, when you get a chance, help me out with that one. What do you mean by "vis a vis" India?
Sorry Beags, it's been a real busy day here today with people giving me lots of excuses to fire their asses. 8) Earlier, you mentioned that yDNA was not important in migrations. As a quick response, look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1_(Y-DNA)

At one time it was thought that the Brahmin caste in India was primarily made up of yDNA R1a individuals and this belief became part of the "Aryan Invasion Theory" with its overtones of superiority, now discounted. On the contrary, yDNA R1a with its origin in the Ukraine/Caucasus region, entered India as part of the dispersal migration from west to east during the late Pleistocene/early Holocene. Migrating genetic groups include men as well as women who take their cultural affinities and mythologies with them (plus lots of other mental baggage). The Brahmins, being somewhere around 33% yDNA R1a or so, certainly affected others around them with their imported beliefs.

And don't tell me that R1a originated in India or we'll need to have therapy with one of Charlie's hand axes! :D
Hi Cogs, sorry you've had one of "those" days. We all understand that.

OK-first things first. I was referring to mDNA when I said that it only showed where the women went. Of course you know that, and I guess I should check to see if I made a typo, but I don't have the same problem with yDNA (nuclear). The nuclear genome will eventually answer everything.

From the Wiki link you posted:
However, another study showed the R1a lineage forms around 35-45% among all the castes in North Indian population (Namita Mukherjee et al. 2001) and the Badagas of the Nilgiris making the association with the Brahmin caste more vague. A further study (Saha et al 2005) examined R1a1 in South Indian tribals and Dravidian population groups more closely, and questioned the concept of its Indo-Iranian origin. Most recently Sengupta et al. (2006) have confirmed R1a's diverse presence including even Indian tribal and lower castes (the so-called untouchables) and populations not part of the caste system. From the diversity and distinctiveness of microsatellite Y-STR variation they conclude that there must have been an independent R1a1 population in India dating back to a much earlier expansion than the Indo-Aryan migration.
I read the first study that supports what you're saying also. This haplotype is thought to have originated in central Asia 30,000 BC.

That is the reason that I said in a previous post that the Indus river culture (not civilization) extended only back 10,000 yrs. Ergo, the Holocene comment. So the issue is not if this haplotype is present in India, but when did it get there. Still a question in my mind, and in other researchers according to your link.

I may have more thoughts on it later Cogs, but after a day of firing people you should kick back and have a cold one. :wink:

I'll give this more thought. Thanks.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:43 pm

marduk wrote:ok I don't get it
this claims
Indus Valley civilization was much more varied and wider than historians believed
basing it on some evidence of the Mehrgarh site
it then goes on and says
the evidence is not conclusive enough to link the Neolithic horizon of Mehrgarh with the nest state of human cultural development,
which means basically that there is no evidence to link the officially oldest site in India with the harapan civilisation
besides which even if you could it would be like linking stonehenge with central london as in its pretty certain that you could trace a bloodline from one to the other but not that the latter got any of its technology from the former

Mehrgarh some of you no doubt will be surprised to hear is one of my favourite indian sites and as a result I know a surprising amount about it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh
I love it because you can link to wikipedia and say things like
Mergarh first period was aceramic
and then when people say "wow thats advanced for 7000bce" and ask about the pottery you say
I said aceramic dumbo that means they didn't even have a pot to piss in
aceramic - no ceramics at all
:lol:
For starters here, you're incorrect about the Indus Valley civilization, but I expect you've come to realize that by now.

