Historical Indus Valley Civilization Research papers and Theories.

[SavageKing456]

It is precisely between this and the next 'fact' that you have mentioned that there is a gulf. Placing the Saraswati between the Yamuna and the Sutlej DOES NOT identify the Ghaggra as that Saraswati; it merely encourages speculation that this might be a possible candidate. That is not proof, that is speculation, informed speculation, but one that breaks down in very short order.

It is precisely for this reason that regressive and wishful thinkers keep trying to push back the date of the Vedas. For one thing, if the Vedic reference to the foaming river is to be identified to the Ghaggra, that river had already dried up by 1300 BCE. So the only way to wish ourselves into being the originators of the IVC is to push back the date of the composition of the Vedas to the dates when the Ghaggra was in full flow.

There is a problem with that. A problem that a mind looking desperately for such an identification will not notice.

The problem can be explained in the following points (these are the findings of palaeo-geologists, the same people who think that the dried-up Ghaggra could have been the Saraswati):

1. The Sutlej, and possibly also the Yamuna, flowed south-west into the Hakra, and from there, according to satellite imagery, into the Nara River, a delta channel of the Indus, that today falls into the sea by way of Sir Creek.
2. Around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, the Sutlej changed course, as did the Yamuna, the latter becoming a tributary of the Ganges system. THIS WAS WELL BEFORE THE INDUS VALLEY CIVILISATION HAD BEGUN.
3. By 5,000 years ago (another way of saying this is around 3500 BCE, that is, 3,500 + 2,100 = 5,600 years ago), the monsoon rains had diminished. This allowed urban settlements to flourish along the banks of the now-seasonal river system, that is known as the Ghaggra until it falls into the Hakra.
4. Contrary to what many people in India think, not every settlement was of a major size. Many of these sites were quite small. The number of sites does not therefore indicate the centre of gravity of the civilisation, merely its extent and spread.
5. Between 2500 BCE and 1900 BCE, the course of the channels changed; the older course was left even more short of water, and this was when the decline of the IVC began, in archaeological terms. The end came about 1300 BCE, or about 3,400 years ago.
   1. It was not an abrupt ending; there was gradual, extended degradation, with the orderly plan of the settlements becoming compromised step by step, with buildings in the middle of what were once empty streets.
   2. The people abandoned these decaying settlements and, according to pottery remains, and grave-sites (the SWAT Culture and the Cemetery H, and in pottery, the Ochre pottery as a starting and tracking point), spread out in the north-east into the Punjab-Haryana plains (Rakhigarhi being such a site); in the south-east, it went east beyond Lothal into the hinterland.

This should make clear that for the first reference to the Saraswati in the Rg Veda, a foaming brimful river, the Rg Veda should have been composed around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, when there was no urban community, and only neolithic settlements of hunter-gatherers in archaeological terms, and only the wishful thinking of regressives to suggest that any kind of civilisation existed then.

It also requires a reconciliation of the canonical dates of the Indo-Iranian movement from the Andronovo Culture to the Oxus-Jaxartes region by 2000 BCE or so, and the westward movement of the Mitanni to Anatolia, where their peace treaties spoke of Varuna, the Nasatyas and Indra, and their horse training treatises faithfully followed the Indo-Iranian, and thereafter, the Indo-Aryan numbering system. Unfortunately, those who keep trying to establish the OOI fail at reconciling these points.

On the other hand, that there was renewed effort at setting up urban settlements after the collapse of the IVC and that a percentage of steppe dwellers were involved, is clear from archaeological evidence.

The second reference to the Saraswati in the Rg Veda is to a river that disappears into the desert. This is precisely the condition of the Ghaggar in the period 1300 BCE, around 200 years after the first migrants had entered south Asia. If there is to be an identification of the Ghaggar with the Vedic river, it is this reference that is logical and consistent with the facts, and not the other, earlier one.

It is for these reasons that it is unlikely that the Ghaggar was the Saraswati of Vedic times. At least, it was not the brimful Saraswati; it may have been the Saraswati disappearing into the desert.

