Re: [tied] Vedic literature and the Gulf of Cambay discovery

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 13898
Date: 2002-06-20

 
----- Original Message -----
From: kalyan97
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Vedic literature and the Gulf of Cambay discovery

> Hancock is entitled to his views.
 
True. But his views must not be confused with science.
 
> NIOT scientists who have been working on this remarkable site for over 2 years -- an equivalent of 6 archaeological seasons -- before making their announcements. Articles have been published in Current Science; I will provide the references.
 
No need, I can provide the reference myself, as CS is available online:
 
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/feb252002/385.pdf
 
You are pluralising the singular again: there has been only one article in CS so far, and anyone who follows the link can see that it is only a two-page piece of news summarising what the NIOS people have already said. It was written by Nirupa Sen, who is a correspondent for CS -- a journalist, not a research scientist.
 
> A scientific symposium will be held on July 1 with about 40 scientists participating. The exploratory work will go forward.
 
This is just a promissory note. The results _so far_ are not particularly convincing.

> It is incorrect to assume, based on press reports, that the only evidence for dating is the piece of sawn wood. Many other artefacts have also been dated and confirm the date.
 
Oh really? How come that Sen doesn't mention any other dating? Where can I find the results of independent datings?
 
> Over 1,000 objects have been collected, of which about 250 are of archaeological and cultural interest.
 
What the heck was the point of collecting more than 750 objects with no archaeological or cultural interest, then? ;-))
 
> The methods used for dating some selected artefacts, mostly at a depth of 40 metres below sea level -- 30 km. from the coast-line, were: Carbon-14, at the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, and the Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeo-
Botany, Lucknow; thermo luminiscence at the Physical Research Institute, Ahmedabad, for pottery samples; and accelerated mass petrometry from the Regional Research Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, for corals and shell artefacts.
 
Until the results are published in specialist journals and reviewed by competent scientists, nobody's going to be impressed by lists of names of institutes and laboratories, no matter how serious. You're quoting verbatim from your Sarasvati site, even repeating the errors in the technical terms: there is no "thermo luminescence" or "accelerated mass petrometry". The methods are called "thermoluminescence" and "accelerated mass spectrometry", respectively. I hope you don't think it doesn't matter much as long as the words sound learned.
> ... Before rushing to judgment, it will be prudent to await the updates to the NIOT website reporting these and other scientific evidence.

Publications in peer-reviewed journals would carry more weight than any number of updates to the NIOT website.
 
Piotr