Page 8 of 21
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:18 pm
by Beagle
Digit wrote:On the basis of recent genetic analysis Beag it seems possible that the first people into India are the present day Andaman Islanders. Their genetic code seems to represent the earliest people out of Africa and into Asia that are currently traceable.
That could well be Digit, I don't know. Erectus was there much earlier of course. I'm also not certain as to the age of the flint mines at Sindh, as Cogs mentioned one of the tools as being Acheulian.
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:30 pm
by Beagle
Beags, the Aryan Invasion Theory has been dead for some time. There was a significant influx of R1a into India from the Caucasus region during the late Pleistocene/early Holocene, but who said that was an "invasion"? I am familiar with the satellite pictures of the Saraswati River and its connection to the Vedas as well as the claims made for the Gulf of Cambay. However, there is nothing impressive to be found in the gulf so far, just a lot of wishful speculation and a few artifacts that could have easily washed downstream.
I didn't know it was completely dead Cogs, but that does save some time then.
About the R1a, I must have thought you were correlating that with the Aryan invasion. I misunderstood then. !0,000 BC of course is long before any recognized civilization in the area.
The site in the Gulf of Cambay is an archaeological work in progress, so any thoughts we post on it would be complete conjecture.
The Vedas give clues as to the antiquity of an Indus/Saraswati culture however. I don't grasp the Vedic astronomy in them but some authors are certain that it suggests the civilization dating from 7,000 BC.
But I guess we're still on the migrations right now.
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:31 pm
by Digit
I haven't checked on the net Beag but images I have seen before indicate that the Andaman Islanders, as with native Australians, seem to be physically nearer to suggested ideas of Erectus than HSS.
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:43 pm
by Beagle
Now you've piqued my curiousity Digit, I'll have to look that up.
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:01 pm
by Beagle
http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/kach/ ... utch1.html
This site has a lot of clickable topics on it, but my main reason for putting it up is that it is loaded with maps.
Aryan Invasion
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:48 pm
by Cognito
I didn't know it was completely dead Cogs, but that does save some time then.
About the R1a, I must have thought you were correlating that with the Aryan invasion. I misunderstood then. 10,000 BC of course is long before any recognized civilization in the area.
Yes Beags, the Aryan Invasion idea is dead. That speculation probably had its roots in European colonialism that conveniently explained India's ancient civilisations as a by-product of white people. I was referring to a substantial R1a migration from the Caucasus area that went east, traveling through India at an earlier date,
before the Indo-Aryan migration (read the conclusion at the bottom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1_(Y-DNA)
No "invasion" necessary.
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:18 pm
by Beagle
Our thinking is much closer than I thought Cogs, but I remember another source that mentioned entry around 10,000 BC. The Kurgans were a culture in the chalcolithic era. There is some evidence that the Indus culture goes back as far as 7,000 BC. We'll see what pans out.
We had a poster here that was a real Gimbutas devotee. he really knew his stuff about the Kurgans and showed that they were a matriarchal society. Can't say that I'm a Gimbutas fan.
Very interesting Cogs and I thank you for your insight. If you have some relevant articles about the Indus - throw 'em up. Later.
Kurgans
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:38 pm
by Cognito
We had a poster here that was a real Gimbutas devotee. he really knew his stuff about the Kurgans and showed that they were a matriarchal society. Can't say that I'm a Gimbutas fan.
Beags, Gimbutas' ideas are interesting but she missed the mark as far as Kurgan "invasions" into Europe. She described the Kurgans as a patriarchal society, taking out matriarchal Goddess-worship societies across Neolithic Europe. Human genetics does not match her hypothesis and I believe "invasions" are really "migrations" of peoples in the first place, with the occasional pillaging and plundering that comes along with it.
Recent genetic evidence demonstrates that late Pleistocene Europeans weren't "replaced" by anyone at all.
To that extent, we agree. My observation is that there was an influx of R1a people into India during or after the Younger Dryas as part of an eastward-moving migration. They didn't migrate since things were so great at home either (poor climate, bad karma, etc.). Otherwise, why bother?
