Appearance of Modern Human Behavior

“Modern humans have been around for at least 160,000 to 200,000 years but there is no archaeological evidence of any technology beyond basic stone tools until around 90,000 years ago. In Europe and western Asia this advanced technology and behaviour explodes around 45,000 years ago when humans arrive there, but doesn’t appear in eastern and southern Asia and Australia until much later, despite a human presence. In sub-Saharan Africa the situation is more complex. Many of the features of modern human behaviour — including the first abstract art — are found some 90,000 years ago but then seem to disappear around 65,000 years ago, before re-emerging some 40,000 years ago.[High Population Density Triggers Cultural Explosions]

So why did those cultural and technological explosions happen at those particular moments in time? Was it a boost in brain power or advance in language? It turns out that the answer is population density.

The research, which is published in the June 5 issue of the journal Science, suggests that tens of thousands of years ago, as human population density increased so did the transmission of ideas and skills. The result: the emergence of more and more clever innovations. [Party Animals: Early Human Culture Thrived in Crowds – Yahoo! News]

And

Using genetic estimates of population size in the past, the team went on to show that density was similar in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and the Middle-East when modern behaviour first appeared in each of these regions. The paper also points to evidence that population density would have dropped for climatic reasons at the time when modern human behaviour temporarily disappeared in sub-Saharan Africa.[High Population Density Triggers Cultural Explosions]

Here is the original paper

Undeciphered Scripts

As the debate over the Indus script – on if it is a language or not and if so, is it Dravidian or Indo-European – continues, New Scientist has an article listing seven other scripts that cannot be read.

Proto-Elamite is the world’s oldest undeciphered script – assuming that it really is a fully developed writing system, which is by no means certain. It was used for perhaps 150 years from around 3050 BC in Elam, the biblical name for an area that corresponds roughly to today’s oilfields of western Iran. It is almost as old as the oldest writing of all, the earliest cuneiform from Mesopotamia. Little is known about the people who wrote the script.[Decoding antiquity: Eight scripts that still can’t be read – life – 27 May 2009 – New Scientist]

The Poisons of Mithridates

(via Wikipedia)

During the reign of Hatshepsut (1479 to 1458 B.C.E.), one of the female Pharaoh’s of Egypt, a series of poisonings happened in Thebes. The queen had signed a peace agreement with Libyans and three scribes died during the ceremony. This was followed by the death of many others, which coincided with the escape of a known poisoner from prison. How Judge Amerotke, the Chief Judge from the Halls of Two Truths, solves the mystery is the story of P. C. Doherty’s excellent historical murder mystery – The Poisoner of Ptah
The author’s note at the end of the book has a section on known poisoners of the ancient world including the the most famous one — Mithridates VI of Pontus — who lived in the first century B.C.E. It is believed that he got his knowledge of poisons and antidotes from India, among other sources.
Mithridates VI who ruled the kingdom of Pontus from 119 to 63 B.C.E, was a contemporary of Julius Caesar, but he troubled Rome to no end. Between 89 B.C.E and 63 B.C.E, three Mithridatic wars were fought between Roman legions and Mithridates VI.
Though he was a brave warrior, Mithridates feared one thing: death by poisoning. So a team of doctors – Scythian shamans – always accompanied him. He also took preventive care by consuming a small amount of poisons with his food to give him immunity. This in fact resembles the plan that Chanakya devised for Chandragupta Maurya.
Even before Chanakya, preventive measures for poisoning was known in India. According to Manusmriti, a king was to eat food mixed with antidotes against poison. The king was also required to wear gems which destroy poison[1]. Both Charaka and Susruta had written about antidotes; one called Mahagandhahasti had sixty ingredients[2].
According to Chanakya  those who are cruel, lazy and devoid of any affection for their relatives shall be recruited as poisoners. These poisoners were to spy on the indoor activities of officials by getting jobs, adopting a disguise or working as entertainers. But poisoners, probably those not working for the state, who harmed others were considered anti-social elements. Such poisoners were to be exiled[3].
Chanakya also wrote about destroying an enemy army using poisons. A spy in the enemy camp, disguised as a wine seller, was allowed to poison the army. Chanakya discusses various strategies for this: first the poisoner was to distribute unadulterated wine, and when the army chiefs were drunk, given poisoned wine. Or cheap food could be sold to the aggressor with poison mixed or women could buy food from a merchant into a vessel which had poison, nag a bit about the high price and put the material back into the merchant’s ware[3].
The king was to eat only freshly cooked food only after physicians and helpers had tested it for poisons. Chanakya gives a list of poisons and various effects and ways by which poisons could be identified in food. To prevent poisoning, entertainers were forbidden from using poisons in their shows. He noted that “a single assassin could achieve with weapons, fire or poison, more than a fully mobilized army.[3]”
Mithridates was erudite and read many texts. Also Indian medicine was well known and admired in Rome and it is possible that Mithridates came to know these details from them[2].
During those times people believed that there was a universal antidote — theriac — which could cure all poisons. To find this theriac, Mithridates experimented various concoctions;a painting by Robert Thorn shows Mithridates testing poisons on a prisoner. He finally came up with a mixture of fifty-four antidotes which was named mithridatium. The formula for this antidote was preserved by Pliny the Elder, Galen and Andromachus the Elder, the physician of Nero. Theriac was quite popular during even during the Middle ages till the 19th century, though it was not Mithridatic formula that was being used.
Mithridates’ last day on earth took an ironic turn when he wanted to die by poisoning and failed. Mithridates’ army was defeated by Pompey in 65 B.C.E, but the king escaped with this two daughters to his castle near the Bosphorous. As the Roman soldiers were closing in, he shared a vial of poison with his daughters, who died immediately. But Mithridates, who was conditioned by poison was unaffected. Finally he fell on the sword of one of his bodyguards and committed suicide[3].
References:

  1. Manusmriti translated by G. Buhler
  2. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows and Scorpion Bombs by Adrienne Mayor (suggested by P.C. Doherty via e-mail)
  3. Kautilya – The Arthashastra
  4. University of California chronicle By University of California (1868-1952)

The Biblical Migration Theory


The discovery of skeletons in Mohenjo-daro in 1920s led Sir Mortimer Wheeler to opine that Harappa was overthrown by invaders, inspired by the Vedic god Indra.[1] Now archaeology and genetic studies have discredited Sir Mortimer Wheeler’s  Aryan invasion theory, which originated in the twentieth century. The external origins of Aryans is now being kept alive by “sporadic migration and occasional contacts” theory[2]. But much before the Aryan invasion theory, there used to be a migration theory of Biblical proportions[3] whose originator was Jean-Antoine Dubois, a French-Catholic missionary, who spent time in Pondicherry, Madras Presidency and Mysore from 1792 to 1823.
The French revolution started in 1789 and Dubois fled in 1792 at the age of 27, which turned to be a wise decision, for if he had stayed back he would have been killed. In India he adopted the local dress and habits like the Tuscan Jesuit missionary Roberto de Nobili, the Roman Brahmin, who did this almost two centuries before Dubois. This technique worked well, for he was welcomed by people of all castes.
In 1799, when Seringapatam fell, Richard Colley Wesley who was the Governor General of India, invited Dubois to organize the Christian community of Mysore which had been forcibly converted to Islam by Tippu Sultan; he reconverted 1800 people.
His greatest accomplishment was writing a book — Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies — based on his experience, important books and various records he obtained. It is in this book that he came up with his theory for the origins of the Brahmins.
He was aware that Hindus claimed Brahmins originated from Brahma’s head and that they were from near Maha-Meru and Madara Parvata. He was aware of the concept of the seven rishis, recognized in the Great Bear and the flood story in Indian mythology.
For Dubois, these Hindu fables were absurd. Before presenting his theory, he first dismissed two other ideas. The first one claimed that  Egyptian king Sesostris conquered land till the Ganges; the second, that the caste system was obtained from the Arabs.
Once these were out of the way, Dubois presented his thesis. After the flood, the whole world was repopulated again. For this, Noah and his  sons dispersed around the world. One group went West, while the others under the guidance of Magog, Noah’s grandson, went to the Caucasian range. From there they came via the North into India and populated it. He even has a date  for this migration – nine centuries before Christian era. Thus the Brahmins, according to Dubois, were descendants of Magog’s father Japheth.
By the time Dubois wrote his manuscript, comparative linguistics had just arrived on the scene in a big way. In 1786, Sir William Jones published his The Sanscrit Language in which he observed that Sanskrit resembled Greek and Latin and suggested a common source, which would be called proto-Indo-European. Dubois decided to dabble in a bit of linguistics himself.
For Dubois, Magog and Gotama sounded the same. He suspected that they were the same person. He also found similarities between  Prometheus and Brahma (say Brema and Prome aloud few times and you will get it. Or may be not). If you think that this Brahma = Prometheus thing does not add up, here is the clincher. Like how Prometheus asked Hercules for help, Brahma also asked Vishnu for help, not once, but many times. As I found myself nodding in agreement, he ruined it for me with the statement that Prometheus could be Magog himself.
With our current understanding it is easy to dismiss the work as fanciful narrative, but in the 19th century it was taken seriously; Dubois’ work was influential. He gave the French manuscript to Mark Wilks, the British Resident of Mysore, who in turn sent it to the Madras government. In 1816, it was translated to English. The prefatory note to the English edition was  by none other than F. Max Muller, who wrote that Dubois, though a missionary, was free from theological prejudices. Lord  William Bentinck, who would later become the Governor General and would play a part in Macaulay’s education in India, recommended the book highly. Bentinck praised the book saying that it would help the East India Company employees a great deal in their conduct with the natives. The East India company paid 2000 star pagodas for the manuscript.
While everyone — Wilks, Bentick, Muller — praised the book for the observations on the caste system, no one found the Biblical connection objectionable. Even preface to the 1906 edition which I read did not question it. Thus Indian history of the 19th century combined Sir William Jones’ comparative linguistics, Dubois’ Biblical Migration theory and Max Muller’s arbitrary dating of the Vedas. The impact of Sir William Jones and Max Muller are still present in the same form, while Dubois’ migration theory is present in a modified version.
The path taken by  Indo-Europeans of the Aryan Migration Theory 2.0 is the same as that proposed by Dubois: from the Caucasus to India. A group of Indo-Europeans would go West, like Noah’s sons, to be the Mittani.[1]
Though he came to covert, by his own account, Dubois was not a successful missionary[4].
Text not available
Dubois later wrote a controversial pamphlet — Letters on the state of Christianity in India — in which he declared that it is next to impossible to convert Indians. He went back to Paris on Jan 15, 1823, never to return again. He  kept a low profile and Max Muller who visited Paris in 1846 did not know that Dubois was well and alive at that time. Dubois died two years later.
Postscript:  Dubois was paid well and he lived off the money for some time. There is a controversy that the original manuscript was not written by Dubois, but was based on something written by Pere Coeurdoux in 1760s[5].
References:

