Re: Rao, Osborn, and Frawley

Carl <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:

On Jul 16, 3:43 pm, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1184503210.237340.132020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





On Jul 14, 6:53 pm, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Carl <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1184452212.165686.183410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
...
The article about early iron production was interesting,
wikipedia was, well wikipedia - a war that may have happened in
any of several millenia!, if it happened at all, the hindunet
articles gave "access denied" and the others - interesting,
although I don't really see what relevance they have to this
thread.

Dr. Rao has a huge reputation in archaeology. I gave the quote
from his paper to date Kurukshetra War to 1700-1900 BC.

I am upset that the site now gives "access denied". However,
Webcrawler
would allow the diligent researcher to get at that 2002
conference where
Dr. Rao gave his paper.

BTW, Indians, as opposed to Americans, would care about the
Kurukshetra War.

Well, you weren't around a while back for the discussion about early
wars and how to recognize them in the archeological material. I know
that several people here would be very interested if anybody could
make a convincing case for that war to actually have happened and get
a reliable identification of the time and place.

My ethnical traditions (at least one of them) contains enough
fictional battles, non-existing people and historical persons who did
not do the things they were credited with doing, so I have a tendency
to regard all old traditions as possibly fictional unless there is
some corroborating evidence to support them. And don't get me started
on my personal geneology and family traditions. :-) If a story seems
to have been invented to serve as a background for a discussion of
religious philosophy, then I'll definitely keep the possibility open
that it was indeed invented.

My background in Yoga since college explains where I am coming
from.

You are trying to reach Nirvana? Or do you want to have a really flat
stomach?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the post where you explained what form
(s) of yoga you practice/study, and what connection there is between
that and archaeology.

The Osborn link gives date for Kurukshetra War, based on
archaeology, of 2800 BC.

Sci.archers are clearly not equipped, by temperament or
background, to get into
explaining the discrepancy. Yet, I care because I am studying
the Gita.

Yes, most "sci.archers" do not regard religious litterature as
archaeology.

I already clued sci.arch what explains the discrepancy in this
thread.

"the Mahabharata does not have correct historicity"? Duh!
So, who do you think is correct? Osborn? Rao? None of the above? Why?

I used Kurukshetra War as a lead-in to tracing vedic culture to
earliest
archaeological sites (Frawley's New Model - Mehrgarh etc.). In
the process
the vedas got thrown into the mix.

Since the Bhagavadgita is younger than the Vedas, you have your work
cut out for you. Your link had iron production starting after 1900
BCE
and the Rigveda mentions iron items. Also in the Gita the religious
center has moved to the Ganges area.

I would love for some sci.archer to start talking about Mehrgarh
or Dr. Rao
because that would be solid archaeology for sci.arch.

I did google Frawley and Han*** and
found:http://www.grahamhan***.com/underworld/review2.php

It gave me a feeling of deja-vu. I could have sworn I have read
exactly the same text about Egypt and the pyramids.

Wrong move on your part; please stick with Han***'s book;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsofKUDXds4

get it

and study
in close detail; I already posted a list of archaeological sities
from his book
relevant for the Frawley/Han*** thesis; if sci.archers would get
with the program, I would be obliged.

This is not a classroom, and the only reason I'll read any book is if
I think it might be interesting. So far I have no reason to to
believe
that Han***'s book(s) qualify. Convince me - surely Han*** have
some
interesting passages that have archaeologically dated structures from
7000 BC that matches the stars, some religious structures in Mehrgarh
that ties in with the Vedas - water basins perhaps. Or a bunch of
dead
horses, who were killed by arrows when they pulled the chariots in
the
war. (No, the last one is not Han***'s period, is it?) Well you are
the one who have read the book, there must be something in it that is
really interesting. If you start discussing it I'm sure there are
some
people who will realize what a fascinating subject it is.

Ask me further questions as necessary.

Well, since I haven't got Hancocks book around and it will take
some time to get it, if I decide to get it on interlibrary loan
- is his argument for an older date, that the temples are
aligned with the stars in Orion? Or does he have any other
arguments?

Don't throw it onto me, please. I wish you or some interested
sci.archer to do a careful job of homework.

At the moment, the interested "sci.archer" seems to be you. When can
we have your book report? I don't know enought of the subject to
grade
web-pages for accuracy, and I'm not taking Han***'s word for
anything.

How long do you think it took from the Vedas were composed until
they were written down?

5000 years plus or minus (at least the oldest parts). This is
a question not easily resolved; highly controversial; not
entirely appropriate for sci.arch, yet Han*** and Frawley push
it for all it is worth.

When do you think they were written down? Remember there is still
that
pesky iron to explain.

And what parts of the Rigveda are supposed to be historical?

Tilak had a few ideas referenced in Han***'s book; please get
the book ASAP.

Would that be this Tilak:http://www.ncte-in.org/pub/tilak/4.9.htm?
No, surely not.

When I've finished my current projects, probably in September, I
might
check what the library has available on archaeology in the area. Does
anybody else have any reading suggestions?

Lisbeth.

----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.

*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.

--

Please check my reply to Peter, where he replied to you.

Tom McDonald and I are starting to have a real conversation about
Mehrgarh.

Peter may stop pestering me once he sees Tom is actually interested in
the archaeology at least.

Tom is interested in the archaeology
not in what you have to say.


Do get involved if and when you can. I expect the Mehrgarh and Indus
Valley
Civilization discussion to continue for some time, with more
sci.archers joining in.

Best wishes,
David


.

Loading