No, Shiv, not directly connected.
- The analysis holds true whether or not the Saraswati was an historical fact.
- The Saraswati was brought up because in Vedic sources, there was this river, which could not be traced on the ground in contemporary topography.
- There are a series of connected underground aquifers which more or less follow the line of the legendary Saraswati. Considering the discoveries of the Biblical sites through careful geographical analysis, there is complete and absolute legitimacy of identifying these aquifers as possibly the remnants of the Saraswati.
- One last point on the Saraswati: it would have joined the Yamuna, and there isn't much evidence of it ending in a tri-junction with the Ganges and the Yamuna. I could be wrong, but only the westerly parts, those in Rajasthan, are traceable.
- Having said all that, I am not aware that it was part of the controversy about the Aryans
originating in India, or Sanskrit and Indo-European languages originating in India and so forth. AFAIK.
sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue January 31 2006 19:13, Indrajit Gupta wrote:
> I have news for you. If you are referring to the Indus Valley, from the
> evidence of the Mohenjodaro seals, it was not an arid semi-desert as it is
> today, 4500 years later, but lush forest, with rhinoceri and tigers in the
> woods.
This fact is part of the "Indian History spat" that hit the US. IIRC parts of
the settlement existed on the banks of a river called the Saraswati river
which dried up, or changed course. Some people want to call it the Saraswati
basin civilization or something
I believe there is still an underground river in the area and the same river
ends up meeting the Ganga (Ganges) and the Jamuna at a tri-junction at
Allhabad - the site of the Kumbh-mela.
shiv
Indrajit Gupta
'Ramsharan', 396, TT Krishnamachari Road,
Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
+914455511138
+919884375777
Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