  1. The Wonder That Was India by A L Basham
  2. Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History; By Edwin Bryant, Laurie L. Patton
  3. A Survey of Hinduism by  Klaus Klostermaier
  4. Debate Transactions of the Royal Historical Society  By Royal Historical Society
  5. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. By Nicholas B. Dirks
  6. Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies by Abbe J. A. Dubois

Skulls in Jewish Rituals

Around 20 CE, Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and a contemporary of Yeshua who played a part in his execution as well as the excution of John the Baptist, built a new city called Tiberias in honor of his mentor, the Roman emperor Tiberius. His father, Herod the Great, was known for building beautiful cities and the son wanted to match that. Some scholars suggest that Yeshua, who was from the nearby Nazareth, must have worked in the construction of the this city between 18 and 23 CE.[1]
But the son’s construction projects did not rival the father’s accomplishments which included expanding the temple at Jerusalem, building the fortress at Masada and the port city of Caesarea Maritima. There was another problem too with the city of  Tiberias. During the construction of the city, they hit upon a cemetery, which was destroyed. But when time came to move in the residents, devout Jews stayed away, since they considered this impure. So some Galileans and poor immigrants were moved in.[2]
According to Jewish religious law, it is forbidden to touch human remains. In the film The Body, when Olivia Williams finds a skeleton, supposedly of Yeshua, there is a scene where conservative Jews make a huge issue about it and start pelting her and Antonio Banderas. Thus it is odd to see a news item with the title Jews used human skulls in Talmudic era. Jews were not supposed to be Kapalikas.

