dwai

Sugriva’s Atlas - 14000 years back

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, dwai said:

wrong. There are settlements dating back to 7500 BCE :) 


 

 

who said so? Hasn’t been deciphered yet 

Yes but their effects still linger, but won’t for too long. India is purging itself of that scourge. 

 

If you can link to those 7500 BC settlements I would like to read it.

 

Are you going to scourge the game of cricket too?  I hope not.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Apech said:

 

If you can link to those 7500 BC settlements I would like to read it.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/haryanas-bhirrana-oldest-harappan-site-rakhigarhi-asias-largest-asi/articleshow/46926693.cms

Quote

 

Are you going to scourge the game of cricket too?  I hope not.

 

 

Frankly, *NOWADAYS* I think it's a waste of human potential to spend time on that game. :D 

And it's not just cricket -- most sports are boring. The most boring of them all is American Commercial Breaks FootBall :D 

 

(but I loved Cricket when I used to live in India and actually play it). 

However, most Indians don't agree with me...and they get to kick British keisters on the cricket pitch (more often nowadays than not)... :P

 

 

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dwai said:

An interesting video on the Ice age on Earth --

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

It is very clear that there were grasslands and tropical rainforests in the Indo-Malay region.

 

I am sure there where and not denying it .

 

What I was denying  was your statement that the subcontinent was  NOT EFFECTED during the ice age . It clearly was and the references YOU supplied showed I was right and you where wrong . 

 

Not moving the goal post a little here are you ? 

 

22 hours ago, dwai said:

 

The time period that is being proposed in the OP is towards the end of the last ice age, and so not implausible in terms of the development of civilization. 

 

 

 

Okay ,   so NOT  'a civilisation'  now   but moving towards the  'development  of civilisation'  .  .  .    a few thousand years later .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

I don't think anyone is disputing that India was not under ice during the ice age - or that there was human occupation. 

 

My dear fellow, lease do not upset the array of red herrings that have been carefully and neatly laid across our path .

 

Unless you plan on making a meal out of them .

 

 

kerala-style-fish-curry-03-720x720.jpg

 

21 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

 

But where is the evidence for anything that might be called a civilisation?  I don't think cave painting do it really since they exist in many places going back to maybe 35,000 BC and even before.

 

 

 

I have been involved in debates about what civilisation actually means . Some have a very wide definition , but it usually does not include  only the ability to hunt and gather and do cave art .

 

That is REALLY stretching it !

 

Aussie rock art goes back 40,000 years .

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

I am sure there where and not denying it .

 

What I was denying  was your statement that the subcontinent was  NOT EFFECTED during the ice age . It clearly was and the references YOU supplied showed I was right and you where wrong . 

If I understood you correctly, your contention was that the entire world was a deep-freezer and that was basic high-school geography knowledge. :) 

12 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Not moving the goal post a little here are you ? 

Actually, I'm not. What constitutes "towards the end of the Ice age"? 1000 years? 5000 years? 10,000 years? If we go back 5000 years from the 11500 BCE, we are in the vicinity of 16500 BCE. The hypothesis along the lines of the OP puts the Rig Vedic times to around 17500-21000 BCE (as a  range, and I've seen variations thereof).

 

12 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

 

Okay ,   so NOT  'a civilisation'  now   but moving towards the  'development  of civilisation'  .  .  .    a few thousand years later .

 

 

Why is it implausible to consider for a moment that such a civilization might have started developing around 17500-21000 BCE and then developed/refined into the Ramayana period around 12000 BCE? Surely 8-5K years is enough time for such development to occur?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

My dear fellow, lease do not upset the array of red herrings that have been carefully and neatly laid across our path .

 

Unless you plan on making a meal out of them .

 

 

kerala-style-fish-curry-03-720x720.jpg

That looks like a delicious meal :P 

10 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

I have been involved in debates about what civilisation actually means . Some have a very wide definition , but it usually does not include  only the ability to hunt and gather and do cave art .

 

That is REALLY stretching it !

 

Aussie rock art goes back 40,000 years .

 

 

Yes yes...the Bhimbetka site goes back to 200,000 years and many of the artifacts are from around that 30k-40k time period as well.  

 

On another note, would you consider the aboriginals of Australia to be a civilization or just hunter-gatherers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dwai said:

There is sufficient scriptural evidence, and the Sarasvati-Indus valley civilization (SVC) being the late Vedic one shows sufficient archaeological evidence of civilization there as early as 7500 BCE. The motifs and artifacts there are strikingly Vedic (fire altars, yogic posture, pasupathinath seals etc). 

