There has been considerable speculation by serious researchers into the Bronze/Iron Age cultures who could have produced the itihaasas. While not being a pursuit into the exact provenance.

Krishna Kumar published a detailed analysis in BORI 1992.....(1/n)

The earliest culture marked by a very specific profusion of weapons is the Ochre Coloured Pottery (OCP) culture in the Upper Ganga-Yamuna Doab.

Flat, bar & shouldered celts, double edged axe, hatchet, rings, antennae swords, hooked swords and spearheads, barbed harpoons...(2/n)
Krishna Kumar provides a detailed characterisation of the economy of the OCP people...(3/n)
The OCP culture has its origins in the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE in the chalcolithic Ganeshwara-Jodhpura culture. (Deepak Nair, 2012)

(4/n)....
Krishna Kumar points out the similarity of weapons mentioned in the Ramayana to those of the archaeological remains of the OCP culture. (5/n)
Copper Hoard/OCP culture type weapons have proliferated throughout India in the archaeo record.

Krishna Kumar therefore assesses a fit between the culture that might have produced the Ramayana and the archaeo-record. (6/n)
Since Krishna Kumar published his weapon/archaeo/textual fitting paper in 1992, several events have overtaken us.

The finding of a grave buried chariot at Sinauli (OCP culture) has led to renewed discussions in the Indian archaeological community. (7/n)
The world of the OCP was different from the Harappan world. This was a war-making culture that was technologically sufficient in weapon making.

The contrast with Harappans, who seemed to have exclusively concentrated on trade/urbanism, could not be greater. (8/n)
If viewed correctly, we see a concordance between the events of the Ramayana with a specific archaeo-attested culture that was dominant in weaponry. The time range is 2000-1500 BCE. The North-South progression that is evident in the OCP spread.

(n/n)

More from All

You May Also Like

This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.


THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN


If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.

In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)
दधीचि ऋषि को मनाही थी कि वह अश्विनी कुमारों को किसी भी अवस्था में ब्रह्मविद्या का उपदेश नहीं दें। ये आदेश देवराज इन्द्र का था।वह नहीं चाहते थे कि उनके सिंहासन को प्रत्यक्ष या परोक्ष रुप से कोई भी खतरा हो।मगर जब अश्विनी कुमारों ने सहृदय प्रार्थना की तो महर्षि सहर्ष मान गए।


और उन्होनें ब्रह्मविद्या का ज्ञान अश्विनि कुमारों को दे दिया। गुप्तचरों के माध्यम से जब खबर इन्द्रदेव तक पहुंची तो वे क्रोध में खड़ग ले कर गए और महर्षि दधीचि का सर धड़ से अलग कर दिया।मगर अश्विनी कुमार भी कहां चुप बैठने वाले थे।उन्होने तुरंत एक अश्व का सिर महर्षि के धड़ पे...


...प्रत्यारोपित कर उन्हें जीवित रख लिया।उस दिन के पश्चात महर्षि दधीचि अश्वशिरा भी कहलाए जाने लगे।अब आगे सुनिये की किस प्रकार महर्षि दधीचि का सर काटने वाले इन्द्र कैसे अपनी रक्षा हेतु उनके आगे गिड़गिड़ाए ।

एक बार देवराज इन्द्र अपनी सभा में बैठे थे, तो उन्हे खुद पर अभिमान हो आया।


वे सोचने लगे कि हम तीनों लोकों के स्वामी हैं। ब्राह्मण हमें यज्ञ में आहुति देते हैं और हमारी उपासना करते हैं। फिर हम सामान्य ब्राह्मण बृहस्पति से क्यों डरते हैं ?उनके आने पर क्यों खड़े हो जाते हैं?वे तो हमारी जीविका से पलते हैं। देवर्षि बृहस्पति देवताओं के गुरु थे।

अभिमान के कारण ऋषि बृहस्पति के पधारने पर न तो इन्द्र ही खड़े हुए और न ही अन्य देवों को खड़े होने दिया।देवगुरु बृहस्पति इन्द्र का ये कठोर दुर्व्यवहार देख कर चुप चाप वहां से लौट गए।कुछ देर पश्चात जब देवराज का मद उतरा तो उन्हे अपनी गलती का एहसास हुआ।
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?