BAR readers already know about the more than two thousand magic incantation bowls that have survived from third – seventh-century C.E. Jewish communities in Babylonia. The incantation bowls were made at the same time and in the very communities that produced the most intricate, complex and revered accomplishment of rabbinic Judaism, the Babylonian Talmud. Although some have deemed the incantation literature to be inconsistent with the spirit of the Talmud, recent research has shown it to be, rather, complementary and representative of aspects of life reflected within the Talmud. [Rare Magic Inscription on Human Skull]

It is believed that these skulls were used in ceremonies – to scare away ghosts and demons – though it violated laws.
But violating Jewish laws is not new. For example, even though the Israelites were supposed to worship Yahweh only, they worshipped the fertility goddess Asherah and the Canaanite God Baal. Even Jesus violated the sabbath law
References:
[1] Jesus the Galilean By David A. Fiensy
[2] Herod Antipas By Harold W. Hoehner

Indian History Carnival – 17

The Indian History Carnival, published on the 15th of every month, is a collection of posts related to Indian history and archaeology.

  1. One fundamental dispute regarding the Indus script is not on if it represents Dravidian or Indo-European language, but if it represents a language at all. A new paper published in Science showed that “Indus script has a structured sign system showing features of a formal language.” This started a debate with posts supporting (1,2) and questioning (1, 2) the paper. In a series of posts (1, 2, 3) Rahul Siddharthan explains the concepts in the paper.
  2. In the BJP Manifesto, Dr. Murali Manohar Joshi made some claims about Indian history which was dismissed by some anomymous eminent historians. Tamil Talk examines Dr. Joshi’s claims.
  3. From the ruins of Pompeii (79 CE), a statue called “Goddess Lakshmi statue in Pompeii” was found. Maddy finds out how this statue reached Rome from India.
  4. Since pirates are the newsmakers these days, CKR narrates the events of Nov 1696 when pirates took over some ships in Calicut harbor.
  5. Via Jim Davila we get a PBS video on the Syrian Christians of Kerala and on the efforts to preserve ancient manuscripts.
  6. Aparna blogs, in three parts. about a talk given by Dr. Chitra Madhavan on the Art, History and Architecture of Kanchipuram.

f you find any posts related to Indian history published in the past one month, please send it to jk AT varnam DOT org or use this form. Please send me links which are similar to the ones posted, in terms of content.The next carnival will be up on June 15th.
See Also: Previous Carnivals

Pakistan for Dummies

You could read a lot about Pakistan to understand what happened and what is going to happen. Or you could watch the two clips below. In the first one Fareed Zakaria explains what Gen. Musharraf did in plain simple words. The second clip shows what Pres. Zardari is going to do in plain simple words.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M – Th 11p / 10c
Fareed Zakaria
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		 Economic Crisis Political Humor
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M – Th 11p / 10c
Apakalypse Now
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		 Economic Crisis Political Humor

Hostile Reactions

In 2004, the Dover, Pennysylvania, school board decided to teach students an alternative to evolution called Intelligent Design.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]

Promptly a law suit was filed and an opening witness at the trial was Kenneth Miller, a Brown University biologist and leading proponent of evolution. During the trial he had to face not just the lawyers, but the public as well. Lot of people expressed hostile reactions — via letters, via e-mails, via phone. He was told he would spend eternity in hell. He was told he was not respecting God. He was asked how he could be a Christian and believe Darwin — all from folks who read the book of Genesis literally[1].

Such hostility exists not just between scientists and people who want to enforce their religious beliefs on others, but also between proponents of the Aryan migration/trickle down theory and non-believers. Anyone who opposes the external origins of Aryans can pick one of these labels: “Hindu fundamentalist”, “revisionist” or “fascist”. Any supporter of the external origins of Aryans is either a “colonialist-missionary” or one who harbors “racist-hegemonial” prejudices.[2] Edwin Bryant’s The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate has a great collection of polemical reactions from both sides.

This is one of those debates where even tenured professors do what Jamal did to watch his favorite actor. Also this kind of language is common in Indian History mailing lists where proponents of various theories display juvenile behavior to much amusement. If you think, quite naively, that to demolish a theory you just to counter the interpretation of data, you are wrong. Not in this field. So when a recent paper on Indus script was published, it was countered with the statement (among other things) that the authors of the paper are Dravidian nationalists.

