Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Who Invented Trigonometry?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who Invented Trigonometry?
    Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 00:35
Originally posted by red clay

Surya, it's commonly accepted that the datiing of 1500 BC is arbitrary.  You can dispute the age a little more gently eh?  There isn't any adversarial attitude coming from anyone here, lighten up.


I must admit Red, this topic always makes me on the offensive. Only recently have I understood that the ball is not in my court. Therefore I am to be on the defensive .This enlightenment must help me lighten up. Big smileBig smile

The Argumentum ad Populum

Red, if the common opinion is true, it must not be that difficult to furnish an evidence in support of it.

I argue that the dating is wrong solely because there is not a single evidence to sustain it.

I dont need any of the advanced astronomical, archaeological or geological evidences(which i foolishly use very often)  to dismantle the "1500 BC" origin of Vedic civilization.

All I need is a ludicrously foolish argument by Max Mueller .

Max Mueller argued that " The world was created in 4004 BC. Thus the Vedas cannot be older than 1500 BC"

Dont believe me? Read his own book.Here you have it...

(Scanned pages from various works of Max Muller)

4000 years ago is very early period in history of the world

Entire human history consists of past 6000 years (or Lord God made us 6000 years back)

Vedas composed in 1000 BCE, but it need not be proved

Muller to Darwin: Evolution not reflected in language, so it is wrong!


Tell me Red, how reliable is the opinion of a pseudo Scholar like Mueller?

Who is worse, Mueller or the foolish modern scholarship which blindly follows him?


Edited by SuryaVajra - 16-Jun-2013 at 01:05
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6086
  Quote TheAlaniDragonRising Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 00:56
Very interesting, SuryaVajra. If by your own standards people are being foolish, and are being so because they are blindly following that which has no solid evidence, then you must then submit your own solid evidence supporting that which you have put forward, which others have claimed to be from the imaginations of political zealots. Do you have solid evidence?  
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 01:10
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

SuryaVajra, hopefully you can help me out here. I've been scouting about, looking for references for earlier dates suggested for the Rigveda, like you've been talking about, but I keep on coming up with outcries from those all too happy to tell the world how these Indian neolithic origins for the Rigveda claim are fabrications by Hindu nationalists, and are not backed up by any serious scholars. SuryaVajra, can you help to clear this up for me by naming your reputable scholarly sources for those claims you shared with us?  



LOL Hindu nationalists.

I know Alani, I know. Thats the same response I get most of the time.

I understand your difficulty. What Indian scholars say will always receive the same crushing response. Its a grave injustice, one that Western scholars will not tolerate if they are called "Christian nationalists"(which was what Max Mueller and William jones was)

But the fact it , many Western scholars argue the same thing--Koenrald Elst, Nicolas Kazanas, Michael Danilo etc.

Kazanas is my Guru . Most of my knowledge in this area is all thanks to him.

He has presented the case in most objective terms in his famous paper "'A new date for the Rgveda'"

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/rie.pdf

More papers are available at his official site

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/indology_en.asp
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6086
  Quote TheAlaniDragonRising Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 01:56
Originally posted by SuryaVajra

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

SuryaVajra, hopefully you can help me out here. I've been scouting about, looking for references for earlier dates suggested for the Rigveda, like you've been talking about, but I keep on coming up with outcries from those all too happy to tell the world how these Indian neolithic origins for the Rigveda claim are fabrications by Hindu nationalists, and are not backed up by any serious scholars. SuryaVajra, can you help to clear this up for me by naming your reputable scholarly sources for those claims you shared with us?  



LOL Hindu nationalists.

I know Alani, I know. Thats the same response I get most of the time.

I understand your difficulty. What Indian scholars say will always receive the same crushing response. Its a grave injustice, one that Western scholars will not tolerate if they are called "Christian nationalists"(which was what Max Mueller and William jones was)

But the fact it , many Western scholars argue the same thing--Koenrald Elst, Nicolas Kazanas, Michael Danilo etc.

Kazanas is my Guru . Most of my knowledge in this area is all thanks to him.