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:11 pm
by Beagle
I've been gardening most of the day, but I looked at my post earlier. I still can't figure out why I brought up the Kurgans, let alone misquote Daybrown. I didn't even drink any beer yesterday. Maybe that's the problem.
Sorry about any confusion.
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:24 pm
by Minimalist
That's a fairly reasonable excuse.
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:03 am
by Beagle
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstor ... sid=223720
Chandigarh, February 22: THE excavations in Rakhigarhi, situated in Hisar, Haryana, have pushed back the history of civilisation by more than 500 years. “It is the largest Harappan site ever found,” said the director of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), New Delhi, Dr Amerendra Nath, while delivering a lecture on ‘Rakhigarhi - A Harappan Metropolis’ at the ICSSR Complex, Panjab University, today. The lecture was organised by the Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, PU.
“The site yielded finds of the early Harappan and mature Harappan phase,” said Dr Nath. He said that features like knowledgeof writing, use of wedge-shaped bricks and town planning, earlier thought to be present in the mature phase i.e 2500 BC, were discovered to be present in the early phase i.e 3000 BC. Evidence of well-planned towns were found, he said.
This article is out today in the Daily Grail. The goalposts of civilization in the Indus/Sarasvati culture have been moved back 500 years. Compared to other areas of the world, particularly the middle east, archaeology on an extensive scale is relatively new.
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:18 am
by Minimalist
Evidence of well-planned towns were found, he said.
Then they have to keep digging until they start to find evidence of towns that were not so well-planned.
City planning, like everything else, could not have sprung up fully formed.
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:57 pm
by Beagle
I've been looking for a location map of Rakhigarhi but I give up. I'll just say that it's located by the dry riverbed of the former Sarasvati river.
The Sarasvati discovery is also new so maps must be rare.
This city is a major urban center like Harrapa on the Indus. These discoveries have turned Indian archaeology on it's ear. I'm astounded at the dates being confirmed.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:42 pm
by Beagle
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encycloped ... origin.htm
At this point we have to - in order to keep the text short - simply summarize a couple of evidences which point to a much earlier date of the Rg-Veda than what is generally given by modern Western or even Indian scholars. The Rg-Veda contains astronomical references which are based on a knowledge of the phenomenon of precession. The Vedic culture expressed through the Rg-Veda employed sidereal time. Thus the points of vernal equinox or winter solstice would be mentioned as having occurred or occurring in particular lunar constellations, called naksatras. It is relatively simple to calculate on that basis what the dates of a vernal equinox mentioned in the text were according to our calendar.
In this way we get the following table:
Degree Naksatra Date
07o 00' Pisces Uttarabhadra c. 1991 AD, Today
00o 00' Aries Asvini c. 400 AD, Puranic Era
23o 20' Aries Bharani c. 1280 BC, Vedanga Jyotisa
06o 40' Taurus Krttika c. 2250 BC, Late Vedic Age
00o 00' Gemini Mrgasira c. 4000 BC, Middle Vedic Age
26o 20' Gemini Punarvasu c. 6000 BC, Early Vedic Age
05o 00'
Cancer Pusya c. 6500 BC, Early Vedic Age
The dates in the above table can be supported by a number of quotes from the Rg-Veda, too numerous to be quoted in this paper.
This link is posted only for the above table. I am not knowledgable about astronomy. I know Monk said he knew something about it and there may be others. Even a lurker out there, if you can help with this question, please register for at least this one thing.
Does this table represent actual dates or can they be multiple dates and the author is cherry picking the ones' he prefers?
The Rig Vedas have a lot of this astronomy in them. I have other articles that are suggesting a start date for the Vedic texts at 6500 BC.
Before posting any more on that, I would appreciate any input.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:54 pm
by Forum Monk
I'll check this when I get home this evening, but already I am suspicious (without actually reading the article). Does the author claim they used degrees and minutes????
