Nungali

Yes, it would be just as surprising as a place like India not having a wide range of genetics . - by the way , India isnt the only place with a 'history problem ' ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_wars

Yes, that applies here too and that was the difference I was trying to explain . Unfortunately western academia seems more confused about the concept than we are . Thats why I said Aboriginals do not have A CIVILISATION but many people consider them 'civilised' ... and in many cases they considered the white man shockingly barbaric ( eg, when they where first made to watch the flogging of a prisoner ) - just out of curiosity .... I think by now we know how you feel about the idea of an ' Aryan incursion' from outside of India as a component to make up the Indian identity (the 'gene pool' of the modern Indian subcontinent ) but how do you feel about the addition also , of these two components ; Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) and Ancestral Tibeto-Burman (ATB) ?

Dravidian' as a word used to describe some type of difference between people , other than that of related to language , is nowadays frowned upon .... not actually against the rules , but people do get called out on it in discussion on history forum .... and some times a mod will warn people that 'overuse' the word in a context other than linguistical .

The curry shop is now open . Another loaded question ! You ask me to consider ... but only give two choices . I also have to assume you mean the Aboriginals in their natural state before Euro interference . I consider them to NOT be only 'just' H&G .... although they did do hunting and gathering , they had a type of agriculture and aqua culture in some places and some lived in 'villages' in stone huts, they had vast trade networks , did mining , etc . But no, they did not have a civilisation ( although some considered them 'civilised' - two different meanings - and some did not ) " A civilization is a complex human society, usually made up of different cities, with certain characteristics of cultural and technological development. In many parts of the world, early civilizations formed when people began coming together in urban settlements. However, defining what civilization is, and what societies fall under that designation, is a hotly contested argument, even among today’s anthropologists. The word “civilization” relates to the Latin word “civitas” or “city.” This is why the most basic definition of the word “civilization” is “a society made up of cities.” But early in the development of the term, anthropologists and others used “civilization” and “civilized society” to differentiate between societies they found culturally superior (which they were often a part of), and those they found culturally inferior (which they referred to as “savage” or “barbaric” cultures). The term “civilization” was often applied in an ethnocentric way, with “civilizations” being considered morally good and culturally advanced, and other societies being morally wrong and “backward.” This complicated history is what makes defining a civilization troublesome for scholars, and why today’s modern definition is still in flux. Still, most anthropologists agree on some criteria to define a society as a civilization. First, civilizations have some kind of urban settlements and are not nomadic. With support from the other people living in the settlement, labor is divided up into specific jobs (called the division of labor), so not everyone has to focus on growing their own food. From this specialization comes class structure and government, both aspects of a civilization. Another criterion for civilization is a surplus of food, which comes from having tools to aid in growing crops. Writing, trading, artwork and monuments, and development of science and technology are all aspects of civilizations. However, there are many societies that scholars consider civilizations that do not meet all of the criteria above. For example, the Incan Empire was a large civilization with a government and social hierarchy. It left behind a wealth of art, and had highly developed architecture­­­—but no written language. This is why the concept of “civilization” is hard to define; however, it is still a helpful framework with which to view how humans come together and form a society." https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/civilizations/

See! You are doing it again ! There was NO contention on my part . It was merely a response to YOUR claim that ... and I repeat it yet again ... that the subcontinent was unaffected by the ice age . Imagine what you want ; that I said ... or you 'understood me correctly ' to say (even though I never suggested anything of the sort ) that the entire world was a deep freezer . What the Hell are you on about ??? Shall I now add 'putting words in my mouth ' as well as moving goal posts , laying red herrings, etc. etc . DUDE ! 1. You say ' subcontinent was unaffected during ice age ' . 2 . I say it was effected . 3. You say, no it wasnt and then post material to show that it WAS . 4 . I point out that you just posted material to show that it WAS effected . 5. You then claim it is my " contention was that the entire world was a deep-freezer and that was basic high-school geography knowledge. " Here ya go mate : https://www.businessinsider.com/online-debate-speech-negotiation-classes?r=AU&IR=T anything before it ends . Its a play on words if not a goal post shift Implausibility is part of the discussion now ? I thought it was about archaeological evidence FOUND . Looking at the above word play , it is not 'implausible ' that civilisation ' started forming' when HSS left Africa .