He has presented the case in most objective terms in his famous paper "'A new date for the Rgveda'"

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/rie.pdf

More papers are available at his official site

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/indology_en.asp
I've taken a cursory look at " A new date for the Rgveda " and will be looking at it much more closely after some sleep. I did however read the section near the end stating how the RV seems to be no more than 3100 BC, with earlier suggestions being somewhat far fetched. At this point then the Sumerians look to have had the knowledge many centuries before.
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 02:17
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising


 I did however read the section near the end stating how the RV seems to be no more than 3100 BC, with earlier suggestions being somewhat far fetched. At this point then the Sumerians look to have had the knowledge many centuries before.



Linguistic and archaeological evidence only proves that RV is older than the IVC. The paper I quoted only deals with these.

And Alani.....we are presently concerned with only why the 1500 BC date is wrong.

But astronomical and Literary evidence shows that some portions of it are as old as 4600 BC.

So the Rig Veda is a stratified text. Its composition spans a period 4600--3200 BC

Brick technology began only around 4000 BC at Amri in India( now in Pakistan).

 Astronomical evidence is irrefutable. It cannot be challenged. Its pure Mathematics.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 09:44
I was actually trying to agree with you on the 1500 bc dating.  It is a date sort of picked out of the air.  Mainly because there isn't solid material evidence that it's older.  It's probably much older, but the problem exists due to the question of when it was written down from oral tradition. 
 
And your wasting your time worrying about folks like Mueller.  Young Earth Creationists are the fuzz on the fringe.  They are religion based, not science.  They have it that the Bible states the earth is 6,000 years old. 
 
However, this just underlines what I was speaking of in an earlier post.  Both the Bible and the Rig Veda were written by many over a period of several thousand years. Compiled from oral traditions. Dating something like this is difficult, and without solid evidence of age becomes open to interpretation by anyone with an agenda.
 
BTW- I'd check that "brick Technology" thing.  Your getting into my territory now. Big smile If your referring to Kiln fired bricks instead of sun dried, the Neolithic cultures in China and Korea were way ahead of you on that.
Archeaoastronomy itself cannot be disputed, however it's interpretation can be.  And if the dating is anomalously old, just out right ignored.  Example- There are standing stones in the Northeast of the US with astronomical alignments pointing to 3,800bce.  Big Archaeological Investigation, many papers written? No, it is quietly ignored.  Too many questions involved that no one has the answers to.
 
 


Edited by red clay - 16-Jun-2013 at 09:50
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 10:23
Originally posted by red clay

 
BTW- I'd check that "brick Technology" thing.  Your getting into my territory now. Big smile If your referring to Kiln fired bricks instead of sun dried, the Neolithic cultures in China and Korea were way ahead of you on that.



 In India, fried brick technology began in the Pre harappan sites of Rehman Dheri ,Amri, kot Diji , Balakot etc. These flourished between 4000 and 3400 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehman_Dheri

It must have first been invented in China, if you have found it to be so. Are the Chinese sites older?

But Mud baked bricks are the first . These were invented in  India and Mesopotamia between 7500 and 7000 BC.

Merhgarh(250 acres) is the largest neolithic site(7000-5500 BC). It may qualify to be called a city. It was built with mud bricks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/84/Neolithic_mehrgarh.jpg/285px-Neolithic_mehrgarh.jpg

Originally posted by red clay

Big Archaeological Investigation, many papers written? No, it is quietly ignored.  Too many questions involved that no one has the answers to.


You are right, if you are talking about references to stellar positions. They can have varying degrees of accuracy. The reference in the Shatapatha Brahmana dates betwen 2900 and 2400 BCE.

But references to eclipses and stellar positions simultaneously, such as the one found in the fifth book of the Rig Veda and the dozens in the Mahabharata can be and has been pinned down the exact year and even the day
 
There can be no challenge to these specific references.

Many historians have no formal training in Mathematics . Perhaps thats why they dont appreciate these.

Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6086
  Quote TheAlaniDragonRising Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 10:36
Originally posted by SuryaVajra

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising


 I did however read the section near the end stating how the RV seems to be no more than 3100 BC, with earlier suggestions being somewhat far fetched. At this point then the Sumerians look to have had the knowledge many centuries before.