The other statement about a pot to piss in is also wrong. Before ceramics, there were clay pots, they just weren't fire hardened, nor had glazing materials mixed in with it. You can look it up.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:46 pm

marduk wrote:lol so what is this now
you are reporting non news
there is no evidence so lets write a news report saying that there is
the Vedas are no older than 1500bce and there is no archaeological evidence to say otherwise either
there are reasons why you would know this Beagle if you had heard about them before Hancock mentioned them in fingerpaints
:lol:

so i guess i can now start saying things like
the war of the worlds may be older than the victorian era because the river thames discussed in it was present in england during the ice age
Your second post in this thread is incorrect as well. The Vedas are much older than 1500 BC. I'll bet you've come to know that by now too.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:50 pm

marduk wrote:no actually in this case they love it because it proves that there isnt a land bridge there unless you think coral is a good material for building bridges out of
I think Hancock tried to claim it was a real bridge but obviously that was just more crap which you seem to have picked up on thinking it was Gospel
still heres the truth from wiki
Rama's Bridge, also called Adam's Bridge is a chain of limestone shoals, between the islands of Mannar, near northwestern Sri Lanka, and Rameswaram, off the southeastern coast of India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams_Bridge
not that you'll even bother to click on the link
"i reject reality and substitute my own" (typical pseudoscientific comment)
you two should add this to your signatures
:lol:
You need to study coral. You'll realize that it grows on underwater structures. NASA says there is a land bridge. And they didn't even bother to ask you what you thought.
Last edited by Beagle on Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:55 pm

marduk wrote:its a well known pseudoscientific site and you know it
I also know where you got it from
This is an article that I've had for some time in "favorites",
you mean a month
been reading the hall of maat again havent you
http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,43 ... msg-438355
here were some of the better replies
The whole thing smells fishy.
I would say its far more valuable from an anthropological perspective than an archaeological one

Lots of suspicious quotes from scientists and some ludicrous statements about evolution and the big bang.
so par for the course
a lot of the articles on this site have been proclaimed as true on the Hancock site and blasted as rubbish by Indian archaeologists and historians but I expect that youd say they were all club members too
:lol:
Well, where to start here? That site is an Indian archaeology site. If I bring an article here and post I always say where I got it, unless I googled it. Where have you been?

I don't belong to the Hancock site and never have. You have though. You are obviously fascinated with him.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:56 pm

marduk wrote:
I've got a lot of literature on this subject, but I'll probably give it a rest for today, I've got a lot to do.
I've studied this subject at length
so I really can't wait for your posts
:lol:
So far, there is not a lick of evidence that this is true.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:59 pm

marduk wrote:
may have been in one of Hancock's books
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
ahahahahahahahahaahahahahaa
ahaahhahaahahahahahaa
ahahaahahahahahaa
ahahhaahahahah
you guys crack me up
:lol:
There is no one in this forum that would post something as foolish as that.
Maybe you can talk someone in to it so that you don't look like the only crazy person here.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:01 pm

marduk wrote:
I think I googled "Out of India Theory". Not sure though.

great work Beagle
though I expect youd have more success if you googled "aryan invasion theory" or "max mueller"
:lol:
you know who max mueller is dont you ?
just that you've never mentioned him before now anywhere despite claiming to have loads of sites in your favourites folder
im taking it that means you put stuff in your favourites folder that you haven't
a) read
b) understood
not until Hancock explains it to you first eh
:roll:
Max Mueller is outdated. When did you read some of this stuff?

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:02 pm

marduk wrote:
Here they are. All of the Vedic texts are in this website actuallly. I've just been reading these and I'm about to move on.
you just googled that didnt you
how many tries did you have at spelling Mahabharata
you might have noticed this translation states at the top of the page
This is an abridged verse translation of the two longest epic poems in world literature, the Ramayana and Mahabharata.
so really
its a worthless link
you can download the real text of the Mahabharata here
http://www.dvaita.org/sources/mbtn/
the full Ramayana is available here
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/index.htm

but this stuff isn't any good really
I'm quite surprised that you havent linked to a source for the vedas really
or the
Bhagwad Gita
or the
upanashids
or the
Ithihaas
or the puranas
Agamas
or the jain scriptures
or any oth the other various very relevant hindu texts you obviously dont know about at the same time claiming to be an expert
this veda site is pretty cool
http://www.vedamu.org/
it will actually chant them to you
the ramayana and the Mahabharata date from about the same time as the pentuteuch and if anything are even less credible
they are actually called poems
i.e. not factual history
:lol:
Another silly post. Steve that's plain foolish. :roll:

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:04 pm

marduk wrote:so if they were still mining for flint 9000 years ago how were they also flying around in vimanas powered by mercury powered engines and attacking Atlantis 3000 years earlier
:lol:
Post something semi-intelligent so that I can correct it for you.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:05 pm

marduk wrote:flint powered engines
hmmm
now why didnt i think of that
also
why didnt the authors of the mahabarat think of that
its almost as if they were making it up as they went along
surely at that stage in history the only viable engine source was ass power
Image
:lol:
Stick with cartoons. They make more sense.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:09 pm

marduk wrote:
In that sense, I think it lends strength to the "out of India" theory.
this will be fun
I'm betting that at not any time have you ever checked the source of any claim made for flying chariots and especically not taken it in context
for instance:-
did you notice that the only gods who are ever mentioned in these flying craft are sun gods, or gods of heaven
how do you equate that with the solar barque of Ra which the ancient egyptians said carried the sun across the heavens each day
think that was evidence fo advanced technology too ?
:lol:
I'm hoping you realise that pretty much all the ancient world believed that the earth was surrounded by water and believed that all the distant points we call light were merely swimming around in the fluid

now what do you think an ancient text means when it says "the holy vessel of the sun god travels through the heavens"
why do you think some pseudohistorians have decided to translate the word vessel as "aircraft, spaceship, intergalactic cruiser". think thats supported by the evidence do you ?

and what is the "out of india" theory when its supposed to be at home
sounds like complete crap imo
India shows no evidence of advanced civilisation until Harappa
which dates from the third millenium and is still believed to have been founded by migrations from the north
the now discounted aryan invasion theory stated that Aryans invaded in 1500bce and civilised the country
this was at a time when orthodoxy believed that Bishop Ushers 4004bce chronology was still credible
at some point you'll start accepting scientific evidence to build your theories on Beagle
but you'll have to get over your personal belief and imagination founded on erroneous pseudohistory first
and I don't think you're big enough to do that
so please
I'd love to see some you post some links from credible sources that discuss ancient advanced technology
in fact
I can't wait
:twisted:
If you are aware that the Aryan Invasion Theory is now discounted, why are you so unaware of the other new developments?

You must've just looked that up.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:15 pm

marduk wrote:
Obviously Cogs, the proponents of the Out of India theory (see my post above from Wiki) are referring to the spread of culture and language, etc, and not of people.
you think language and culture spreads independantly of peopel then
amazing
they had tvs to do this I expect
:lol: :lol:
Take time to read about it. I think you'll change your mind. Early India was a seafaring civilization also, which would expedite the flow of culture with trade.
crap it was
it was based inland
The ancient mines in Afghanistan have been worked before there was a civilization in Sumeria
duh
then maybe you should look up Ubaiadians and see whats been found at their sites everything from carnelian, obsidian, turquoise, amethyst, lapis lazuli, ivory, shells, and. amazonite beads.
you seem to think that until the Sumerians turned up Mesopotamia was uninhabited
do you actually make this stuff up or do you actually know anything at all
your claim that the afghanistan mines were solely used by ancient indians is complete crap
Afghanistan at that period was completely under the control of the ancient iranians
who were building Ziggurats at the same period that the mines were being used
and whos ancient sites turn up lapis lazuli in large amounts
you think people were coming all the way from india on donkeys with shovels don't you beagle
maybe you should look up the word trade and see how it functions
:lol:
This civilization was not based inland. You must have looked at a modern map. :lol: It also extended down part of the west coast of India.

The trade from India came by way of boats.

The mines were being worked long before there was any kind of Ziggurat.

