Printable View
There is an interesting discussion of this work at:
http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/200...es_writin.html
The following statemeant is not meant to refute any thing. Mark Changizi seems to have written book about the brain and is now writing an enormous number of papers on diverse topics to fit his theory. May be a breakthrough but I do not have any idea about him.
The vedic civilisation which was the Indus valley civilisation was a continuity of the civilisation which came from the south Deccan...
From South to North , cities and civilisations rised and were destroyed.. civilisations born and died successively.
Is it not the meaning of the "Adam's" Bridge ? (The legend say that Adam (the 'first' man) from Ilankai began his migration towards the North, the Adam's Bridge name come from this legend).
Firstly they thought that Greece was the first civilisation, after they descended in Egyptia and said civilisation began in Egyptia, after came the discovery of Babylonia and Sumeria and they pushed back the civilisation to Mesopotamia, a century ago we found Harappa and the other Indus Valley cities, the civilisation is now near the dead Saraswati river, and finally my question is where will this descent will stop.... ?
Indian scientists and historians and Graham Hancock found very anciant remain in Tamil Nadu and in the Bay of Gujarat underwater.
My thinking and opinion is that the legend of the 3 Great flood is not just a myth.....
Duane Smith's comment is interesting, I would like to see what Mark Changizi's views of cuneiform are. As far as Ugaratic is concerned, though, I seem to remember reading a relatively recent study which argued that its resemblence to cuneiform could equally be the result of adapting the Canaanite script to being written on clay tablets, and did not necessarily indicate descent from cuneiform proper.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaddeswarup
Vedic - culture ? civilization? or religious culture? or just a collection of hymns/chantings/concepts, with no structured revelation of religion? How wld u describe?Quote:
The vedic civilisation which was the Indus valley civilisation was a continuity of the civilisation which came from the south Deccan...
Friends,
We are all trapped by falsehoods spread by Some False movements in the name of Thani Tamil and Dravidian movements.
I quote Verbatim from the Interview of Iravatham Mahadevan given in the past downloaded from www.harappah.com
//14. The Indus and Dravidian Cultural Relationship
Q: How do you conceive of the relationship between the Indus culture that existed five thousand years ago and contemporary Dravidian culture here in South India? Prof. Dani, for example, says that doesn't believe that the Indus language was Dravidian because there is just not enough cultural continuity between what is today in South India and what was then in the Indus Valley.
A: I think any direct relationship between the Indus Valley and the deep Dravidian south is unlikely because of the vast gap in space and time. Something like 2,000 years and 2,000 miles. But linguistically, if the Indus script is deciphered, we may hopefully find that the proto-Dravidian roots of the Harappan language and South Indian Dravidian languages are similar. This is a hypothesis.
If you ask what similarity is likely to emerge, the first and most important similarity is linguistic. Culturally, there is a problem. The modern speakers of Dravidian languages are the result of millennia long intermixture of races. There are no Aryans in India, nor are there any Dravidians. Those who talk about Dravidians in the political sense, I do not agree with them at all. There are no Dravidian people or Aryan people - just like both Pakistanis and Indians are racially very similar. We are both the product of a very long period of intermarriage, there have been migrations. You cannot now racially segregate any element of the Indian population. Thus there is no sense in saying that the people in Tamil Nadu are the inheritors of the Indus Valley culture. You could very well say that people living in Harappa or Mohenjo-daro today are even more likely to be the inheritors of that civilization.
In fact, I plow a somewhat lonely furrow in this. I often say that if the key to the Indus script linguistically is Dravidian, then culturally the key to the Indus script is Vedic. What I mean is that the cultural traits of the Indus Valley civilization are likely to have been absorbed by the successor Indo-Aryan civilization in Punjab and Sindh, and that the civilization in the far south would have changed out of recognition. In any case, the present South Indian civilization is already the product of both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian cultures, and the language itself is completely mixed up with both elements//
Tamil does not mean Indus Scripts and None of the Dechiphering, let it be Parbola or Iravatham Mahadevan has not solved the complete Corpus and all attempts have failed and they both accept it.
