Chet Sapalio and the 31 January Paracast Show

[Red]

I'm inclined more on the side of Irishseekers. I believe that there are some things that do not appear on the historical/fossil record which are of the utmost in pertinence to human development.

Why do I believe so? Because many cultures and civilisations as geographically widespread as South America, Ireland, and even Asia share certain similarities...amongst them are the tales of dragons/winged serpents, red-haired light skinned peoples and significant artifacts depicting (in our interpretation) flying disc shaped objects.

One could very well ask: "What happened to the documentation?" If there was any to begin with. My answer would be thus: The destruction of libraries in South America and Alexandria (which I also believe was called Byzantium) destroyed a great deal of knowledge that humankind cannot gain back. What remains are oral traditions, mythologies, and the crude depictions of common man-for the most part.

Further, if there were fossil remains that indicated something further from the truth, those fossils would be unimportant statistically, and thus would be discarded by scientists.

Admittedly I am no scholar. I am primarily skeptical in my thinking-but when I see commonalities between so many different cultures, I am inclined to believe there is a reason for that commonality.

I do not doubt that man is ingenious. I do not doubt that humans in the distant past could create massive edifices and monuments...without any intervention from "gods" or "extraterrestrials."

From here though, I think I'll pretty much stay in the background and read more of these intriguiging posts.

Actually we auburn-haired folk are exiles from the planet Argon and it is sex and sugar that makes our hair red. (my apologies to Tom Robbins)

All kidding aside, despite cultural differences, we all have to eat, sleep and use the bathroom. We procreate, build and create art. We are born, we age and we die. We worship, we make music and we dance. I think sometimes we think of historic cultures as static, but in reality, they changed, they advanced or fell, they interacted with each other; leading to an exchange of ideas and symbols that spread far and wide. Most civilizations experienced war, invasion, sickness, natural catastrophes and exposure to other cultures. Perhaps we focus too much on the supposed differences of cultures and lose sight of the commonalities of the human experience.

 

[Trajanus]

My guess on this (and it is only that), is that there was a window of opportunity between 14,000 and 25,000 years ago

It was around then that the cro-magnons were producing cave art. I don't think any culture attained the definition of a civilization--which includes metallurgy--until about 7,000 years ago.

when the human population had been established long enough in places like India that civilization could have taken root. Indeed, the Vedic tradition says so as well.

The Rig Veda is entirely Aryan hence wouldn't pertain to anything before c 1500 BCE when the Aryan invasion of India occurred. Civilization predated that period in the Indus valley but I doubt it was older than the Egyptian middle kingdom.

 

[Schuyler]

It was around then that the cro-magnons were producing cave art. I don't think any culture attained the definition of a civilization--which includes metallurgy--until about 7,000 years ago.

Good Lord, Trajanus. So what? 14,000 years ago Native Americans had just discovered North America to take their name. New Guinea Highlanders were just as primitive as they were 50 years ago. But India had been steadily inhabited for tens of thousands of years. I refer you to the book, "Underworld" by Graham Hancock, which outlines in immense detail the issues surrounding a sea level rise about 14,000 years ago which inundated the Indian coast with a rise of about sixty feet, thus effectively wiping out whatever nascent civilization (including metallurgy) was there at the time. Fishermen there today still catch their nets on the sunken buildings.

 

[Trajanus]

I refer you to the book, "Underworld" by Graham Hancock,

I'd take him with a grain of salt. From what I remember he's an ancient astronauts type like von daniken. If he's the only source for this i.e. if pro archaeologists don't concurr..

 

[Red]

I'd take him with a grain of salt. From what I remember he's an ancient astronauts type like von daniken. If he's the only source for this i.e. if pro archaeologists don't concurr..

Despite Hancock's wacky hypothesis, he is right about the oceans.
Ancient Corals May Provide Record of Rapid Sea Level Rise: Scientific American

 

[Trajanus]

Despite Hancock's wacky hypothesis, he is right about the oceans.

I never doubted rapid sea level rises happened--there is much evidence for them in the geological record of the Mesozoic as well. But I question a bona fide civilization existing 14,000 years ago or more.

 

[Kieran]

Trajanus, why do you still refer to the myth of Aryans having invaded India around 1500BC. That never happened, there is no evidence and I mean no evidence to be found in India to back up that claim. This myth was popularised by the British empire when India was a colony and was further enhanced by the Nazis during the World War 2 to justify the killing of people of people who were non Aryan.

There is no mention of an Aryan Invasion to be found within the Hindu Culture, No mythology or folklore not even Archaeological evidence to prove this invasion actually took place.

But we have substantial evidence, that indeed two incursions into India happened in the Ancient past, one was undertook by the Persian Empire now Iran and the other By Alexander of Greece. In my opinion, Aryans from the Persian Empire had more influence on India culture, than tribes from Europe/who I believe migrated and explored this region not invaded.

Indo- European is a better term than Aryan to describe European cultures in the past. Obviously Blonde and red hair were probably unique hair properties to that time, but as far the evidence for a great and giant civilisation of blonde haired people. There is no evidence. I accept that.