 

 

Except thise 'motiffs' on seals from IVC dated   3300 – c. 1300 BCE  not 7500 BCE.

 

21 hours ago, dwai said:

 

 


 

There is sufficient geological evidence to show that the sarasvati river was real and not a mythological river that the Europeans dismissed away. There is evidence to show that this river started to run dry around 2900 BCE due to plate shifts, hence marking the decline of the SVC not as a defeat of Dravidians but as an exodus to the gangetic plains and further south.  

 

Well, I study anthropology and I learned that a climate change and a failure of ONE of the monsoon cycles caused the IVC not to end but to shift  east and south and adopt new crops more efficient to area and climate .  NOT  that invading Aryans drove out or ended the IVC .    That idea is really old and outdated .

 

You know, in the past, even the British Museum had a view of  world history based on the Bible .  They had a chart up showing the Tower of Babel and how it collapsed and all the  sons of Ham went in different  directions with their confused languages and set up the different civilizations .   But we got over that .     You may as well criticise ' the sciences' for saying (in the past )  that India was founded by Hams third son , Put .

 

 

 

21 hours ago, dwai said:

 

Recently scientists have found a massive river bed (now dried up) in the Thar desert dating up to 175000 years back, with several large Paleolithic sites on its banks. 

 

Are Palaeolithic sites 'civilisation' ?

 

 

21 hours ago, dwai said:


The entire Aryan vs Dravidian angle was manufactured by the Europeans to justify their expansionary lust. 

Genetic data shows a minor genetic separation between North Indian and South Indian populations, but from around 6000 BCE, and not due to the so-called Aryan invasion (or migration for that matter). 

 

So, what do you think caused this separation back at 6000 BCE  ?

 

(thats actually the crux of this issue , NOT that it just cancels out this defunct AIT . )

 

21 hours ago, dwai said:

 

However this topic is heavily politicized, primarily due to the European indology muddying the water due to British imperialistic ambitions. 

 

yep , thats partially right , but lets add a few spoonfulls of Indian nationalism to the mix as well   ;) 

 

 

21 hours ago, dwai said:

Which is why, studies such as these (OP) are very important. 

 

But they need to be examined , just as the sometimes biased claims of the west where examined , in light of new findings .  But shifting the goal posts ,   not answering the questions and other 'tactics'  ( like claiming  sub continent  was never effected by the ice age  and claiming cave art represents civilisation ) is rather disingenuous and   doesnt really help your case . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dwai said:

If I understood you correctly, your contention was that the entire world was a deep-freezer and that was basic high-school geography knowledge. :) 

 

See!   You are doing it again !

 

There was NO contention on my part . It was merely a response to YOUR claim that ... and I repeat it yet again ... that the subcontinent was unaffected by the ice age .

 

Imagine what you want ; that I said ... or you 'understood me correctly '  to say (even though I never suggested anything of the sort )  that the entire world was a deep freezer .

 

What the Hell are you on about ???   :D 

 

Shall I now add 'putting words in my mouth ' as well as moving goal posts , laying red herrings, etc.  etc .

 

DUDE !

 

1. You say ' subcontinent was unaffected during ice age ' .

 

2 .  I say it was effected .

 

3. You say, no it wasnt and then post material to show that it WAS .

 

4 . I point out that you just posted material to show that it WAS effected  .

 

5.   You then claim it is my " contention was that the entire world was a deep-freezer and that was basic high-school geography knowledge. "

 

Here ya go mate  :

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/online-debate-speech-negotiation-classes?r=AU&IR=T

 

 

18 minutes ago, dwai said:

Actually, I'm not. What constitutes "towards the end of the Ice age"? 1000 years? 5000 years? 10,000 years? If we go back 5000 years from the 11500 BCE, we are in the vicinity of 16500 BCE. The hypothesis along the lines of the OP puts the Rig Vedic times to around 17500-21000 BCE (as a  range, and I've seen variations thereof).

 

anything before it ends .   Its a play on words   if not a goal post shift

 

18 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

Why is it implausible to consider for a moment that such a civilization might have started developing around 17500-21000 BCE and then developed/refined into the Ramayana period around 12000 BCE? Surely 8-5K years is enough time for such development to occur?