Read on but pay more attention.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:18 pm

marduk wrote:
Obviously Cogs, the proponents of the Out of India theory (see my post above from Wiki) are referring to the spread of culture and language, etc, and not of people.
you think language and culture spreads independantly of peopel then
amazing
they had tvs to do this I expect
:lol: :lol:
Take time to read about it. I think you'll change your mind. Early India was a seafaring civilization also, which would expedite the flow of culture with trade.
crap it was
it was based inland
The ancient mines in Afghanistan have been worked before there was a civilization in Sumeria
duh
then maybe you should look up Ubaiadians and see whats been found at their sites everything from carnelian, obsidian, turquoise, amethyst, lapis lazuli, ivory, shells, and. amazonite beads.
you seem to think that until the Sumerians turned up Mesopotamia was uninhabited
do you actually make this stuff up or do you actually know anything at all
your claim that the afghanistan mines were solely used by ancient indians is complete crap
Afghanistan at that period was completely under the control of the ancient iranians
who were building Ziggurats at the same period that the mines were being used
and whos ancient sites turn up lapis lazuli in large amounts
you think people were coming all the way from india on donkeys with shovels don't you beagle
maybe you should look up the word trade and see how it functions
:lol:
You're repeating yourself. I've already told you that the mines are more ancient than Persia or Sumeria.

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:21 pm

marduk wrote:
Sorry Cogs, I had to get a late lunch. Here are some of my feelings about this.
I never said that India was a "mother culture". I don't hold any centrist views and don't believe in any mother culture. It makes more sense to me that civilizations and cultures traded knowledge, as well as goods. For instance, there seems to be a possibility that certain kinds of metallurgy came to India from the west.
you claimed that the out of india theory was valid

The mDNA findings show us where women went - nothing more. There is no genetic evidence that Alexander the Great occupied Persia with his army, although there is a lot of Greek spoken there. And more than a few blue-eyed people. Genetics continues to be a young science and I don't rely on it except for nomadic hunter-gatherer societies.
you know nothing about dna clearly
the women followed the men, do you think vast groups of women were being deported willy nilly and their menfolk were "oh thats cool should confuse genetic scientists in the future"
:lol:
A quick word about ancient India. When we were young we learned about the Indus Valley and Mojenjo-daro. Well, throw all of that out - it's obsolete. The Indus civilization was centered around two (not one) mighty rivers. Until recently this was not known. I posted a map showing the extent of this culture and it shows it to be the largest early civilization in the world. The Vedic texts even speak of a war with Ceylon (Sri Lanka) which suggests it was even larger.
when I was young the aryan invasion theory had long been discounted
you are confusing the claims made by pseudohistorians such as hancock who claims his evidence disproves the AIT when in fact it was never generally accepted by the orthodox hostorical community
it was a political tool used to subjugate a nation and not a proven historical fact. even the man who came up with it (max mueller) recanted it. I see however that for your belief to flourish you need to believe that outdated information is still valid so that you can then say "aha I am clever"
thats how pseudohistory works Beags
it creates a straw man argument and then bedazzles its readers by easily destroying it
when you actually study the culture a little better from proper sources you will soon see the truth of this
:lol:
The second river, the Sarasvati, was mentioned many times in the earliest Vedic texts. The ancient river bed has been found. Scientists have determined that the river dried up by 1900BC at the very latest. Also that it may have taken centuries for this to happen. The Vedas, in the Brahmayain I think, mentions that the Sarasvati is drying up. This text is far from the oldest Vedic text.
what the texts say is irrelevant
you are basing scientific study on a religious text. you don't do that with the bible yet you think the hindu texts are more valid. they are stories about mythology, they are not a geologists fieldbook
:lol:
For this reason the Indus Vally civilization is being redated to a much older time. As usual, the old fossils refuse to budge, but they are clearly out of step now. An article was posted in this forum recently about the ancient Harrapan script being translated finally. It was described as being proto-Sumerian among other things.

it has nothing to do with that at all. it is being redated purely in pseudohistoric circles.
to redate something you need scientific evidence. there are a range of carbon dates from most of the Harappan cities. none of them are older than 3000bce
This is a lot to think about. I've got a lot to post but I think I'll hold up a little and let some folks get caught up. I would appreciate it if you want to post contradictory articles or papers for discussion. Thanks Cogs.
aha so i'm playing catchup.
:lol:
I'm sure your friend is busy screaminng "I know everything about this and you know nothing". His usual mantra
should read
I'm sure your friend is busy screaminng "I know everything about this and you know nothing". His usual 100% correct mantra
Yes - you're playing catch up. Pretty obvious.
!00% right? You haven't right about anything so far.

Locked