Linguistic and archaeological evidence only proves that RV is older than the IVC. The paper I quoted only deals with these.

And Alani.....we are presently concerned with only why the 1500 BC date is wrong.

But astronomical and Literary evidence shows that some portions of it are as old as 4600 BC.

So the Rig Veda is a stratified text. Its composition spans a period 4600--3200 BC

Brick technology began only around 4000 BC at Amri in India( now in Pakistan).

 Astronomical evidence is irrefutable. It cannot be challenged. Its pure Mathematics.

I have had time to read and evaluate the evidence you've put forward in the form of . "A new date for the Rgveda", and scrutinized, by the use of logic, in what has been said in the piece. On evidence used to support claims I have looked for it necessarily being accurate. In those terms things can be broken down as being based on logic, or fallacious logic. What I have found is "evidence" of those trying to squeeze what they think they have found to make a supposition. The aging and use of Sanskrit on its own calls into question the viability of earlier dates for the RV, and by extension the geometric and algebraic works, we are talking about on this thread, with it. Trying to put forward an oral tradition for geometric and algebraic notation is hardly going to cut it. Had there been any evidence at all involving these elements in the proto-writing known as Indus script, it would have stood out, and unless I've missed something, there doesn't seem to be any of that. What we do find is talk of things which seem to be missing which shouldn't, which suggests to me that there's a very good chance of literary manipulation(hardly an unknown element in historical terms), and/or the likelihood of a semi-nomadic existence(which is hit on in seasonal terms). OK on top of this, and this is my opinion alone, this could also indicate work from elsewhere being transferred and being geographically and historically updated, also not unknown in literary work. I think, before I try to second guess things I might have missed, SuryaVajra, I'd better ask your opinion on those things which you have put forward. How many of those things could potentially have alternative explanations to them in your opinion, using logic to look at them?   
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 10:42
By the way Red,

That underwater ruins in Dwarka provided evidence and examples of fried bricks.

Dwarka has , by Electron spin resonance dating at Oxford university(Incase Indian universities may be accused of Nationalism) , been fixed at 9500 BP (7500 BCE)

In order to substantiate the findings detailed sampling was carried out. Since the sea condition was very rough and the water turbid and brown, sampling was carried out in areas where side scan images show excellent results. The samples were collected by utilizing a grab sampler, dredger, gravity corer and vibro corer. Large numbers of samples were carefully collected, systematically numbered and properly preserved. The artifacts collected included a variety of pottery pieces, Mesolithic stone tools, a few Paleolithic macro stone tools, beads made of semiprecious stones, brick pieces, hearth material, wattle and daub structure materials, corals, perfectly holed stones, fossilized human remains and human teeth.

Here the hunting and gathering way of life was replaced by organised food production. Holed stones which appeared in the late paleolithic became prominent in the Mesolithic. These holed stones appear to have been used as weights in digging sticks and as net sinkers by the fishing folks. In general a sedentary form of living heralded the beginning of other associated cultural artifacts like pottery, living in well-built houses like wattle and clay, or of sun dried and fired bricks.

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/cambay.html


I must be annoying for people.

I am getting embarrassed myself, having so much to claim for Bharatavarsh.
Embarrassed 


Edited by SuryaVajra - 16-Jun-2013 at 10:43
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 11:00
Just thought I would interject this, mainly to really confuse things.  There is a japanese Archaeologist who has been doing work on the West Coast of Peru.  He's working on Mud Brick pyramids that date to approx. 7200 bce.  Others working in Peru and Bolivia have found several sites that were originally thought to be natural mounds and are Mud Brick constructions that have been seriously effected by erosion.  Dating has been slow, but all evidence points to the same timeline.
 
Another observation, the figurines that show up on the map you showed in an earlier post are deffinately Jomon Culture.  The Jomon had ceramic technology that pre dates almost everyone.  Some fragments have been dated to 16,000 bce.  I've never considered a transfer of knowledge from an earlier Indian Civ. but I guess it's possible.
Considering Jomon decorative styles were very distinctive, as was their handling of clay in general, it shouldn't be hard to establish at least a stylistic connection.
 