<sigh>
This brimful phase was long before any traces of urban development. For your information, the archaeological research of Raymond and Bridget Allchin showed the gradual growth of villages, then towns, then the full-fledged cities of the IVC, spreading down from the Afghan plateau, to the Indus valley banks, and then proliferating along channels of the Indus and its tributaries. These are clear signs of systematic growth and development, not planned by some higher authority, but as the natural progression of urban development.

It is also clear that the urbanisation along the banks of the Ghaggar was most convenient when weather conditions permitted, not at a time of flooded rivers, but at a time of lesser monsoon precipitation and lesser river activity. That would also explain why there are so many more urban settlements, even though of smaller sizes, along these shrinking tributaries, than along the main Indus itself.

The initial evidence for the existence of the Sarasvati came solely from the Rigveda between the Yamuna on the East & Sutlej on the West.

C.F Oldham, in 1874, correctly identified the dry bed of the Ghaggar-Hakra with the once mighty Sarasvati. He was convinced it was the Sarasvati.

Oldham said, the Sarasvati was fed by the Sutlej & the Yamuna, (both correct) but later the Sutlej changed it's course, drying the river up. However, there were many who doubted this, until satellite imagery CONFIRMED that the Sutlej had fed the Ghaggar before.

As for Helmand is called the Haetumant in the Venidad (Fargard 1.13) It was NEVER called "Haraxvati"

Haraxvati is mentioned in the Avesta, but it has been identified with the modern-day Arghandab river, which is a small tributary of the Helmand river. Sarasvati is a mighty flowing river present b/w the Sutlej & Yamuna (according to the Rigveda)

The geography is clearly in NW plains of Sapta Sindhu

All this was finally put to rest by a Nature paper on geographical sedimentary deposits of the Ghagra last december that sealed the deal & identified it with the Sarasvati river.

"Our study brings to light the fact that the Harappans built their early settlements along a stronger phase of the river Ghaggar, during ~9 to 4.5 ka, which would later be known as the Saraswati. " The study confirms the Sutlej & Yamuna fed the Ghaggar.

Scientists show how Himalayan rivers influenced ancient Indus civilization settlements

The Indus or Harappan Civilisation was a Bronze Age society that developed mainly in the northwestern regions of South Asia from 5300 to 3300 years ago, at about the same time as urban civilisations developed in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Archaeological evidence shows that many of the settlements in...

phys.org

 

[SavageKing456]

Again, you have your facts in a tangle.

Shiva is not mentioned in the Rg Veda. Go through it for yourself if you wish; you will not find that name

ए॒तत्ते॑ रुद्राव॒सं तेन॑ प॒रो मूज॑व॒तोऽती॑हि ।अव॑ततधन्वा॒ पिना॑कावस॒:कृत्ति॑वासा॒ अहि॑सन्नः शि॒वोऽती॑हि ॥

Trayambakam: He is three eyed.

Pinakavasa: Who wields Pinaka bow.

Krittivasa: Who wears animal hide.

Mujavan: Who lives beyond Mujavan mountains.

ॐ त्र्यम्बकं यजामहे सुगन्धिं पुष्टिवर्धनम् ।उर्वारुकमिव बन्धनान् मृत्योर्मुक्षीय मामृतात् ॥ RigVedic Mantra of Shiva and Rudra.


The so called differences in rudra and shiv ji are even diminished in yajur veda where descriptions of rudra matches with the pashupati seal found in IVC.

 

[OverTheHorizon]