Aryan the actual term original origins are Iran and the Term Aryan is not a symbol of race but language. Indo- European the term was used to describe different cultures with similar languages and words. It doesn't mean one race of people.So Indo- European in my view is a better way to describe different cultures who existed in the ancient past.

When I post about the Tuatha, There is historical documentation, myth and folklore to back up what I am saying. The stories about the Tuatha, Don't Originate from the island of Ireland . Other culture's around the world have spoken and wrote about the Tuatha. So for that reason, I Believe it is worth investigating were possible. AND Schuyler most of the myths and folklore from my Culture are in the time frame you outlined. Anything further back, I Have no clue.

Trajanus, Byzantium was the Eastern Roman Empire which was symbolised by the blue and purple colour and red symbolised the western Roman Empire. Trajanus, you are been a little unfair to Xylo.

Byzantium ruled Egypt at that time. And it was called the LIbrary of Byzantium obviously not by me/ but by other historians. Was due to the fact it was under the control of the Byzantium Empire.

Also Trajanus, there has been odd discoveries found in India that pre-date the Vedic texts. Do more Research.

Also Remember Graham Hancock actually visits this places and investigates some of this claims. You and me haven't and I am sure that is correct. Hancock also has documented some of those findings with actual video evidence.

 

[Trajanus]

Trajanus, why do you still refer to the myth of Aryans having invaded India around 1500BC. That never happened, there is no evidence and I mean no evidence to be found in India to back up that claim.

Of course it happened. The Aryans invaded adjacent Iran--a name derived from aryan--and went on to India. This is certain because of linguistic similarities between the Aryan Indo-Europeans in India and those in Europe. Where do you think the name Indo-European came from--it refers to essentially the same group spreading from India to Europe.

There is no mention of an Aryan Invasion to be found within the Hindu Culture, No mythology or folklore not even Archaeological evidence to prove this invasion actually took place.

Ever read the Rig Veda? Besides the cultural similarities between the Aryans who wrote it, and those of say, ancient Greece e.g. a thunder god, there are hints of warfare.

Indo- European is a better term than Aryan to describe European cultures in the past.

Sure, the real Aryan group was only in Iran and India.

Aryan the actual term original origins are Iran and the Term Aryan is not a symbol of race but language. Indo- European the term was used to describe different cultures with similar languages and words. It doesn't mean one race of people.

But they all originated in the area north of the Caucasus. Racially or ethnically they were originally pretty much the same; the differences came later and reflected native influences in the different lands they took over.

Also Trajanus, there has been odd discoveries found in India that pre-date the Vedic texts. Do more Research.

Yes of course I mentioned an Indus Valley culture predating the Aryan invasion.

Also Remember Graham Hancock actually visits this places and investigates some of this claims.

Yep just like von daniken--doesn't necessarily make him credible.

 

[Kieran]

Of course it happened. The Aryans invaded adjacent Iran--a name derived from aryan--and went on to India. This is certain because of linguistic similarities between the Aryan Indo-Europeans in India and those in Europe. Where do you think the name Indo-European came from--it refers to essentially the same group spreading from India to Europe.





Ever read the Rig Veda? Besides the cultural similarities between the Aryans who wrote it, and those of say, ancient Greece e.g. a thunder god, there are hints of warfare.





Sure, the real Aryan group was only in Iran and India.




But they all originated in the area north of the Caucasus. Racially or ethnically they were originally pretty much the same; the differences came later and reflected native influences in the different lands they took over.




Yes of course I mentioned an Indus Valley culture predating the Aryan invasion.



Yep just like von daniken--doesn't necessarily make him credible.

Trajanus, I would advise you to research it more, before you make that claim. It is has been prove to have not happened. Give me your evidence post it.

 

[Red]

I never doubted rapid sea level rises happened--there is much evidence for them in the geological record of the Mesozoic as well. But I question a bona fide civilization existing 14,000 years ago or more.

But it has gotten closer: HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION BEGAN IN URFA

Perhaps the problem is getting too hung up on technology as a basis for determining the level of sophistication for any culture. Many of the ancient writings were based on orals traditions which spanned much further back. Many of the Native American cultures here I would consider sophisticated, often having very complicated theologies and world views.

The evolution into civilization was not just a process that went forward, early humans most certainly suffered setbacks due to climatic changes and a variety of other factors. The civilization at Sumer appears to have a series of rises and collapses.

 

[Trajanus]

Trajanus, I would advise you to research it more, before you make that claim. It is has been prove to have not happened. Give me your evidence post it.

AFAIK it's been the standard view since linguistic similarities were noted in the 18th century. Western European nations have languages similar to Latin because the Romans invaded those areas. Similarly, the Indian language wouldn't have similarities to Greek etc unless close relatives of those european groups entered i.e. invaded India.

 

[Red]

AFAIK it's been the standard view since linguistic similarities were noted in the 18th century. Western European nations have languages similar to Latin because the Romans invaded those areas. Similarly, the Indian language wouldn't have similarities to Greek etc unless close relatives of those european groups entered i.e. invaded India.