A side note.  The very early dates we throw around now, would have been looked at as fringe 10 years ago.  A lot of attitudes have been readjusted since the discovery of Gobekli Tepe.  Even mainstream stalwarts such as Betty Meggars of the Smithsonian are starting to look at the likely hood of contact with the Americas, all do to the apparent influence on Ceramics in the Americas by an outside culture.  Most likely Japanese in origin.
 
 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 11:14
Awh crap.

The provenance of the twin metropolis of Dwarka has not been pushed beyond 13,000 BP.
Ceramic in India cannot be older than that.

Sometimes history makes no sense.

I really dont want to believe in the flood myth. But sometimes, no other explanation suits

Questions that haunt me...

1. Why did the advanced Dwarka get replaced by the primitive Mehrgarh of Mud ?

2. Why is the flood myth incredibly similar in Egypt,Israel, India and Mesopotamia?




Edited by SuryaVajra - 16-Jun-2013 at 11:31
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 11:29
Originally posted by SuryaVajra

By the way Red,

That underwater ruins in Dwarka provided evidence and examples of fried bricks.

Dwarka has , by Electron spin resonance dating at Oxford university(Incase Indian universities may be accused of Nationalism) , been fixed at 9500 BP (7500 BCE)

In order to substantiate the findings detailed sampling was carried out. Since the sea condition was very rough and the water turbid and brown, sampling was carried out in areas where side scan images show excellent results. The samples were collected by utilizing a grab sampler, dredger, gravity corer and vibro corer. Large numbers of samples were carefully collected, systematically numbered and properly preserved. The artifacts collected included a variety of pottery pieces, Mesolithic stone tools, a few Paleolithic macro stone tools, beads made of semiprecious stones, brick pieces, hearth material, wattle and daub structure materials, corals, perfectly holed stones, fossilized human remains and human teeth.

Here the hunting and gathering way of life was replaced by organised food production. Holed stones which appeared in the late paleolithic became prominent in the Mesolithic. These holed stones appear to have been used as weights in digging sticks and as net sinkers by the fishing folks. In general a sedentary form of living heralded the beginning of other associated cultural artifacts like pottery, living in well-built houses like wattle and clay, or of sun dried and fired bricks.

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/cambay.html


I must be annoying for people.

I am getting embarrassed myself, having so much to claim for Bharatavarsh.
Embarrassed 
 
 
And I'm having a lot of fun making water balloons to throw on some of your claims.  Not that your wrong, I'm just giving you some alternatives to think on.
 
In your last post you mention they found "brick Pieces" in Dwarka.  About 2 miles from my home are several NA occupation sites.  Actually my home sits on an NA site.
There are many "brick pieces" to be found there.  I, like everyone else assumed they were exactly that, brick pieces left from the early colonial period.  Closer examination showed that they weren't "brick".
They had been fired, yes.  However they are in actuality stacking cookies, used to stabilize pottery in it's firing stage.  It took about a year for this to settle in my mind, but considering I've made and used a few thousand of these myself, I'm embarrased by not spotting them right off.
The samples I've found are mostly from clay that has shell temper added to it.  Colonial brickmakers didn't bother to temper their clay.  Also they all are similar in size and shape. All having at least one side that has been flattened.  In otherwords, don't be so quick to judge things like this, a little more time and much more investigation is required.
 
  
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 11:33
Now I cant tell can I?

I haven't even been to Gujrat.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 11:36
http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/nQZFS9Hij0M/mqdefault.jpg

A sample dredged out from Dwarka.

Can you make out whats what?


Now, I found that Dwarka was cursed by a bunch of Philosophers when the naughty young princes played a prank on them LOLLOLLOL

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6MUp16lfcdM/TRQbufpqxZI/AAAAAAAAA4M/6hQpJ2zsXzg/s1600/KA1_168.302120420_std.jpg


Edited by SuryaVajra - 16-Jun-2013 at 11:38
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 12:14
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising


Trying to put forward an oral tradition for geometric and algebraic notation is hardly going to cut it. Had there been any evidence at all involving these elements in the proto-writing known as Indus script, it would have stood out, and unless I've missed something, there doesn't seem to be any of that.