Generally civilizations settle between two rivers such as Tigris and Euphrates, when such river systems are available. Saraswathi river has proven to be in existence using ground mapping radars and there is a claim that an underground Saraswathi still flows. All map locations and river courses (again we do not know what the mighty Indus was called 5000 years ago) indicate settlements between these two rivers - Saraswathi and unknown river. We cannot solve the mystery of whatever civilization was at that time without deciphering the scripts in the seals and the longest letter board found in Dholavira, which probably was the major port and entry point to this ancient civilization. Dholavira, imo, holds the secrets to what this civilization truly is as ports are where the most sophisticated lives in ancient times were led and maximum amount of trade and commerce had which required a lot of records keeping. Deciphering those records is a Must. Until then everything is conjecture. For example, we must exactly know what the letters on the seal of “pashupathinath” actually says. The consensus is it says something which means “lord of the animals” . But what is the sound of those words - pashupati, shiva, rudra- etc is not known. The US researchers are actually trying to use Tamil words like meen to decipher some of these seals, assuming the spoken language was Tamil-like. A seal with 7 fish like symbols meant Elu meen (modern day Tamil words for seven fishes) but the argument is that meen also meant stars. So 7 stars pointed to the constellation Pleiades and the seals with that symbol meant the goods in the port to barter belong to the house of elumeen. Is this correct line of thinking? We cannot say , as just not enough literature samples and tablets of the script translated to other already deciphered languages are available (unlike the EgyptIan works and the discovery of the Rosetta Stone) for getting a reasonable accuracy. Unfortunately, this haze has led to people trying to propound all sorts of theories with no definite proof of anything.
Indian government must sanction funds so advanced technology and dedicated, multi-year efforts are pursued to get to the bottom of this ancient Indian civilization. Until then, any and all theories are just conjectures with some slight.y more accurate than the others - but nevertheless lacking the rigor that accompanies conclusive evidence.

 

[Joe Shearer]

ए॒तत्ते॑ रुद्राव॒सं तेन॑ प॒रो मूज॑व॒तोऽती॑हि ।अव॑ततधन्वा॒ पिना॑कावस॒:कृत्ति॑वासा॒ अहि॑सन्नः शि॒वोऽती॑हि ॥

Trayambakam: He is three eyed.

Pinakavasa: Who wields Pinaka bow.

Krittivasa: Who wears animal hide.

Mujavan: Who lives beyond Mujavan mountains.

ॐ त्र्यम्बकं यजामहे सुगन्धिं पुष्टिवर्धनम् ।उर्वारुकमिव बन्धनान् मृत्योर्मुक्षीय मामृतात् ॥ RigVedic Mantra of Shiva and Rudra.


The so called differences in rudra and shiv ji are even diminished in yajur veda where descriptions of rudra matches with the pashupati seal found in IVC.

The point remains. These are attributes assigned to Rudra; the identification of Rudra with Shiva, and the transference of these attributes to Shiva, and the consideration of Shiva as the main identity of the two, was subsequent and - this is an opinion - clearly influenced by the increasing exposure to autochthonous systems of belief. Tempting though it is to consider the Rudra aspect as integral right from the outset, this is not so, even from the evidence that you have adduced.

About the Yajurveda references, you are aware of the wide gap in time between the Rg Veda and the Yajur. This gap is precisely the point, that it was an increasing exposure to pre-existing systems of faith, and a pre-existing theogony, that brought about the identification.

The so-called Pasupati seal - that is our twentieth century name for that seal, that was unknown through the centuries, along with its matrix civilisation, the Indus Valley Civilisation - is our own identification, some 3,500 years or more after it was made, and after Rudra was included in the hymns. Let us be sparing in our identification of these images and their significance.

 

[SavageKing456]

The point remains. These are attributes assigned to Rudra; the identification of Rudra with Shiva, and the transference of these attributes to Shiva, and the consideration of Shiva as the main identity of the two, was subsequent and - this is an opinion - clearly influenced by the increasing exposure to autochthonous systems of belief. Tempting though it is to consider the Rudra aspect as integral right from the outset, this is not so, even from the evidence that you have adduced.

About the Yajurveda references, you are aware of the wide gap in time between the Rg Veda and the Yajur. This gap is precisely the point, that it was an increasing exposure to pre-existing systems of faith, and a pre-existing theogony, that brought about the identification.

The so-called Pasupati seal - that is our twentieth century name for that seal, that was unknown through the centuries, along with its matrix civilisation, the Indus Valley Civilisation - is our own identification, some 3,500 years or more after it was made, and after Rudra was included in the hymns. Let us be sparing in our identification of these images and their significance.

Hindus call god shiva/rudra with many names
Each name has different purposes
Like the name neelkantha(blue throat) was given when he dranked halahal now these are puranic and I'm not gonna go into detail
Just wanted to give examples
Even the word krishna and indra is used as adjective in vyas mahabharat
Krishna is often used for people having black complexion.
If mahabharat would've limited information would it mean that there's no mention of god krishna?


