Re: India first (Was: Etruscans)

Very frankly speaking, Mayans does not figure in my primary concerns. It constitutes neither a religious nor ideological dogmas

I am more concerned with scriptural genealogies of Indian Kings. This may be more dogmatic since there is no external evidences at least in the form of as para (secular) literature supporting the thesis.

In fact, this thesis that puranic kings are historical is very difficult to prove because even the internal evidence of puranas and Upanishads have their own problems. Every person is either having several names or several people may have the same name. Similarly, the reference to the persons by their Gotra(rougly, lineage) name rather than by personal names makes the scenario very difficult. For eg., viswamitra figures in Rg veda, in times of distant ancestors of Rama, during Ramayana as well as in Mahabharat times (which is obviously much later to Ramayan times)- this is even if you accept that both Ramayan and Mabha bharat are historical. In other words, every body in the lineage of Viswamitra is referred as viswamitra, rather than their first names such as Ashtaka etc.

But once the genealogies can be proved to be connected to Anukramanikas and Vamsa Brahmanas of Vedas and Upanishads, it is easier to prove their historicity, sicne the former are accepted to be historical lists.

Btw, I envisage today's scientist to be paranoic and your mail seems to be proving the point once more.

Can you please explain why the thesis Mayans are connected to India(which have undeniable archeaological and some linguistic evidence) will destabilitze your theory that PIE has come from Uzbekistan or wherever?

I am not opposed to PIE but certainly, I am skeptical about the possibility of its reconstruction.

Kishore patnaik

On the other hand,

On 1/21/08, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

--- kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@... >
wrote:

> 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?

****GK: Try reading Popper, or Burnham, or some primer
or other. The basic idea is that an assertion of fact
should be empirically verifiable and consistent with
the rules of logic. You can be "scientific" about the
contents of the Puranas, but the problem is whether
these contents (and to what extent) correspond to
reality.****

If Greek
> books, some of them as ridiculous as Alice in
> wonderland can constitute
> fountain heads of historical data,

****GK: They are no longer accepted automatically
without scientific review. The Odyssey, for instance,
is not quoted as a reliable source for navigational
purposes on its own,AFAIK.****

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.

****GK: The issue, I thought, was not the Puranas as
such(and the potential evidence gatherable therefrom
for Indian history), but the origin and localization
of PIE.****

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???

****GK: He didn't intrude into India very much, did
he? Mostly Pakistan (:=)) The historical works
recounting his campaigns are considered quite adequate
(some better than others, as stemming from more
reliable contemporary sources), even if there is
obscurity as to some details. Archaeology (and other
sciences) are useful as complements to verified
history, and as tentative substitute (with great
caveats) where history is absent. It isn't required to
solve your question.****
>
> 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.

****GK: It is infinitely more fantastic.****
>
> 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.

****GK: I can if you keep repeating it without
providing scientifically acceptable proof for your
assertions.****
>
> 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.

****GK: They are eminently deniable. On tremendously
extensive grounds. You've not bothered to offer any
response to those which were advanced. And a
reiteration of your original views merely confirms
your ideological (if you don't like the loose use of
"religious") dogmatism.****
>
> 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.

****GK: Sweeping dogmatic assertions can be met with
equally sweeping denials (actually you got more than
that from a number of participants. Try offering
concrete responses and see what happens.)****
>
> Kishore patnaik
>

__________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping