Archaeologica.org

Beagle wrote:That's interesting Ishtar, although I know little of shamanism.

Few archaeologists do. But until they do have some understanding of it, they will continue to misunderstand so much of what they find, as what we call shamanism today was at the heart of everything the ancients thought and did.

Perhaps you can straighten me out, but I thought much of the knowledge of the Shaman was secret. So, how can it be at the heart of the unenlightened?

The only thing was, in order to be accepted at Harvard, Talageri was told that he would have to renounce all his theories on the Aryan invasion.

Quite frankly, I am surprised that anyone still considers the Aryan Invasion seriously. It just seems to be another colonial idea gone awry.

Ah-ha....Figures.

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/a ... awley.html

As scholars following Max Mullar had decided that the Aryans came into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus valley culture was earlier than this, they concluded that it had to be preAryan. Yet the rationale behind the late date for the Vedic culture given by Muller was totally speculative. Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era, believed in Biblical chronology. This placed the beginning of the world at 4000 BC and the flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became difficult to get the Aryans in India before 1500 BC.

Backed into it, apparently!

Forum Monk wrote:Perhaps you can straighten me out, but I thought much of the knowledge of the Shaman was secret. So, how can it be at the heart of the unenlightened?

I wouldn't say it was so much secret as hard won, and most people would not want to be a shaman as it takes over your life and you also need a lot of courage to do it.

But there are mamy many books these days on shamanism. If you're really interested, I cam recoomend Mchael Harmer's The Way of the Shaman as a good place to start.

The archaeologist needs to understand the thinking of the people who made the stuff he's digging up, otherwise, what the point of it? Surely the motivaton behind archaeology is to contribute to our understandig of who we are by learning more about who we were - it's not about who can find the oldest objects....is it?

Minimalist wrote:

As scholars following Max Mullar had decided that the Aryans came into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus valley culture was earlier than this, they concluded that it had to be preAryan. Yet the rationale behind the late date for the Vedic culture given by Muller was totally speculative. Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era, believed in Biblical chronology. This placed the beginning of the world at 4000 BC and the flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became difficult to get the Aryans in India before 1500 BC.

Apparently, Max Muller did recognise his mistake towards the end of his life, but no-one would listen to him.

Western Indologists would say that their theories have come a long way since Max Muller, and the linguists reckon they've created a more 'scientific' hypothesis....but I don't agree.

Yeah but such stories tend to inhabit the text books for a long time. They do a lot of damage in the process.

Morning Ishtar, you say the Archaelogists need to understand the thinking of those who made what he digs up. I do agree, and to me, that is the reason for the dig.
I can admire the workmanship of much that is recovered and desire it for that reason, but to understand our ancestors must be the ultimate goal.

Minimalist wrote:Yeah but such stories tend to inhabit the text books for a long time. They do a lot of damage in the process.

Min, I taught in an orphanage school in India, and the children are still reading history text books where Max Muller is held up as a hero because he discovered the Aryan invasion.

Of course!

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?actio ... s&id=26929

Lahore, May 8 : A team of American, Pakistani and Japanese archaeologists has claimed the discovery of rare objects in the Cholistan Desert, raising hopes of the presence of ruins identical to the civilisations of Mohenjodaro and Harappa.

Archaeologists from Wisconsin, the Research Institute of Humanities and Nature, Tokyo and the Department of Archaeology, Punjab University, say they have discovered a rare copper seal, a terracotta block, three wedge-shaped bricks, pottery with distinct potter marks and four unicorns from the dried-out channel of the Hakra river.

Archaeologists may have found another large city along a dried riverbed. I read one report that said science would be finding many cities and towns and it will take many years to properly excavate them. That reminds me of mesoamerica where they are still finding ancient communities.

From Archaeologica News.

Beagle - this is the Indus valley seal yogi they're talking about, dated around 3,000 BC:



He compares very well with this one, found in Denmark on what's become known as the Gundestrop cauldron, dated around 1,000 BC.



Now how did something so Indian get to Denmark? Answers on a postcard please.....

Hi Ishtar, thanks for that pic.

Now - how did something like that wind up in Denmark? And at that time no less.

Ishtar, it's been hard for me to keep up with much for the last two weeks, and that will probably continue through this week. I am one busy old fool.

Next week I hope to be back on track in terms of looking at the archaeology of the Indus civilization, although I know little about it.

It seems to me that you have a lot of knowledge and expertise here. I would really appreciate you posting anything here that pops up. Please?

I'll pmail you when I get a chance. Thanks.

OK, Beagle, here’s a tasty morsel for you, straight from Stephen Knapp’s Proof of Vedic Culture’s Global Existence.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Proof-Vedic-Cul ... 207&sr=8-1


“The whole of Europe was administered in ancient times by a Sanskrit-speaking clan known as the Daityas. Danu and Merk were two leaders of this ancient clan, and it is these two names that are combined to make Danumerk or Denmark. Count Biornstiern, himself a Scandinavian, is no doubt right in determining in his book The Theogony of the Hindus: ‘It appears that the Hindu settlers migrated to Scandinavia before the Mahabharata War.’ [This is around 3,000 BC, Ishtar]

“The name Scandinavia itself is an indication of the Vedic, Sanskrit roots of the region. Scanda (or Skanda) is the warrior son of Lord Shiva and commander in chief of the divine army. The Sanskrit word ‘naviya’ signifies a naval expedition or a settlement. The region is thus a Vedic settlement initiated by a naval exhibition in the name of Skanda. Such an exhibition was undertaken by the Vedic Kshatriya warriors who obviously populated the region. On page 53 of his book India in Greece, Edward Pococke observes that the European, Scandinavian and Indian Kshatriya warrior castes are identical.....

“The ancient names Sveringe for Sweden and Norge for Norway come from the Sanskrit terms Swarga and Narka....

“The ancient Vedas that the Kshatriyas followed were also transported to Scandinavia. Later, they became the Eddas....close study reveals many similarities in the tales of the Eddas and the Vedas....”

There’s more, but I don’t want to bore you. Really, you should get the book...there’s everything in there you want to know, except you do have to watch out for the odd sweeping statement with no sources quoted to back it up.

By the way, the fact that both seated figures (on the seal and the cauldron) are wearing animal antlers and are surrounded with animals points to a shamanic culture, not a yogic one. The shamans were in the ascendant around 3,000 BC, not the yogis, and they would wear animal headdresses and sometimes dress in animal skins. The animals these two are surrounded by would be their 'power animals' who would have helped them in their journeys to the underworld and upper worlds.

I think some historian somewhere must have made the arbitrary decision that the figure must be a yogi, because India still doesn't admit that Hinduism's roots are in shaminism.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 080107.php

A radically expanded view of the origin of civilization, extending far beyond Mesopotamia, is reported by journalist Andrew Lawler in the 3 August issue of Science.

Mesopotamia is widely believed to be the cradle of civilization, but a growing body of evidence suggests that in addition to Mesopotamia, many civilized urban areas existed at the same time – about 5,000 years ago – in an arc that extended from Mesopotamia east for thousands of kilometers across to the areas of modern India and Pakistan, according to Lawler.

A radical new view of early civilization. From todays' Archaeologica News.