 

 

Implausibility is part of the discussion now ?  I thought it was about archaeological evidence  FOUND .

 

Looking at the above word play , it is not  'implausible '  that civilisation  ' started forming'    when HSS  left Africa  .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dwai said:

That looks like a delicious meal :P 

 

The curry shop is now open .

 

 

27 minutes ago, dwai said:

Yes yes...the Bhimbetka site goes back to 200,000 years and many of the artifacts are from around that 30k-40k time period as well.  

 

On another note, would you consider the aboriginals of Australia to be a civilization or just hunter-gatherers?

 

Another loaded question !   You ask me to consider ... but only give two choices .

 

I also have to assume you mean the Aboriginals in their natural state  before Euro interference .

 

I consider them to NOT be only 'just'  H&G  ....   although they did  do hunting and gathering , they had a type of agriculture and aqua culture in some places and some lived in 'villages' in stone huts, they had vast trade networks , did mining , etc .

 

But no, they did not have a civilisation  ( although some considered them 'civilised'  - two different meanings  - and some did not )

 

" A civilization is a complex human society, usually made up of different cities, with certain characteristics of cultural and technological development. In many parts of the world, early civilizations formed when people began coming together in urban settlements. However, defining what civilization is, and what societies fall under that designation, is a hotly contested argument, even among today’s anthropologists.

 

The word “civilization” relates to the Latin word “civitas” or “city.” This is why the most basic definition of the word “civilization” is “a society made up of cities.” But early in the development of the term, anthropologists and others used “civilization” and “civilized society” to differentiate between societies they found culturally superior (which they were often a part of), and those they found culturally inferior (which they referred to as “savage” or “barbaric” cultures). The term “civilization” was often applied in an ethnocentric way, with “civilizations” being considered morally good and culturally advanced, and other societies being morally wrong and “backward.” This complicated history is what makes defining a civilization troublesome for scholars, and why today’s modern definition is still in flux.

Still, most anthropologists agree on some criteria to define a society as a civilization. First, civilizations have some kind of urban settlements and are not nomadic. With support from the other people living in the settlement, labor is divided up into specific jobs (called the division of labor), so not everyone has to focus on growing their own food. From this specialization comes class structure and government, both aspects of a civilization. Another criterion for civilization is a surplus of food, which comes from having tools to aid in growing crops. Writing, trading, artwork and monuments, and development of science and technology are all aspects of civilizations.

 

However, there are many societies that scholars consider civilizations that do not meet all of the criteria above. For example, the Incan Empire was a large civilization with a government and social hierarchy. It left behind a wealth of art, and had highly developed architecture­­­—but no written language. This is why the concept of “civilization” is hard to define; however, it is still a helpful framework with which to view how humans come together and form a society."

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/civilizations/

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dwai said:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/haryanas-bhirrana-oldest-harappan-site-rakhigarhi-asias-largest-asi/articleshow/46926693.cms

Frankly, *NOWADAYS* I think it's a waste of human potential to spend time on that game. :D 

And it's not just cricket -- most sports are boring. The most boring of them all is American Commercial Breaks FootBall :D 

 

(but I loved Cricket when I used to live in India and actually play it). 

However, most Indians don't agree with me...and they get to kick British keisters on the cricket pitch (more often nowadays than not)... :P

 

 

 

Thanks for the link - that is interesting.

 

Test Cricket is still the game of games - but who has five days to spare anymore :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

The curry shop is now open .

 

 

 

Another loaded question !   You ask me to consider ... but only give two choices .

 

I also have to assume you mean the Aboriginals in their natural state  before Euro interference .

 

I consider them to NOT be only 'just'  H&G  ....   although they did  do hunting and gathering , they had a type of agriculture and aqua culture in some places and some lived in 'villages' in stone huts, they had vast trade networks , did mining , etc .

 

But no, they did not have a civilisation  ( although some considered them 'civilised'  - two different meanings  - and some did not )

 

" A civilization is a complex human society, usually made up of different cities, with certain characteristics of cultural and technological development. In many parts of the world, early civilizations formed when people began coming together in urban settlements. However, defining what civilization is, and what societies fall under that designation, is a hotly contested argument, even among today’s anthropologists.