Before 2004, the Rao et al. paper would not have gathered any attention. (Of course the Indus system is a language script! Why are you discussing it?) But that year, Steve Farmer managed to persuade two others — one of whom, Michael Witzel, is a well-respected authority in the field — to add their names to his thesis that it is not a language. The resulting manuscript was absurdly and unprofessionally bombastic in its language, while containing essentially nothing convincing. Regardless of the work of Rao et al, their hypothesis would have died a natural death — but Rao et al do have Farmer et al to thank for enabling them to publish their work, with its obvious conclusions, in a prestigious journal like Science. Farmer et al are so rattled that they promptly post an incoherent, shrill, content-free, ad hominem rant on Farmer’s website. Sproat even shows up on my previous post, leaving a chain of comments that reveal that he has neither understood, nor cares to understand, the argument. [More Indus thoughts and links]

As Kenneth Miller writes in his book,  finally bad science will fail. Intelligent Design was thrown out by the courts since the advocates could not present any peer-reviewed articles or evidence for intelligent design or proof of scientific research or testing. The Aryan Invasion Theory was discredited and discarded and now the Illiterate Harappan hypothesis is being questioned. No amount of polemics can stop that.
Now compare that to a response by Iravatham Mahadevan

References:

  1. Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul by Kenneth Miller
  2. A Survey of Hinduism by Klaus K. Klostermaier
  3. The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate by Edwin Bryant

Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta?

Reader Kedar asked two questions recently

  1. There is a huge gap between Mahabharata (3100 BCE, 2450 BCE, 1500 BCE) and the Mahajapadas. What happened there?
  2. Who was the contemporary of Alexander of Macedonia? Chandragupta Maurya or the Guptas? Do Mahavira, Buddha and Adi Shankara belong to an earlier period?

We will look at (2) today and deal with (1) later.
At the International Conference on Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics 2009, Dr Subramanian Swamy gave the valdedictory speech on the need to defalsify Indian history. In this speech, Dr. Swamy stated that most dates  related to Indian history – Rigveda, Mahabharata, Buddha, Asoka —  are wrong. This happened because European historians identified Sandrocottus, mentioned by Megasthenes, as Chandragupta Maurya. This Sandrocottos was a contemporary of Alexander and from associated calculations, the date of Chandragupta Maurya’s coronation was found. Based on this point, Asoka’s corononation was calculated, so was the time of Buddha.
But according to Swamy,  the correct dates are as follows

However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta Chandragupta was “Sandrocottus” c.327 B.C. His son, Samudragupta, was the great king who established a unified kingdom all over India, and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras their recognition of him. He also had defeated Seleucus Nicator, while his father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu at 6777 B.C. and Lord Rama before that. Derivation of other dates without discussion may also be briefly mentioned here: Buddha’s Nirvana 1807 B.C., Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 B.C., Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 B.C.[Non-random-Thoughts: ‘De-falsify Indian history’ — Dr Subramanian Swamy]

Thus, a case is presented that Western historians distorted Indian history and it is our responsibility to correct it. So let us accept for a moment that Buddha lived in 1807 BCE. We don’t have archaeological evidence of the cities and kingdoms mentioned in Buddhist texts dating to that period.
If Rama lived in 6777 BCE, he belonged to the Neolithic age and would have fought with axe heads and chisels. This Rama would be vastly different from the one portrayed in Ramayana, like King David. The Tel Dan Stele mentions David’s existence, but archaeology has found that he would have been not a king, but a petty warlord of a small chiefdom with few settlements. So did this Neolothic Rama’s exploits survive as a mnemohistory, like how David’s lives in the Torah?
Whether due to colonial bias or not, we have certain dates and there is an effort to propose new ones. But these new ones have to take into consideration the social order of the time and also be backed up by archaeology.

The Ming Dynasty ship sinks

One documentary I watched while writing Chinese Power in Indian Ocean (2/2) was based on Gavin Menzies’ best selling book  1421: The Year China Discovered America. The thesis of the book was that Zheng He’s fleet had reached America in 1421. But in the documentary, they put Gavin Menzies on camera and contradicted most of his assumptions. Mr. Menzies agreed with the producers that most of his evidence is flimsy, but he still stood by his theory.
To prove that Zheng He’s fleet could have reached America, a replica of the Ming Dynasty ship was built and it set sail to America from Xiamen. The ship made of wood held together with nails docked in San Francisco in October 2008 after a 69 day journey.
But tragedy struck while returning back to Taiwan.

After surviving several storms during its 10-month voyage, the junk broke in two and sank after it was rammed by a freighter just off Taiwan’s coast.
All 11 crew members were rescued after being found adrift on the wreckage.
“We have worked so hard for so many years, but we failed at the last minute, I’m really ashamed,” said Taiwanese captain Liu Ningsheng after being rescued by the coast guard. [BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Ming Dynasty replica junk sinks]