Except thise 'motiffs' on seals from IVC dated 3300 – c. 1300 BCE not 7500 BCE. Well, I study anthropology and I learned that a climate change and a failure of ONE of the monsoon cycles caused the IVC not to end but to shift east and south and adopt new crops more efficient to area and climate . NOT that invading Aryans drove out or ended the IVC . That idea is really old and outdated . You know, in the past, even the British Museum had a view of world history based on the Bible . They had a chart up showing the Tower of Babel and how it collapsed and all the sons of Ham went in different directions with their confused languages and set up the different civilizations . But we got over that . You may as well criticise ' the sciences' for saying (in the past ) that India was founded by Hams third son , Put . Are Palaeolithic sites 'civilisation' ? So, what do you think caused this separation back at 6000 BCE ? (thats actually the crux of this issue , NOT that it just cancels out this defunct AIT . ) yep , thats partially right , but lets add a few spoonfulls of Indian nationalism to the mix as well But they need to be examined , just as the sometimes biased claims of the west where examined , in light of new findings . But shifting the goal posts , not answering the questions and other 'tactics' ( like claiming sub continent was never effected by the ice age and claiming cave art represents civilisation ) is rather disingenuous and doesnt really help your case .

My dear fellow, lease do not upset the array of red herrings that have been carefully and neatly laid across our path . Unless you plan on making a meal out of them . I have been involved in debates about what civilisation actually means . Some have a very wide definition , but it usually does not include only the ability to hunt and gather and do cave art . That is REALLY stretching it ! Aussie rock art goes back 40,000 years .

I am sure there where and not denying it . What I was denying was your statement that the subcontinent was NOT EFFECTED during the ice age . It clearly was and the references YOU supplied showed I was right and you where wrong . Not moving the goal post a little here are you ? Okay , so NOT 'a civilisation' now but moving towards the 'development of civilisation' . . . a few thousand years later .

Maybe you had a vision of A God . . . claiming in a jealous, over ruling , male way , that he was all there is . I knew a God like that once ... he was named Jehovah. I knew him via indoctrination ..... but that eventually failed . Later I met A female God . . . she had a much nicer message .

So ... a 'he' is 'he' ?

Thank you . Anyone with common sense would realise I cant smoke crack .. with my 'awesome expert abilities ' combined with the super human traits crack gives ... I would be just too awesome for ..... awesomeness ;

My answer to all of this has previously been outlined . You are back flogging a dead horse . I wont bother responding as I can see your 7 day holiday did you no good and you are straight back here doing exactly what got you the 'holiday' in the first place . Which I suspect may shortly be permanent .

Hey ! ... I am showing some of the latest info that moves towards supporting his views , but even that isnt good enough, it seems . probably won't be good enough either ... until I show proof of flying vimana ( which, by the way .... isn't even traditional ! )

What I posted, and the information in the links I gave are based on current research not the theories of 18th and 19th century 'European natives ' . And they indicate movement towards some of the things some Indians have been claiming , yet you dismissed them for some obscure reason about not going along with traditional knowledge . Really ? I dont think so . Some people are considering them valid and some are not in these ' western Indology circles ' . I have read many a debate where one is arguing for AIT and another discounting it BOTH from ' western Indology circles ' . Ahhhh , no . Scientists are not supposed to be trying to reconcile their data with religious narratives . Although some attempt it ... we got them in the west too You dont seem to have any trouble 'dismissing ' stuff . Like the stuff I pointed out above re ; I made certain claims . You disputed them and cited references . I pointed out how the references you supplied actually supported what I was saying . So you sorta ignored that and now have moved on to this .... a more 'general' claim , so to speak . Thats interesting but what is the context ? How does it relate to what we are talking about here ? It says the art was made about 10,000 ya by a people who where hunter gatherers and did not know agriculture . The links I offered above, that you glossed over showed a much earlier establishment of such people in India and also discussed their range of technology and artistic expressions . It certainly does not indicate any early Indian civilisation regardless of the articles title ... unless we call Hunter Gatherers a 'civilisation' . '

Well, I might have to retract those studies that show the earliest development of Modern HSS in India as I dont want to offend the 'traditional narrative' ..... that there was an earlier development of modern HSS in India .

Okay. I will put it on my list Here is one for you about early south Asian ('sub continent ') origins Look ! India No. 1 ! https://theconversation.com/southeast-asia-was-crowded-with-archaic-human-groups-long-before-we-turned-up-119818 Of course these are slow developments of hominid 'technology' towards 'modern' , but the question of 'Modern Homo sapiens ' behaviour ' is a tricky one . Still, it does not un favour 'India' ; When did Homo sapiens first reach Southeast Asia and Sahul? https://www.pnas.org/content/115/34/8482

However , this part of the 2nd links content is interesting ; " These slim, dark-skinned, small-faced and large-forheaded travelers were equipped with a brilliant capacity to adapt and survive. With an unmatched imagination and intelligence, they were able to make Spears, Spear-throwers, Nets, Slings, Clothing and were capable of Cooking food, traits which erectus lacked. In the end, erectus was unable to survive, and died out, replaced by the more adaptable and intelligent Homo sapiens. In the Indian subcontinent, our kind made their presence known. Just as their cousins in Europe and Australia were doing, they made cave paintings " It did leave out 'sea fearing ' though . I find it interesting in that some have postulated a 'centre of divergence ' for these 'technologies' in South-east Asia . More about that , from a scientific perspective ; http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/books/eden_in_the_east.php " The biblical flood really did occur - at the end of the last Ice Age. The Flood drowned for ever the huge continetal shelf of Southeast Asia, and caused a population dispersal which fertilized the Neolithic cultures of China, India, Mesopotamia, Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean, thus creating the first civilizations. The Polynesians did not come from China but from the islands of Southeast Asia. The domestication of rice was not in China but in the Malay Peninsula, 9,000 years ago. In this ground breaking new book Stephen Oppenheimer reveals how evidence from oceanography, archaeology, linguistics, genetics and folklore overwhelmingly suggests that the lost 'Eden' - the cradle of civilization - was not in the Middle East, as is usually supposed, but in the drowned continent of Southeast Asia. .... " Indeed , the first Indians and the first Australians may well have been 'cousins ' .... cousy bro https://www.pbase.com/image/75419522

Thats about climate warming after the ice age before the last one - its about an interglacial warming period . " the Indian summer monsoon pulled heat and moisture into the northern hemisphere when Earth was entering a warmer climate around 130,000 years ago " and " Our study used these deep sea sediments from the northern Bay of Bengal to capture a direct signal of the Indian summer monsoon from 140,000 to 128,000 years ago .... This occurred when the Earth was coming out of a glacial state and into the interglacial which occurred before the one we live in, separated by a single ice age. " The last ice age stated around 115, 000 ya - 15, 000 years later . Even you agreed with my dates and that I was talking about the last ice age ; Even so it does not address my point about the ocean level dropping . This reference you give to show how India was not effected by the last ice age is rather bizarre , because ; " Oh yes. Evidence suggests that the ice age heavily affected the climate of prehistoric India. During the warmer Interglacial periods, the ice would have thawed, and the subcontinent would have experienced more intense Monsoons, with sub-humid climates in otherwise arid areas, whereas the inverse would have taken place during the colder Glacial periods, giving less intense monsoons and lower amounts of precipitation. This would have had a definite impact on the fauna of India. " - Like I said ; lower ocean levels and a dryer climate . That would be nice , but I dont need more references to support what I said ..... its basic high school science . .

Indeed - your last paragraph . However its not unknown for a man to have his wife as spiritual guide ; especially in the western tradition ; Mathers (Moina Mathers ) , Crowley ( Laylah ... actually Crowley said his highest initiations would not have been possible without his female partners ) , Max Theon ( Alma Theon ), etc . Never heard of a man, getting spiritual tutelage from another man while he inhabited his own wife's body though 'as her soul ' .

Really ? From 115, 000 to 11, 500 years ago , the whole planet was in an ice age ..... Except for the whole Indian subcontinent ? What an amazing place ! They manage to stop the ocean dropping and kept the ice and glaciers back up there in their modern positions - where they belong ! No droughts, no drop in temperature . Didnt even need a wool jumper or socks !

It looks interesting , I am interested in what the ancients knew of the world and old atlases . I got to the bit where I was asked to accept the 14 ,000 year old date . That's still in the Ice Age .

... and out of curiosity I wondered if they too have a beer named after him , so I just looked it up ; https://untappd.com/b/ono-brewing-company-el-tio-lager/2873779

In many mines in Sth America , it is considered dangerous to go to work underground without making offerings to 'El Tio ' :

Changed your mind, eh ?

It is rare , considering the number of people swarming over the planet today . But not too rare when we look at case studies . Jung seems to have thought Philamon more than intuition or inner voice , same as Blavatsky and 'King John' . Again, quoting from that article ; " For most individuals the hallucinations came on suddenly. One woman was working in a garden when an unseen man addressed her. ..... All patients describe voices as having the quality of a real voice, sometimes louder, sometimes softer, than normal voices. The experience they describe is quite unlike thoughts or fantasies. When things are seen they appear fully real. For instance a patient described being awakened one night by Air Force officers calling him to the service of his country. He got up and was dressing when he noticed their insignia wasn't quite right; then their faces altered. With this he knew they were of The Other Order and struck one hard in the fce.He hit the wall and injured his hand. He could not distinguish them from reality until he noticed the insignia. Most patients soon realize that they are having experiences that others do not share,and for this reason learn to keep quiet about them. " Regarding your quotes ; The ancients , in some cases, seem to have lumped all the levels of different 'orders' together , hence the apparent discrepancies in descriptions. It was not until the Hellenistic Greeks that the idea of 'good and bad ' ones was considered . See ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)#Categories Of course, its all a lot more complex than what we can discuss here (in a topic about secrecy ) - I have extensive posts on DBs elsewhere about the issue and related subjects.