Also yajurveda thing
Vedas were recited Orally and were much later written

 

[Joe Shearer]

Generally civilizations settle between two rivers such as Tigris and Euphrates, when such river systems are available. Saraswathi river has proven to be in existence using ground mapping radars and there is a claim that an underground Saraswathi still flows. All map locations and river courses (again we do not know what the mighty Indus was called 5000 years ago) indicate settlements between these two rivers - Saraswathi and unknown river. We cannot solve the mystery of whatever civilization was at that time without deciphering the scripts in the seals and the longest letter board found in Dholavira, which probably was the major port and entry point to this ancient civilization. Dholavira, imo, holds the secrets to what this civilization truly is as ports are where the most sophisticated lives in ancient times were led and maximum amount of trade and commerce had which required a lot of records keeping. Deciphering those records is a Must. Until then everything is conjecture. For example, we must exactly know what the letters on the seal of “pashupathinath” actually says. The consensus is it says something which means “lord of the animals” . But what is the sound of those words - pashupati, shiva, rudra- etc is not known. The US researchers are actually trying to use Tamil words like meen to decipher some of these seals, assuming the spoken language was Tamil-like. A seal with 7 fish like symbols meant Elu meen (modern day Tamil words for seven fishes) but the argument is that meen also meant stars. So 7 stars pointed to the constellation Pleiades and the seals with that symbol meant the goods in the port to barter belong to the house of elumeen. Is this correct line of thinking? We cannot say , as just not enough literature samples and tablets of the script translated to other already deciphered languages are available (unlike the EgyptIan works and the discovery of the Rosetta Stone) for getting a reasonable accuracy. Unfortunately, this haze has led to people trying to propound all sorts of theories with no definite proof of anything.
Indian government must sanction funds so advanced technology and dedicated, multi-year efforts are pursued to get to the bottom of this ancient Indian civilization. Until then, any and all theories are just conjectures with some slight.y more accurate than the others - but nevertheless lacking the rigor that accompanies conclusive evidence.

A very interesting post, much of which I agree with. More later. I tire easily, and tend to drop where I am.

Much of this has been reported by Parpola in a paper. Let me try and dig it out, although my papers are in a shambles.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hindus call god shiva/rudra with many names
Each name has different purposes
Like the name neelkantha(blue throat) was given when he dranked halahal now these are puranic and I'm not gonna go into detail
Just wanted to give examples
Even the word krishna and indra is used as adjective in vyas mahabharat
Krishna is often used for people having black complexion.
If mahabharat would've limited information would it mean that there's no mention of god krishna?

As far as many names are concerned, those that are listed in the Rg Veda are clearly different names for the same deity. it is different when the identification is made in a different place, in a different context. As you have pointed out, the samudra manthan was not Vedic, so the identification has to take the form
Rudra = Shiva, and Shiva = Nilkantha. It is impossible to show that Rudra = Nilkantha; the identification of Rudra with Shiva had to be done first, and as you probably already know, the relative stature of these deities changed over time. Rudra is hardly a primordial figure in the Vedas; Shiva is an integral part of the threesome Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, in later years.

Yes, the words Krishn and Krishna were used as epithets in the Mahabharata, but again, that was written in several steps; other than for the credulous, nobody thinks that it was written down with an elephant tusk on dictation. So let us not make heavy weather of that text, with its obvious interpolations, and with its continued revision and alteration right into the first millennium Current Era.

Also yajurveda thing
Vedas were recited Orally and were much later written

Yes, but you should realise that the three original Vedas, and the Atharva Veda, were not composed at one and the same time. The Saam and the Yajur were clearly dependent on the Rg, and cannot have had an existence before that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hindus call god shiva/rudra with many names
Each name has different purposes
Like the name neelkantha(blue throat) was given when he dranked halahal now these are puranic and I'm not gonna go into detail
Just wanted to give examples
Even the word krishna and indra is used as adjective in vyas mahabharat
Krishna is often used for people having black complexion.
If mahabharat would've limited information would it mean that there's no mention of god krishna?


Also yajurveda thing
Vedas were recited Orally and were much later written

More tomorrow. My doctors are unhappy with my keeping long hours.

 

[Nilgiri]

For one thing, if the Vedic reference to the foaming river is to be identified to the Ghaggra, that river had already dried up by 1300 BCE. So the only way to wish ourselves into being the originators of the IVC is to push back the date of the composition of the Vedas to the dates when the Ghaggra was in full flow.

Greatly enjoyed reading a lot of the last few pages.

I would like to add an additional possibility of aural transmission of various significant rivers (esp if they pertained to later battles, large ritual sacrifices or some other notable event) as part of an earlier bunch of compositions pre-dating the Vedas (which the Vedic bards+sages may have borrowed from during their compositions/canonisations).

These may have been implanted more formally downstream with the actual composition and canonisation....but the rivers themselves long dried up by that time, though their account potentially transmitted in that period of 1500 BCE - 1300 BCE for the indus area.....or such river stories/names further away and closer to the andronovo hearth.

There have been elements found like this regarding European mythos that possibly originated in the yamnaya hearth around the black sea originally.

It is just a possibility though (i.e essentially parts of what we see in the Rg Veda date to earlier than its formal composition whenever that exactly took place), as the evidence would need to exist to add weight.

Hindus call god shiva/rudra with many names
Each name has different purposes
Like the name neelkantha(blue throat) was given when he dranked halahal now these are puranic and I'm not gonna go into detail
Just wanted to give examples
Even the word krishna and indra is used as adjective in vyas mahabharat
Krishna is often used for people having black complexion.
If mahabharat would've limited information would it mean that there's no mention of god krishna?


Also yajurveda thing
Vedas were recited Orally and were much later written

I think what Joe is trying to point out is that:

A) Just because the yamanaya brought the concept of Dyaus-Pitr (A father sky god, whom you will also see mentioned in the Rg Veda as father of Indra given the Andronovo were cultural and likely ethnic cousins in the steppe) in their case to large parts of Europe...

B) The Yamnaya (of that original migration into Europe) would have no idea about how Dyaus-Pitr ---> Zeus and Jupiter (for the Greeks and Romans). The Greeks and Romans (and all populations of Europe) all were not pristine Yamnaya (rather they are now admixtured and seeded by the culture heavily given the I.E language formation+adoption). Broadly: Greek, Germanic and Celtic at the time.

Certainly Rudra has been culturally absorbed into Shiva's aspects today. But the vast corpus of the Shaiva Upanishad and then Shiva Purana would be completely unknown to those that originally mentioned Rudra in the Rg Veda. You have to think chronologically about these things...and understand how religion and culture evolves....building upon what it had earlier.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Greatly enjoyed reading a lot of the last few pages.

I would like to add an additional possibility of aural transmission of various significant rivers (esp if they pertained to later battles, large ritual sacrifices or some other notable event) as part of an earlier bunch of compositions pre-dating the Vedas (which the Vedic bards+sages may have borrowed from during their compositions/canonisations).

OMIGOD, where've you been? Consider the following -

1. The river Haraothi, flowing into the Helmand, that transliterates directly in the shift from Iranian sibilant suppressed language (Hindu for Sindhu, Ahura for Asura); that qualifies for the foaming river in the earlier portions of the Rg Veda;
2. The possibility that early waves of migrants came in around 1900 BCE; the possibility is based on
   1. The presence of migrant remains among the existing population remains in the Swat Cemetery culture, in the graves;
   2. The Battle of the Ten Kings, where the Bharata tribe fought the alliance, and would have lost, but for the opening of the check-dams and the flooding of the battle plain with water. If they were to the south-west of the Bharatas, it is possible that they came in through the Bolan, not, like the Bharatas, through the Gomal or the Khaibar (there are 23 passages from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and it is too much to believe that the Khaibar was the only point of entry).
3. The nature of the Rg Veda is so ordered and composed that it leads strongly to the suspicion that it was an orderly anthology, constituted of compositions composed at different times, that were brought into circles and in regular arrangement. This leads to the possibility that many of the internal contradictions are due to different compositions by different people at different times being brought in together into one place, where the differences were starkly visible.

​

These may have been implanted more formally downstream with the actual composition and canonisation....but the rivers themselves long dried up by that time, though their account potentially transmitted in that period of 1500 BCE - 1300 BCE for the indus area.....or such river stories/names further away and closer to the andronovo hearth.

There have been elements found like this regarding European mythos that possibly originated in the yamnaya hearth around the black sea originally.

