This is
excellent news. It polices up the historical
framework of India rather well. What is
pleasantly surprising is that language itself remained largely intact
throughout as has the Chinese language.
Thus information does pass through rather well.
What is
clearly emerging is a post Pleistocene Nonconformity India that sustained a
civilization almost immediately and quickly grew populous. This is reasonable as it was not necessary to
invent new plant foods such as wheat.
Again the
impetus of the Atlantean Bronze Age and high quality bronze triggered a robust
global building culture that in India was built easily on top of the
well-established older civilization.
This is what we have the most evidence of and it certainly led to a
culture of record keeping in particular.
I want to make
a couple of implied conjectures.
1
Symbolic writing as such appeared in order to
record treaties and commercial information and laws. It made good sense for a ruler to create his
private system in order to preserve secrecy.
Thus we have exactly that. A
common system is the artifact of an imperial civilization such as the Chinese
after say five hundred BC.
2
A system able to properly record narratives
arose properly around 1000 BC with the advent of the Greek alphabet. This opened up the actual utility of written
language to what we now expect. I find
it noteworthy that Homer is properly understood as a Bardic creation.
Thus looking
for much more before the end of the Atlantean Epoch ending in 1159BC is a
challenge. Again the Global Atlantean
Epoch drew on the various antique high
cultures nestled in the various deltas worldwide to provide initial markets and
a stepping stone for a rapidly expanding agriculture.
There is a
huge amount of substance in the Vedic sources that need to be rigorously
validated. Most of the apparently
unbelievable conforms nicely to my own efforts and support my conjectures.
Science
validates Vedic history
Amish Tripathi bhuj fffebruary 22,
2020 December 13, 2013
A common view among linguists is that there
should be a standard Indus Valley script.
In a startling development Mahesh
Keshavam, Gangadhar Yadav and Akbar Patel have announced that they've
deciphered the Indus Valley script. Their task was made simple by the
discovery of an Indian equivalent of the Rosetta Stone. For those who don't
know, the Rosetta Stone, an ancient Pharaonic-Egypt decree discovered in the
18th century, helped decipher the ancient Egyptian script.
The Indian equivalent of the Rosetta Stone,
called the Naga Stone by the trio who discovered it, has a message from a king
who lived many millennia ago, inscribed in three different scripts. One of
these is the ancient Brahmi script, which as we all know, has been deciphered
already.
"We
discovered the Naga Stone in Nagaland, and hence the name, explained Mahesh. "It appears to be a message
from a local ruler, prescribing that a certain festival celebration be followed
strictly. It has the same message in three different scripts, one of which is
Brahmi, which we can read. Since the message is the same across the other
scripts, it was a simple job of matching words to decipher the other scripts.
Interestingly, all three scripts including
Brahmi can be identified as Indus Valley scripts since they contain symbols
commonly found in Indus Valley seals. The Indus script (which is a
hieroglyphic script, like that of Mandarin) has largely been found to be
inscribed on small seals that were probably used for trade and, some say,
for inspirational quotes as well.
Akbar said, "What we have discovered
is that there was not one uniform Indus Valley script. There were many, each
differing from the other quite a degree, even if some of the symbols were
similar. In fact, one of the scripts is even written right to left! [
ouch! This also suggests the same for
any Atlantean script as well – arclein ]
It is a common view among linguistic experts
that there should be one standard Indus Valley script. It seemed logical as
everything within the Indus Valley civilisation seemed to be rigidly
standardised, from the dimensions of the bricks used in construction to the
broad layouts for cities. It appears that the linguistic experts were wrong.
Different regions did use different scripts. But was the language common?
"Yes, the language was common even
though the scripts were different, said Mahesh. "And the language was
Sanskrit. At the look of surprise on my face, Gangadhar stepped in.
"You know, explained Gangadhar, "the practice of using the
Devanagiri script for the Sanskrit language is a relatively recent phenomenon.
In ancient times, many other scripts were used, including the Brahmi
script. In fact, ancient manuscripts have been found in Kerala wherein Sanskrit
had been written in the Malayalam script. So the idea of using different
scripts for the same language is not new in India. Of course, originally,
Sanskrit had no native script and was primarily an oral language.
But this obviously raises questions about
the version of history taught to us. We are taught that the Indus Valley people
were Dravidians who were indigenous Indians. They were, apparently, overrun by
Sanskrit-speaking Aryan invaders and pushed to the south. So how can the script
of a defeated people be used for the language of the victors?
"If you read the message on the Naga
Stone itself, said Akbar, "your doubts will be cleared. There was no so-called Aryan invasion.
Unbiased historians have always marvelled at this strange dichotomy in ancient
Indian history-the Indus Valley civilisation, the largest, most urban and
richest civilisation of its time, purportedly left behind no literature or
markers of high culture; whereas the so-called Aryan invaders from Central
Asia, who didn't build any great cities and were apparently barbaric warriors,
left behind the largest body of literature when compared to any other people of
the ancient world. The only logical explanation is that the Indus Valley
civilisation and the Vedic-erroneously called Aryan-civilisation were one and
the same.
"In India, the study of history is
unfortunately heavily politicised, with left- and right-wing ideologues making
arguments based on their ideological positions rather than facts, said
Gangadhar. "They both, sadly, allow their ideological leanings to cloud
their thinking. Therefore, today, we have to turn to Westerners or
non-professional Indian historians who are still untouched by the politics that
plagues our history departments, to find unbiased interpretations of our
history which are based on facts. Most Western historians have already
junked the Aryan Invasion Theory as colonial-era, European myth-making.
But
the convincing proof is the Naga Stone itself. The message written on it is unambiguous. The local ruler of that
time, Vasuki, said that the ancient Naga celebration of Panchami must be
followed since it had come down to his people (whom he called Vedic people)
from an ancient 10,000-year-old tradition from Sangam and Dwarka. Since the
stone itself is at least 3,000 years old, it makes the 'mother cultures'
of Sangam and Dwarka more than 13,000 years old, that is, before the end of the
last great ice age.
But where were Sangam and Dwarka? "We
believe that Sangam refers to an ancient Tamil civilisation and Dwarka to an
ancient Gujarati one, said Akbar.
"It would seem that the British writer, Graham Hancock, was right. He had
postulated that there were many ancient civilisations spread across the world
before the end of the last great ice age, when the sea levels were a lot lower.
Two of those civilisations were based in India -one off the coast of modern
Tamil Nadu and another off the coast of modern Gujarat. These civilisations
were destroyed when the ice age ended and the sea levels rose. The survivors
escaped to the north and established what we call the Vedic civilisation. So,
according to Graham Hancock, the ancient Vedic civilisation descended from
an even more ancient Tamil and Gujarati civilisation. The Naga Stone has just
confirmed this theory. Clearly, our
history books need some rewriting!
- Amish Tripathi is the author of The
Shiva Trilogy
No comments:
Post a Comment