Devapriya
Quote:
Why you say "trapped"? how trapped? What falsehoods were spread? What is meant by "False Movement"?Quote:
//We are all trapped by falsehoods spread by Some False movements in the name of Thani Tamil and Dravidian movements.//
As for me, I am least concerned with any political movement in India. You have attacked these so-called movements many times over, but I do not know why.
To summarize:
1.Indus language was not Dravidian because there is just not enough cultural continuity between South India and the then Ind. Valley.
2 the vast gap in space and time.
3. But linguistically, with the Indus script deciphered, possible similarity proto-Dravidian roots of the Harappan language and South Indian Dravidian languages ( a hypothesis.)
4 culturally the key to the Indus script is Vedic. ( = the cultural traits of the Indus Valley civilization are likely to have been absorbed by the successor Indo-Aryan civilization in Punjab and Sindh)
The script had not been deciphered by these persons quoted by you but they do not rule out future solution. Possibility of linguistic similarity is also not ruled out. They are giving extraneous reasons such as lack of cultural continuity in terms of space and time to say that it is not Dravidian. It does not prove your point - it leaves things dangling for you. At the same time I would reject the passage because the authors gave extraneous reasons.Quote:
//Tamil does not mean Indus Scripts and None of the Dechiphering, let it be Parbola or Iravatham Mahadevan has not solved the complete Corpus and all attempts have failed and they both accept it.//
THESE GUYS SHOULD MERELY LOOK AT THE WRITING, EXAMINE IT AND SAY WHAT IT IS AND SHOULD NOT GO INTO CULTURE, SPACE AND TIME. THE GUYS ALSO ACCEPT THAT THEIR VIEW IS MINORITY VIEW (lonely furrow).
AS SANSKRIT HAD NO WRITING SYSTEM THEN, SANSKRIT HAS NO CLAIM TO ANYTHING.
I Mahadevan is very clearly stating "But linguistically, if the Indus script is deciphered, we may hopefully find that the proto-Dravidian roots of the Harappan language and South Indian Dravidian languages are similar. "
Do you understand this statement devapriya ?
He also states "I often say that if the key to the Indus script linguistically is Dravidian, then culturally the key to the Indus script is Vedic. What I mean is that the cultural traits of the Indus Valley civilization are likely to have been absorbed by the successor Indo-Aryan civilization in Punjab and Sindh, and that the civilization in the far south would have changed out of recognition."
He here means that the vedics copied the culture of IV people, who by genetic lineage(however pure it may be) are in south now. The Originators of the IV civilizations were a bunch of smart people that evolve culturaly over time and space. While the bunch of m***** vedics are still stuck with those outdated ideas of the now modern southerners.
Now I understand the reason for devapriya's meaning less posts, I strongly advise her to get into some basic english course. So that she can understand what others are writing !
Darwin said that each species evolve in function of his environment, there is no exception. This is for me very logical.
Human evolution is too very linked to the place where he lives.
Northern anciant cities could never be same as the southern cities.
Each place have his proper culture.
But i think that nothing can born from nothing, so the evolution of the human civilisation is mainly due to a continuity of a civilisation !
The question is where exactly it born...
I think we must begin to give the definition of what is a civilisation...
Friends,
Aryan coming stories are totally now dropped and I QUOTE the latest views.
//In his recent edition of Survey of Hinduism (Sunny, State University of New York Press 1994), Professor Klaus Klostermaier has noted important objections to this theory. He suggests that the weight of evidence is against it and that it should no longer be regarded as the main model of interpreting ancient India.
He states (pg.34): "Both the spatial and the temporal extent of the Indus civilization has expanded dramatically on the basis of new excavations and the dating of the Vedic age as well as the theory of an Aryan invasion of India has been shaken. We are required to completely reconsider not only certain aspects of Vedic India, but the entire relationship between Indus civilization and Vedic culture." Later he adds (pg.3: "The certainty seems to be growing that the Indus civilization was carried by the Vedic Indians, who were not invaders from Southern Russia but indigenous for an unknown period of time in the lower Central Himalayan regions."//
Please go through them
Devapriya