It is just a possibility though (i.e essentially parts of what we see in the Rg Veda date to earlier than its formal composition whenever that exactly took place), as the evidence would need to exist to add weight.

Totally, completely agree; you've put it in a well-worded argument.

My own personal opinion is that there were two distinct references to the Saraswati, one, interesting to note that it was the earlier one, referring to a foaming river, one , later, referring to a river that vanished into the desert. So - here goes - it was not a contradiction; it was the account of the 'other' tribes that had gone down deep south into Afghanistan before finding their way into the Sindh-Multan-Bahawalpur area, and wrote of the foaming Haraothi that they had seen for themselves, not about the seasonal river vanishing into the Thar across the desert on their right flank. The later reference was again, not a contradiction, but authentic, the directly-observed phenomenon reported by the Bharatas, that of a river that flowed only in the monsoon, and that finished (by that late date) in the desert, as the Hakra.

I think what Joe is trying to point out is that:

A) Just because the yamanaya brought the concept of Dyaus-Pitr (A father sky god, whom you will also see mentioned in the Rg Veda as father of Indra given the Andronovo were cultural and likely ethnic cousins in the steppe) in their case to large parts of Europe...

Indeed. Exactly so. The Yamnaya were much the older culture; if I get to concentrate, I have prepared a slide-show on the movements in the steppes that is revealed by archaeological evidence, and it is a breath-taking story. The Yamnaya were a starting point, and gave rise to others, after - if I remember correctly - the return from the Beaker Culture and the Corded Ware culture back into Central Asia, and the residents went on in two or three stages (did the Sintashta figure? I must re-do this with reference to my notes) to the Andronovo, and its dependents, the BMAC and the Yazd.

It is probable that the Centum language speakers had broken away BEFORE Andronovo, if we are to explain the retrograde movement of the Tokharians - east, instead of west, into the Takla Makan and cheek to jowl with Gansu - and that the speech of the Andronovo culture was Indo-Iranian. That would conveniently account for the initial break-away of defeated factions from the religious struggles represented by the Iranian upholding of Ahura Mazda, and denigration of the Daivas, against the Indo-Aryan segment, consisting of Mitanni and India-bound migrants, worshipping the Devas, and gradually reducing the importance of the Asuras (Varun was an Asura, and there were others).

B) The Yamnaya (of that original migration into Europe) would have no idea about how Dyaus-Pitr ---> Zeus and Jupiter (for the Greeks and Romans). The Greeks and Romans (and all populations of Europe) all were not pristine Yamnaya (rather they are now admixtured and seeded by the culture heavily given the I.E language formation+adoption). Broadly: Greek, Germanic and Celtic at the time.

Of course, you are going lightly over the complicated story of the development of the Slavic languages, and that is appropriate.
My only observation is that there were apparently TWO surges towards Europe, the first, that had very close connections with the Beaker and the Corded Ware cultures, ended up in a destruction of Old Europe, and in a counter-migration back to the Sintashta (I am writing from memory, and could be wrong), and from there on to Andronovo. The second, after this counter-migration, was the separation of the Centum and Satam languages, with the Satam speakers moving out again in two phases, the first one west to Asia Minor, where they were known as the Mitanni, and east to Afghanistan, and thence to south Asia, the second being the Iranian speakers, who formed the dominant population of the steppes and of the Iranian plateau until the rise of the Turks.

Certainly Rudra has been culturally absorbed into Shiva's aspects today. But the vast corpus of the Shaiva Upanishad and then Shiva Purana would be completely unknown to those that originally mentioned Rudra in the Rg Veda. You have to think chronologically about these things...and understand how religion and culture evolves....building upon what it had earlier.

Perfect.

 

[SavageKing456]

As far as many names are concerned, those that are listed in the Rg Veda are clearly different names for the same deity. it is different when the identification is made in a different place, in a different context. As you have pointed out, the samudra manthan was not Vedic, so the identification has to take the form
Rudra = Shiva, and Shiva = Nilkantha. It is impossible to show that Rudra = Nilkantha; the identification of Rudra with Shiva had to be done first, and as you probably already know, the relative stature of these deities changed over time. Rudra is hardly a primordial figure in the Vedas; Shiva is an integral part of the threesome Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, in later years.

