Tamil Civilization - the Origins

[Joe Shearer]

These books give a lot insight about the historical events of the ancient India. Like Mahabharat gives a lot of infomation about the ancient geographical entities and communities that resided in ancient Indian subcontinent or beyond.

Theory can only be developed after reading these books, not first imagine and then look for it.

Not about historical events. These were poetic compositions, not intended to be factual. They have no value in historical analysis, and are used in a speculative manner for proto-history. Their accounts of ancient geographical entities and communities have to be cross-checked against other evidence in every case, and cannot, and has never been accepted by themselves.

 

[Sinnerman108]

How can you have a theory without reading these books.

Observation -> Hypothesis -> Theory -> Test / Prove.

These books, like other scriptural and quasi-scriptural writings, and like epics, do not constitute an acceptable source of history. Interpretations of possible historical developments based on their analyses are classified as proto-history.

It is not clear what theory @salman108 wishes to test, but it may not be an historical theory. If it is an historical theory, he is wasting his time.

No, History provides you with a set of data.
What you do is, you develop a theory .. like a equation, then you run all sets of data through it and see if the equation holds or it breaks.

These days I am getting an education from the Tamils them selves about their history.

 

[bronxbull]

Mostly i hate these historians because they only have pieces of evidence from the past and they extrapolate it in a direction of their own mind and bias.

Fundamentally the people who pay historians to do research and come up with findings do have an agenda and the historians do so as well,as much integrity they might have the conviction they try to display in this vocation of probability is baffling,they talk like some chemist observing a compound in a lab,like the evidence is crystal clear.

I feel DNA studies/Local stories,ancestral tales of history much more real and truthful.

In India such stories are filled with myth but the idea conveyed is often pure instead of these crystal clear time machine historians.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Observation -> Hypothesis -> Theory -> Test / Prove.



No, History provides you with a set of data.
What you do is, you develop a theory .. like a equation, then you run all sets of data through it and see if the equation holds or it breaks.

These days I am getting an education from the Tamils them selves about their history.

History, like the social science, is done/written within a framework, not in a vacuum. The reasoning behind the interpretation of facts is called historiography. No history is devoid of the interpretation of the facts; even the selection of facts is often undertaken under the influence of the underlying historiography.

In your terms, the theory that is developed is the historiography. The data that you run through it are historically acceptable facts, and sources.

The Mahabharata and its predecessor, the Ramayana, are not valid sources of data; they are not historically acceptable facts, and sources. Be cautioned.

I do not know what you mean by your reference to getting an education from the Tamils about their history. It is extremely unwise to take the garbage that is poured out on Internet as sound history; take it as garbage, and you will be on safe ground. Do not be distracted. Unless, of course, you are among those who believe that mortal man can go to heaven on the back of a horse in one night, and return; in which case, go ahead, have fun. You and those whom you are following so avidly will have earned each other's company.

 

[Developereo]

@Developereo

I am sorry, I wrestled with my baser self, and lost.

Why did you find it necessary to add four superfluous letters to the word?

Well, as you mentioned, we can't say anything definitive about prehistory.

However, to be fair to the Tamil claims, and given that humans are believed to have arrived in Australia around 60 kya, it is plausible that the Indian subcontinent could also have been settled by sea first (or independently), i.e. in the south, and humans moved north.

Given the geography, there are really only two possibilities for the spread of humans: eastward through Iran/Baluchistan, or northward from the south. Or a combination of the two.

I don't know if there are any claims of westward migrations through Assam/Bengal, etc.

Just a wild guess, but not impossible. I don't know what genetics says about this, so if there is definitive proof either way, it would be good to know.

And, of course, these are really ancient humans, long before the IVC, etc, and would probably not have any bearing on claims of cultural or civilizational progeny.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well, as you mentioned, we can't say anything definitive about prehistory.

However, to be fair to the Tamil claims, and given that humans are believed to have arrived in Australia around 60 kya, it is plausible that the Indian subcontinent could also have been settled by sea first (or independently), i.e. in the south, and humans moved north.

Given the geography, there are really only two possibilities for the spread of humans: eastward through Iran/Baluchistan, or northward from the south. Or a combination of the two.

I don't know if there are any claims of westward migrations through Assam/Bengal, etc.

Just a wild guess, but not impossible. I don't know what genetics says about this, so if there is definitive proof either way, it would be good to know.

And, of course, these are really ancient humans, long before the IVC, etc.

<groan>

You, my brave, of all people. Next, Oscar will turn out to be Madhuri Dixit in drag. Read your personal mail.

This is a bad day.

Well, as you mentioned, we can't say anything definitive about prehistory.

However, to be fair to the Tamil claims, and given that humans are believed to have arrived in Australia around 60 kya, it is plausible that the Indian subcontinent could also have been settled by sea first (or independently), i.e. in the south, and humans moved north.

Given the geography, there are really only two possibilities for the spread of humans: eastward through Iran/Baluchistan, or northward from the south. Or a combination of the two.

I don't know if there are any claims of westward migrations through Assam/Bengal, etc.

Just a wild guess, but not impossible. I don't know what genetics says about this, so if there is definitive proof either way, it would be good to know.

And, of course, these are really ancient humans, long before the IVC, etc.

<groan>

You, my brave, of all people. Next, Oscar will turn out to be Madhuri Dixit in drag. Read your personal mail.

This is a bad day.

AAAUURGHHH! YOU BLOCKED YOUR E-MAIL!

 

[Developereo]

Read your personal mail.

Sorry. I have it turned off by default.
I enabled PM, so please go ahead.
I will turn it off after I receive your message.

Thanks.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It's gone, you can shut it off now.

Nobody writes me personal mail, so I don't need to shut it off. How I wish I was as popular and as well read, and had zillions of followers, all trying to get me on PM.

Merde.

 

[Vinod2070]

As per a book I read, Humans arrived in Australia (and America) when they were not so cut off from the Asiatic mainland.

Perhaps there were a string of islands at mostly visible distances that got submerged with the end of the ice age. Humans used them to hop off and reach these places.

 

[Sinnerman108]

History, like the social science, is done/written within a framework, not in a vacuum. The reasoning behind the interpretation of facts is called historiography. No history is devoid of the interpretation of the facts; even the selection of facts is often undertaken under the influence of the underlying historiography.

In your terms, the theory that is developed is the historiography. The data that you run through it are historically acceptable facts, and sources.

The Mahabharata and its predecessor, the Ramayana, are not valid sources of data; they are not historically acceptable facts, and sources. Be cautioned.

I do not know what you mean by your reference to getting an education from the Tamils about their history. It is extremely unwise to take the garbage that is poured out on Internet as sound history; take it as garbage, and you will be on safe ground. Do not be distracted. Unless, of course, you are among those who believe that mortal man can go to heaven on the back of a horse in one night, and return; in which case, go ahead, have fun. You and those whom you are following so avidly will have earned each other's company.

Pardon, I know I am going to fail explaining this.
I have learned to accept mortal men flying to heavens, for that is the part I want to understand.

As for the other remark, I am spending some time with the Tamils themselves and learning their take on history and present.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@salman108

Fair enough. Need any help, do ask. Help on history and related matters; I'm not very good at men flying to heaven, and don't believe in heaven, for that matter. Good luck with your project; it is mysterious and enigmatic at this moment, perhaps best keep it that way