 

The word “civilization” relates to the Latin word “civitas” or “city.” This is why the most basic definition of the word “civilization” is “a society made up of cities.” But early in the development of the term, anthropologists and others used “civilization” and “civilized society” to differentiate between societies they found culturally superior (which they were often a part of), and those they found culturally inferior (which they referred to as “savage” or “barbaric” cultures). The term “civilization” was often applied in an ethnocentric way, with “civilizations” being considered morally good and culturally advanced, and other societies being morally wrong and “backward.” This complicated history is what makes defining a civilization troublesome for scholars, and why today’s modern definition is still in flux.

Still, most anthropologists agree on some criteria to define a society as a civilization. First, civilizations have some kind of urban settlements and are not nomadic. With support from the other people living in the settlement, labor is divided up into specific jobs (called the division of labor), so not everyone has to focus on growing their own food. From this specialization comes class structure and government, both aspects of a civilization. Another criterion for civilization is a surplus of food, which comes from having tools to aid in growing crops. Writing, trading, artwork and monuments, and development of science and technology are all aspects of civilizations.

 

However, there are many societies that scholars consider civilizations that do not meet all of the criteria above. For example, the Incan Empire was a large civilization with a government and social hierarchy. It left behind a wealth of art, and had highly developed architecture­­­—but no written language. This is why the concept of “civilization” is hard to define; however, it is still a helpful framework with which to view how humans come together and form a society."

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/civilizations/

 

 

 

yep - I guess we need to be clear what we mean by civilisation.

 

... and it ain't us :)

 

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a very good discussion on the Dravidian myth ---

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Dravidian' as a word used to describe some type of difference between people , other than that of related to language , is nowadays  frowned upon  .... not actually against the rules ,  but people do get called out on it  in discussion  on history forum  ....  and some times a mod will warn people that 'overuse' the word in a context other than linguistical .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nungali said:

 Dravidian' as a word used to describe some type of difference between people , other than that of related to language , is nowadays  frowned upon  .... not actually against the rules ,  but people do get called out on it  in discussion  on history forum  ....  and some times a mod will warn people that 'overuse' the word in a context other than linguistical .

 

 

I didn't even realise this was a sensitive topic - when I mentioned it earlier I was talking about language groups.  It would be surprising in a place as large as India if there were not different languages and groups of languages wouldn't it?  After all Europe has many languages - including non IE langauges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I didn't even realise this was a sensitive topic - when I mentioned it earlier I was talking about language groups.  It would be surprising in a place as large as India if there were not different languages and groups of languages wouldn't it?  After all Europe has many languages - including non IE langauges.

Language yes, certainly. Though modern Tamil is chock full of Sanskrit “loan words”. But this Aryan-Dravidian ethnic/racial myth has been weaponized since the time of the British empire, and sadly does so even now. 
 

Wrt what constitutes a civilization, Indian view on it pertains to a more intellectual/spiritual position than a material one. A group could have the best of urban technology, etc and be very uncivilized (asabhya). 
 

On the other hand, a group could live in a forest or in caves and be civilized (sabhya). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that applies here too  and that was the difference I was trying to explain . Unfortunately western academia seems more confused about the concept than we are .

 

Thats why I said Aboriginals do not have     A CIVILISATION     but many people  consider them 'civilised'  ... and in many cases they considered the white man shockingly barbaric  ( eg, when they where  first made to watch the flogging of a prisoner  )

 

- just out of curiosity ....  I think by now we know how you feel about the idea of   an ' Aryan incursion' from outside of India as a component to make up the Indian identity  (the 'gene pool' of the modern  Indian subcontinent )  but how do you feel about the addition also , of these two components ;   Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) and Ancestral Tibeto-Burman (ATB)   ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I didn't even realise this was a sensitive topic - when I mentioned it earlier I was talking about language groups.  It would be surprising in a place as large as India if there were not different languages and groups of languages wouldn't it?  After all Europe has many languages - including non IE langauges.

 

Yes,  it would be just as surprising as  a place like India not having a wide range of genetics .

 

-  by the way , India isnt the only place with a 'history problem '  ;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_wars

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nungali said:

Yes, that applies here too  and that was the difference I was trying to explain . Unfortunately western academia seems more confused about the concept than we are .

 

Thats why I said Aboriginals do not have     A CIVILISATION     but many people  consider them 'civilised'  ... and in many cases they considered the white man shockingly barbaric  ( eg, when they where  first made to watch the flogging of a prisoner  )

You know, in the Vedic context, Forest Dwellers were considered some of the highest intellects and visionaries. 