As you know, the script has not been deciphered.It may probably never be.

Unless a text with atleast 27 continuous characters is discovered, not even the best code breaking computers can do it. 

The Vedic altars had an astronomical basis. In the basic scheme, the circle represented the earth, while the square represented the heavens or the deity. But the altar or the temple, as a representation of the dynamism of the universe, required a breaking of the symmetry of the square. As seen clearly in the agnicayana and other altar constructions, this was done in a variety ofways. Although the main altar might be square or its derivative, the overall sacred area was taken to be a departure from this shape. In particular, the temples of the goddess were drawn on a rectangular plan. The dynamism is expressed by a doubling of the square to a rectangle or the ratio 1:2, where the garbhagrha is built in the geometrical centre.The constructions of the Harappan period appear to be according to the same principles. The dynamic ratio of 1:2:4 is the most commonly encoun-tered size of rooms of houses, in the overall plan of houses and the construc-tion of large public buildings. This ratio is also re ected in the overall planof the large walled sector at Mohenjo-Daro called the \citadel mound".If the Harappan iconography expresses the ideas of the original Purana,we are quite close to the traditional chronology of Indian history

http://gaurang.org/indian_phil/indian-chronology-subhash-kak.pdf



Would it satisfy your curiosity, if I showed that the Mathematics involved in the Town planning in the Saraswathy cities obeys the mathematics of the Sulva Sutras which Sidenberg has dated to 2600 BC and is exactly as described in the Arthashastra and other texts?
The town planning in later India has unbelievable similarities .


  
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

OK on top of this, and this is my opinion alone, this could also indicate work from elsewhere being transferred and being geographically and historically updated, also not unknown in literary work.


The problem with the opinion is ....The Rig Veda does not know of any land outside of India. Talageris analysis has shown that the oldest Rig Vedic book was written deep inside India, East of Punjab.

No plant or animal or River or place name in Rig Veda is foreign to India. Not even mythology crosses the Himalayas.

 
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

I think, before I try to second guess things I might have missed, SuryaVajra, I'd better ask your opinion on those things which you have put forward. How many of those things could potentially have alternative explanations to them in your opinion, using logic to look at them?


Well, only the Brick issue is doubtful.

The Sanskrit word is Istika. Even today, my native language uses the same word .

Yet the Rig Veda does not mention the word even once. Mud Bricks were known in India since 7500 BCE.

Silver, fire alters, Iron etc fit well into the puzzle . They are not found in a neolithic society. India knew them since 4000--3500 BCE.
 

My earlier posts with Red discusses the Brick Issue.

It escapes me.


Edited by SuryaVajra - 18-Jun-2013 at 13:21
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 17:36

My post also involves one of the problems involved with dating any site.  This valley has been occupied for 12,000 years.  Preservation of strata just doesn't exist here.  Consequently you will find extremely old, mixed with the relatively young.  Pottery in this area is relatively recent, but still pre-woodland.  Late Transitional Archaic people were the first known pottery makers here, and only my guess, but were gone by the time the Lenni arrived.   But a pottery fragment can be found next to a Broad Spear type point of the type used by Early Archaic folks, 8-10,000 ybp.

Whoever excavates Dwarka will be running into the same issue, made more extreme by it being underwater.
BTW, is Dwarka the site Hancock found? Or is that something else? 
 
 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 19:38
Surya, I can argue the Mathmatics as well.  In the last 5-10 years there have been many examples found of "advanced mathmatics" in places and times that are inexplicable.  There are Neolithic cultures that had knowledge of the concepts of Pi and right triangles, and recently Gobekli Tepe has blown your claims right out of the water.
As a naturalist, I don't find this surprising, nature itself is comprised of complex math.  And having been raised by a Physicist, I find it even less surprising.
 
And Surya, you can dance around a subject better than most everyone that's ever been here.
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6086
  Quote TheAlaniDragonRising Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 22:49
Originally posted by SuryaVajra

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising


Trying to put forward an oral tradition for geometric and algebraic notation is hardly going to cut it. Had there been any evidence at all involving these elements in the proto-writing known as Indus script, it would have stood out, and unless I've missed something, there doesn't seem to be any of that.