Perhaps Indo-Iranian is the better term here. Indo-Aryan from an academic standpoint is a branch of the Indo-Iranian languages and these groups were never the blond and blue-eyed race associated with Nazi Germany. While it disputed that they were invaders, it certainly clear that they did migrate into India but not at a level as previously understood.

"Most recent studies in the end of 20th century and beginning of 21st century, by various geneticists, however, do not indicate a significantly large migration of population since at least 10,000 years. These studies are exactly in line with the theory of the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization because of change in geological and climatic conditions in the Indus Valley around 1900 BC, resulting in a gradual movement of the Indus Valley population towards the more well-watered areas of Haryana and Gujarat, and subsequently to the Ganga and Yamuna rivers in the east, indicated by recent discoveries of Indus Valley type small townships in Gujarat and Haryana in India."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration
Vedic Sanskrit is most derived from the Indo-Iranian languages, but right now scientists are at a loss to say how that occurred in light of the absence of evidence for a large scale migration.

 

[Trajanus]

Perhaps Indo-Iranian is the better term here. ....While it disputed that they were invaders, it certainly clear that they did migrate into India but not at a level as previously understood. .....
Vedic Sanskrit is most derived from the Indo-Iranian languages, but right now scientists are at a loss to say how that occurred in light of the absence of evidence for a large scale migration.

I think it can only be explained if the Indo-Iranian element, despite its small numbers, was dominant, through conquest.

 

[Kieran]

AFAIK it's been the standard view since linguistic similarities were noted in the 18th century. Western European nations have languages similar to Latin because the Romans invaded those areas. Similarly, the Indian language wouldn't have similarities to Greek etc unless close relatives of those european groups entered i.e. invaded India.

I Think your confusing actual history with myths and rehashing both to suit your view. If there is similarities with the Indian and Greek language, that wouldn't surprise me, since there is a well documented history of Armies under the leadership of Alexander having invaded India in 326 BC. That time-line is accepted. However there is no evidence for mass scale invasion of India by European Tribes in the year 1500BC. This myth was made popular in the 18th and 19th centuries and by way of research has been proven to be a lie.

This never happened Trajanus. I have evidence which will show this was myth and nothing else. But I think you should research it yourself without me having to constantly argue my point.

 

[Red]

Irishseekers,
Just to go off topic for a second, do you have a book or link about the Irish Legends you talk about, especially regarding their age? I would be very interested in finding out more.

Thanks!

 

[Schuyler]

I'd take him with a grain of salt. From what I remember he's an ancient astronauts type like von daniken. If he's the only source for this i.e. if pro archaeologists don't concurr..

He does have a bit of that reputation, and of course pro-archaeologists won't concur because they've never studied it. The references in his book are more important that the book itself.

But if we are to dismiss the book and the ideas because professional scientists do not concur, then, if we are consistent, we must dismiss Roswell and ETs from space for the same reason. You can't use the professional scientific community to bolster your case on the one hand, then dismiss them as irrelevant ti support a different case elsewhere.

 

[Kieran]

Irishseekers,
Just to go off topic for a second, do you have a book or link about the Irish Legends you talk about, especially regarding their age? I would be very interested in finding out more.

Thanks!

The books I have mentioned are in museums in Dublin Ireland. The problem with links is, the information is the authors take on the myths and folklore. There is good websites on the Tuatha, and I will Look and post. I would have to take the time to find articles that would make sense to you. Most of what I know comes from memory.

---------- Post added at 08:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 PM ----------

I Found a somewhat interesting piece about the Tuath. Some the information is confusing Red, because we are talking about myth and folklore here. But the information is accurate. There is some interpretation by the author, but that is not usual.
http://www.likesbooks.com/tuatha.html

 

[Red]

Back to the idea of the fair skinned and auburn/blond haired folk. It may have been an adaptation to the colder climates generated in previous ice ages. Fair skin has less melanin which blocks the productions of vitamin D. This adaptation would not only give them an evolutionary advantage in northern regions, it may have equipped them to better survive ice ages and perhaps thrive.

 

[Kieran]

Here is another article about the paranormal in Ireland Red.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/19275

 

[Trajanus]

But if we are to dismiss the book and the ideas because professional scientists do not concur, then, if we are consistent, we must dismiss Roswell and ETs from space for the same reason.

In fact, SOME scientists support Roswell and the idea of ET visitors. Friedman is a nuclear physicist. I don't know if ANY of the pros support Hancock.

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

I Think your confusing actual history with myths and rehashing both to suit your view. If there is similarities with the Indian and Greek language, that wouldn't surprise me, since there is a well documented history of Armies under the leadership of Alexander having invaded India in 326 BC.

But the Macedonian conquest or rule was only partial and too brief to have affected the language.

However there is no evidence for mass scale invasion of India by European Tribes in the year 1500BC.

OK there was no MASSIVE immigration. But there had to have been SOME, to account for the language. And even if only a limited number of Indo-Iranians came, they must have been dominant i.e. conquerors, if their language prevailed.