1 minute ago, Nungali said:

 

- just out of curiosity ....  I think by now we know how you feel about the idea of   an ' Aryan incursion' from outside of India as a component to make up the Indian identity  (the 'gene pool' of the modern  Indian subcontinent )  but how do you feel about the addition also , of these two components ;   Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) and Ancestral Tibeto-Burman (ATB)   ?

 

I think a lot of people in the Indic studies field (especially native Indian) consider the Australian Aborigine population to be distant cousins. Based on what I remember, the migration path out of Africa entered India, went south, and then went east/south-east towards Australia. Similarly with the other migrations to the far east. Is that what you mean? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Yes,  it would be just as surprising as  a place like India not having a wide range of genetics .

 

-  by the way , India isnt the only place with a 'history problem '  ;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_wars

 

 

 

 

Look ... you stole a loaf of bread in 1762 and that's how you ended up where you are.  It's not so much a punishment more a kind of social service.  Did we charge you for the boat trip? No.  It was a pleasure.

 

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the part of the presentation of sugriva’s atlas from India to Europe, and he covers the ice age -

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dwai said:

You know, in the Vedic context, Forest Dwellers were considered some of the highest intellects and visionaries. 

 

I am not surprised .    Some of  humans most  significant positive achievements  need not be measured by complex technologies . Just the memory factor alone in pre literate societies is staggering  (unless compared to the few modern 'memory genius' people about today ).   As far as visionaries go  ... I posted this before  ...   researches in various fields of anthropology are rather stunned by this revelation about the history of Wunan Law  ... the first and maybe only record we have of an artist having a visionary experience and communicating it  (as opposed to  political or martial impetus -  eg  the to and fro of 'War Lords' ) that created a great change and evolutionary leap in human society .

 

The rock art is still there that tells the story . The  descendant interpreters and holders of the tradition are still there, keeping the oral interpretations of the artistic record .  The artefacts are still there !  - the stone meeting table of the original  gathering and agreements  with lines of stones radiating out showing the directions and paths of all the tribes that came to, took part in and left this ancient conference . (top of p 6 ) 

 

http://www.ifrao.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/31-1-Doring.pdf

 

image.png.1010bbd7506ee761755fa4cb6f96b52f.png

 

Ungudman and Banggal ; these men, as well as being respected elders and holders of this tradition and ancient history are also acknowledged and consulted naturalists , ecologists ,  translators  (  some Aboriginals I know can speak over 5 languages  as well as English ) , published educators , etc .

 

 

Quote

I think a lot of people in the Indic studies field (especially native Indian) consider the Australian Aborigine population to be distant cousins. Based on what I remember, the migration path out of Africa entered India, went south, and then went east/south-east towards Australia.

 

Well, I posted a link to  info on that, with a map  to show the path   .....     the ; 'look India no. 1 ! '  post .

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

Similarly with the other migrations to the far east. Is that what you mean? 

 

Errrm no ,   not at all .

 

I meant ;

 

" - just out of curiosity ....  I think by now we know how you feel about the idea of   an ' Aryan incursion' from outside of India as a component to   also make up the Indian identity  (the 'gene pool' of the modern  Indian subcontinent )  but how do you feel about the addition also , of these two components ;   Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) and Ancestral Tibeto-Burman (ATB)   ? "

 

Was it  that unclear ?

 

I'll try again ;   " I think by now we know how you feel about the idea of   an ' Aryan incursion' from outside of India as a component to make up the Indian identity  (the 'gene pool' of the modern  Indian subcontinent ) 

 

but how do you feel about the addition also , of these two components ;   Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) and Ancestral Tibeto-Burman (ATB)   ? " ... that are said to make up the  Indian identity  (the 'gene pool' of the modern  Indian subcontinent ) 

 

that is :  do you feel the same way  about the components of AAA and ATB , being from a country outside India and making up the composite Indian identity, as you feel about the idea that an Aryan component came from another country outside India to make up Indian identity  (the 'gene pool' of the modern  Indian subcontinent ) .

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

I am not surprised .    Some of  humans most  significant positive achievements  need not be measured by complex technologies . Just the memory factor alone in pre literate societies is staggering  (unless compared to the few modern 'memory genius' people about today ).   As far as visionaries go  ... I posted this before  ...   researches in various fields of anthropology are rather stunned by this revelation about the history of Wunan Law  ... the first and maybe only record we have of an artist having a visionary experience and communicating it  (as opposed to  political or martial impetus -  eg  the to and fro of 'War Lords' ) that created a great change and evolutionary leap in human society .

