am sure, most people on this list are more knowledgable than I'm. Posting this just to keep new users informed:
I was taught by a japanese man not to beleive every attractive book on the shelf.
I do not know the genuiness of the other authors, but I remembered him chiding me over blindly beleiving a book about atlantis - the theories which he beleived were false, and the name Graham Hancock figured in the conversation.
Just to make sure, I ran a search on google. As much as Hancock calls himself a 'pseudo-archeologist', his theories seem to have met with sceptics among established academics in the field. One such example is below:
Just to be fair, the article also contains (IMO) positive or neutral aspects of his books too. And Hancock's site (http://www.grahamhancock.com/) will make you beleive that he is the next Indiana Jones, but I urge you to consider the above para, just to see how controversial an author he is.
I wonder if we would be right in quoting such authors without a disclaimer. We could be misleading a lot of people here.
I believe Madan makes a very good point. A couple of other names that readily spring to mind are Erich von Daniken and Emmanuel Velikovsky. von Daniken's main aim was to show that we had been visited by aliens centuries ago, and these aliens are what we now call the different Gods. He backs it up with tenuous data from a number of different architectural/literature evidences from a number of different civilizations.
Velikovsky was even more controversial. He claimed that Venus was actually once a part of Jupiter and that it was explosively vented from Jupiter and crossed earth on its way to an inner orbit where it settled. Apparently, this close encounter between Venus and Earth happened during the time Moses and his people were wandering in the desert. According to Velikovsky, Venus, which is known to contain organic compounds, was the source of the "manna which fell from heaven".
Carl Sagan made a point by point rebuttal of his position. A little skepticism is always healthy is such matters :) I am similarly skeptical about all claims of Lemuria :-p
there is a false feeling that the older your civilisation is the greater you are. which has been disproved by the new countries that were formed in the last few centuries.
lemuria is one such myth. when the continents moved and sank( which is true) it had no men on it.
however the earth suffers mini- ice ages when some otherwise seperated lands are approachable by foot. that could have caused the migration of men.
but von daniken is such a good writer that he gently nudges you to his line of thought. he even quotes kunthi devi and the pandavas as a example of alien visits.
While there > are many civilisations which have not survived the test of time and have > gone to ground. Why does a particular civilisation survive? It is because > the people of that group tend to be better thinkers and have > innovated/invented a way to survive the event that eliminated thier > counterparts.
Hi Rahul
lets take the example of the egyptians. how many of them right now can claim to be members of the great pharoic civilisation. infusion of the hittites, the greeks,the arabs have completely diluted their civilisation.
that doesnt make the great pharohs achievements lesser but do we call the egyptian civilisation as dead or surviving.
you are very true. survival of the fittest though coined much later has much to say about civilisations also.
but the point I wanted to make was tamilnadu has a well entrenched history to qualify as one of the oldest civilisations in this world. and yet people cook up mythical islands and continents where civilisations flourished and that ours is only a continuation of that.
sure. Tamil culture has survived over thousand years. but our last kings spoke telugu, marathi and even persian as their court language.
what makes tamil nadu flourishing as of today. some would say automobiles and computers. both of which have no places in the lexicon of our anscestors.
a thousand years from now when they write the history f tamilnadu wil they not include these too. we will have to understand that " change is the only thing permanent'
Looking the argument from the another point of view, A civilization gets occupied by another more dominant civlization. The people finds themsselves at diaadvantage, adopt to the change, evolve and succeed at last. IMO a civlization of this kind is not lesser than a very old and unchanging(???) one.
As you said, civlizations really survive only if they are flexible and the ability to evlove, otherwise they would not survive for long. Many superior civlizations have been destroyed for the lack of flexiblity.
tamilnadu 1st century ad tamilnadu 11th century ad tamilnadu 14th century tamilnadu 18th century if we compare these we will know how this region has evolved
in 1st century many chieftans, many clans, highly localised 11th century -one central power- tamil kings 14th century muslim invasion, telugu invasion 17th muslim, european, mass migration within state, major demographic changes,new cities and centres of power develop
we can see how different clans and cities develop over 700 years. our tamil culture has indeed survived but not without impact from others.
hi: Temples being constructed by predeccesors for their ancestors (or in their rememberance) is a viable idea. Do the walls inside the temple have inscriptions saying so? Just mulling:) Deeps