From: Mike Lorrey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2002 - 08:29:43 MST
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> > Since Indus script existed prior between 3000 to 2000 BC, and that there
> > is no record of the Hindu Vedas, so far as I know of, in any recovered
> > Indus texts, then it is highly doubtful that the Vedas were in existence
> > prior to 2000 BC, so any claims of 'astronomical' evidence of their
> > existence prior to that date are highly speculative and likely open to
> > significant subjective interpretation.
> Absolutely. It's much more likely that the Vedas as we have them were formed
> by a process of accretion, incorporating older texts and oral traditions.
> Moreover, the Indus civilisation is overthrown by the Aryan invaders from
> the Northwest between about 1500-900 BC and the Vedas are essentially the
> myth system of those invaders. The early Vedic period is about 1200 BC.
Thank you. The reason why I used writing to compare the ages of various
civilizations is that writing is the primary tool of Lamarkian social
evolution. Societies which relied purely on oral traditions were not
very developed, never very organized into city/nation states (since
city/nation states depend upon the existence of writing to function),
and thus societies with only oral traditions cannot be considered true
'civilizations'. They can be considered cultures, but not civilizations
due to this absence of writing technology.
For this reason, the Aryan culture from whence sanskrit developed cannot
be considered a 'civilization' prior to the development of written
sanskrit. Given this, my original point that western civilizations are
older than eastern ones continues to stand.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST