Re: Rao, Osborn, and Frawley

Doug Weller <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:50:36 +0200, in sci.archaeology, Peter Alaca
wrote:

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.

Tom is having a monologue so far as I can see. Carl hasn't read any
of the archaeology it appears.

No, only Han***, and I am not even sure about that.
My strong impression is that it is not more than
Wikipedia and perhaps some titles. He is far worse
than Inger because he knows and understands nothing.
He relies completly on others for information and then
ignores it.

--
p.a.




.

Loading