As you know, the script has not been deciphered.It may probably never be.

Unless a text with atleast 27 continuous characters is discovered, not even the best code breaking computers can do it. 

The Vedic altars had an astronomical basis. In the basic scheme, the circle represented the earth, while the square represented the heavens or the deity. But the altar or the temple, as a representation of the dynamism of the universe, required a breaking of the symmetry of the square. As seen clearly in the agnicayana and other altar constructions, this was done in a variety ofways. Although the main altar might be square or its derivative, the overall sacred area was taken to be a departure from this shape. In particular, the temples of the goddess were drawn on a rectangular plan. The dynamism is expressed by a doubling of the square to a rectangle or the ratio 1:2, where the garbhagrha is built in the geometrical centre.The constructions of the Harappan period appear to be according to the same principles. The dynamic ratio of 1:2:4 is the most commonly encoun-tered size of rooms of houses, in the overall plan of houses and the construc-tion of large public buildings. This ratio is also re ected in the overall planof the large walled sector at Mohenjo-Daro called the \citadel mound".If the Harappan iconography expresses the ideas of the original Purana,we are quite close to the traditional chronology of Indian history

http://gaurang.org/indian_phil/indian-chronology-subhash-kak.pdf



Would it satisfy your curiosity, if I showed that the Mathematics involved in the Town planning in the Saraswathy cities obeys the mathematics of the Sulva Sutras which Sidenberg has dated to 2600 BC and is exactly as described in the Arthashastra and other texts?
The town planning in later India has unbelievable similarities .

Get ready for something very very coool.

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/prasthu/pages/PP_data/dholavira.pdf 
I think I'm going to need your help on what you're trying to put over here, SuryaVajra. It could be my very poor education causing me problems here, and stopping me seeing what should be right in front of my eyes.
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 22:57
Originally posted by red clay

Surya, I can argue the Mathmatics as well.  In the last 5-10 years there have been many examples found of "advanced mathmatics" in places and times that are inexplicable.  There are Neolithic cultures that had knowledge of the concepts of Pi and right triangles, and recently Gobekli Tepe has blown your claims right out of the water.


Blown which claim out of water?

Gobekli Tepe involves Geometry . That does not mean they knew the advanced theoretical concept of Pi. It Involves fractions and the people behind Gobekli clearly did not have that ability to deal with fractions, let alone a mathematical notation that could pull that off.

Sorry red, you have excelled me with this Pi Claim.

Pi is inherent in Geometry, its manifestation out of Geometry does not prove that the people behind that geometry was aware of this manifestation.

2900 BCE-- Fire alter construction in the Shatapatah Brahmana gives 3 different values for pi

2700 BCE--Egyptians used an approximate value of 3 in their constructions.

2500 BCE--Baudhayana was the first recorded Mathematician to investigate Pi.He calculated 3.088. The Greek word Pi might come from its Sanskrit definition “Paridhi Vyas Anuvat”(Circumference diameter ratio)

2650 BCE or 400 AD--Aryabhatta recognizes that Pi is irrational. He found it as 3.1416

1400 AD--Madhava calculates Pi correct to 14 decimal places using calculus.

1700 AD-- Johann Heinrich Lambert in 1761 proved axiomatically that π is irrational .



This is the History of Pi, with the significant events only. 
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6086
  Quote TheAlaniDragonRising Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2013 at 23:02
Originally posted by SuryaVajra

 
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

OK on top of this, and this is my opinion alone, this could also indicate work from elsewhere being transferred and being geographically and historically updated, also not unknown in literary work.


The problem with the opinion is ....The Rig Veda does not know of any land outside of India. Talageris analysis has shown that the oldest Rig Vedic book was written deep inside India, East of Punjab.

No plant or animal or River or place name in Rig Veda is foreign to India. Not even mythology crosses the Himalayas.
Are you suggesting that all of these works have been written in one particular area? If so what proof of this is there? I only ask as extensive works over time have a tendency to be written in many areas. Is the evidence consistent with this happening? If not then the likelihood that the evidence of the full disclosure is somewhat lacking, and it can't be automatically presumed to vigorous enough. 
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.