****GK: The point is that viewing the territory of
eastern Ukraine as a component of the PIE homeland has
a great deal of scientific data to support it, whereas
there is absolutely nothing even remotely comparable
for India. Kishore Patnaik's comments are simply
dogmatic, at times (his "Maya" fantasies) verging on
the totally ridiculous. If you believe something so
strongly that scientific evidence does not matter,
then you are in religion or ideology.****
Just can you please define what constitutes scientific evidence? If Greek books, some of them as ridiculous as Alice in wonderland can constitute fountain heads of historical data, if the unknown Sandrocottus can form the anchor sheet of Indian history, then why not Puranas and the kings listed there in? After all, one of the avowed purposes of the puranas is to recreate the genealogies of the early kings and retell the folk lore connected with such historical kings. If you are asking for so called scientific evidence, can you please tell me what is the archeaological evidence available to prove Alexander's intrusions into India???
My hypothesis about Mayan civizliation is no more a fantasy than connecting patalibothra and Sandrocottus with not even remotely sounding Patna and Chandra Gupta Maurya.
No doubt, I may not be putting my thoughts in a more systematic way since I am not a scholar but all the same, you can not dismiss it as religious dogma.
I am only trying to connect two sets of data,whose similiarities are undeniable for any one who cares to study, like any other historian does.
Probably, If I presented the same as a paper, it would have carried more weight- atleast you would have tried to deny it with counter evidence, rather than with sweeping dismissals.
Kishore patnaik