 

The rock art is still there that tells the story . The  descendant interpreters and holders of the tradition are still there, keeping the oral interpretations of the artistic record .  The artefacts are still there !  - the stone meeting table of the original  gathering and agreements  with lines of stones radiating out showing the directions and paths of all the tribes that came to, took part in and left this ancient conference . (top of p 6 ) 

 

http://www.ifrao.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/31-1-Doring.pdf

 

image.png.1010bbd7506ee761755fa4cb6f96b52f.png

 

Ungudman and Banggal ; these men, as well as being respected elders and holders of this tradition and ancient history are also acknowledged and consulted naturalists , ecologists ,  translators  (  some Aboriginals I know can speak over 5 languages  as well as English ) , published educators , etc .

Yes. I find the Australian aboriginal tribes very fascinating. I was watching a documentary where apparently the healers are working alongside western medicine doctors in hospitals in some rural parts of Australia? That is a very positive thing...not to reject the wisdom and traditional knowledge, but to integrate it, and its practitioners into the mainstream society with full honor and dignity.

 

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

 

Well, I posted a link to  info on that, with a map  to show the path   .....     the ; 'look India no. 1 ! '  post .

 

 

 

Errrm no ,   not at all .

 

I meant ;

 

" - just out of curiosity ....  I think by now we know how you feel about the idea of   an ' Aryan incursion' from outside of India as a component to   also make up the Indian identity  (the 'gene pool' of the modern  Indian subcontinent )  but how do you feel about the addition also , of these two components ;   Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) and Ancestral Tibeto-Burman (ATB)   ? "

 

Was it  that unclear ?

 

I'll try again ;   " I think by now we know how you feel about the idea of   an ' Aryan incursion' from outside of India as a component to make up the Indian identity  (the 'gene pool' of the modern  Indian subcontinent ) 

That is already an established matter right? The Out of Africa model is not disputed by anyone. 

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

but how do you feel about the addition also , of these two components ;   Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) and Ancestral Tibeto-Burman (ATB)   ? " ... that are said to make up the  Indian identity  (the 'gene pool' of the modern  Indian subcontinent ) 

The AAA part is more than likely a result of migration out of India rather than into India, though I can't find a reason why if the migration path might have not reversed too later on until the path went under water. The ATB aspect probably is due to intermingling between people of that region. Historically, South-East Asia often fell under Indian rulers. Also if you look at modern day North-East India, their tribal culture seems to continue quite seamlessly all the way into the South-East Asian jungles. Nagas from Nagaland have a lot of similarity with the headhunters of Borneo. In the epics which comprise the Itihasa (loosely translated as history) part of indian civilization (Ramayana, Mahabharata), there are plenty of instances of cross-group marriage between Nagas, Asuras and "humans". 

 

The Ramayana and Mahabharata refer to their influence and alliances going much farther than present-day India's political boundaries. 

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

that is :  do you feel the same way  about the components of AAA and ATB , being from a country outside India and making up the composite Indian identity, as you feel about the idea that an Aryan component came from another country outside India to make up Indian identity  (the 'gene pool' of the modern  Indian subcontinent ) .

 

There IS no Aryan genetics. Arya is an honorific term used in Sanskrit, it means "Noble/Civilized". Similarly, Dravida was used as a term to identify the progeny of an Indian sage. It is also a surname used by Deshastha Rigvedic Brahmins (if one buys into the Aryan-Dravidian myth, one can't get more Aryan than this) from the region that falls in present times between the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka. A famous example is the famous Indian Cricketer - Rahul Dravid. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look !

 

They even went down to Antarctica  .... in the ice age .   :)  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Oh look !

 

They even went down to Antarctica  .... in the ice age .   :)  

 

 

 

 

If you actually listen to what is being said, he (Sugriva) gives the description of the path but tells them to go no further than a certain point as he calls the Antarctic region "Yama's Kingdom" (Yama is the God of Death/underworld in the Hindu tradition). :)

 

The explanation given within the original Ramayana text is that Sugriva actually circumnavigated the globe (as much as was possible, given the glacial cover over most of Northern Europe and North America (and yes, the Ancient Indians knew the world was round long before Pythagoras was born, don't be upset just because you didn't know that...) :D

 

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites