 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
> The article you're referring to did not yield to any pseudo-scientific
> discussion about the historial validity of the Mahabharata. It was simply
> mentioning that a site had been identified with an earlier site who name
> was derived from a Mahabharata personage:
>
> "According to the archaeologists, the site has been identified with
> Kamantalpur, which was derived from the name of its founder, Kamant,
> father of the mythological character in the Mahabharat, Kunti, who later
> became the mother of the five Pandva brothers."
And how does it make it a Mahabharata _period_ structure? The title
suggests that the structures discovered were either contomporaneous with
the date the events in the Mahabharata "happened" or sometime very close
to it. If there was any evidence for that, it was not mentioned in the
article.
In reality the structures were merely found at a place _supposedly_
named after a character in the Mahabharata. Suppose I build a house
today in Dwaraka and the ruins of it are found 1000 years later. Does
that make the house a Krishna period structure?
> Nothing pseudo-scientific about this.
>
> Just wait till we get the news reports about the nuclear weapons, then
> you'll be justified in your remarks!!
Aaargh, don't even mention that :-).
Ramakrishnan.
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|