Yes, the words Krishn and Krishna were used as epithets in the Mahabharata, but again, that was written in several steps; other than for the credulous, nobody thinks that it was written down with an elephant tusk on dictation. So let us not make heavy weather of that text, with its obvious interpolations, and with its continued revision and alteration right into the first millennium Current Era.

On what basis you say that shiva is different from rudra
You also said that rudra was "shown/identified" as angry with shiva in later phases
But RV itself says that rudra is angry God

Also indra being chief deity or more mentioned doesn't mean that he's more powerful than rudra or importance of rudra is less
In fact brahman which is all pervading,formless god,from which prakriti manifest is mentioned less in vedas compared to indra.
Rudra is less mentioned because little we know about him so is vishnu/narayan

Yes, but you should realise that the three original Vedas, and the Atharva Veda, were not composed at one and the same time. The Saam and the Yajur were clearly dependent on the Rg, and cannot have had an existence before that.

I want to say that there must be a definite timeline where so called aryans arrived and they mixed up rudra and shiva according to pro AM
But vedas being orally recited makes it before the timeline
Even yajurveda

 

[SavageKing456]

You want to say Shiva and rudra are not the same in rig vedic times
And so called aryans followed rudra and not shiva and both are different initially then got mixed up later but prove it that there existed a God called Shiva which was worshipped by non-aryans not after RIG veda.

People take less worship of demi god as mixing up of two distinctive cultures but this is wrong.
Little was known about rudra/shiva,vishnu,hiranyagarbha
When the rishis further expanded the vedas we knew much more about these gods and then their importance started more growing not because they got mixed up!!

 

[Joe Shearer]

On what basis you say that shiva is different from rudra

I have said this before, and I am now merely repeating myself, because you refuse to decipher what is being said to you.
Shiva is different from Rudra when Rudra is originally mentioned, because there is nowhere any mention of Shiva in the Rg Veda.
It was only later that there was an attempt at reconciliation of the identity of Rudra with what may have originated in the faith systems of the original inhabitants of the land. Just because a few centuries after the Rg Veda, an identification of Rudra and Shiva was made, it does not take away the reality that there was no identification of Rudra and Shiva originally.

You also said that rudra was "shown/identified" as angry with shiva in later phases
But RV itself says that rudra is angry God
View attachment 39635

Yes, the Rg Veda says that Rudra was an angry god. Please point me to the section in the Rg Veda that says Rudra was the angry form of Shiva. As an alternative, please point me to a mention of Shiva, not Rudra, in the Rg Veda.

Also indra being chief deity or more mentioned doesn't mean that he's more powerful than rudra or importance of rudra is less

How does that come into the picture? It appears that you are unable to uphold your original contention, and are now flailing about trying to bring in other divine entities to cover for not being able to prove that the Rudra in the Rg Veda was actually He who was called Shiva later.

You may like to read @Nilgiri on the subject, for greater clarity.

In fact brahman which is all pervading,formless god,from which prakriti manifest is mentioned less in vedas compared to indra.

It is not a question of a number of mentions, it is simply a question of being mentioned at all.

Rudra is less mentioned because little we know about him so is vishnu/narayan
View attachment 39636


I want to say that there must be a definite timeline where so called aryans arrived and they mixed up rudra and shiva according to pro AM

What is the definite time-line that you are referring to, and how did you establish it?
Where is the question of mixing up two entities, one who is mentioned explicitly and clearly, the other not mentioned at all?

But vedas being orally recited makes it before the timeline
Even yajurveda

Your point being? How is this relevant?

 

[Joe Shearer]

You want to say Shiva and rudra are not the same in rig vedic times
And so called aryans followed rudra and not shiva and both are different initially then got mixed up later but prove it that there existed a God called Shiva which was worshipped by non-aryans not after RIG veda.

People take less worship of demi god as mixing up of two distinctive cultures but this is wrong.
Little was known about rudra/shiva,vishnu,hiranyagarbha
When the rishis further expanded the vedas we knew much more about these gods and then their importance started more growing not because they got mixed up!!

You seem to be of the opinion that the Vedas were a summary, and what followed was the conscious expansion of those texts. That is precisely correct, and that is precisely what has been explained to you carefully and painfully for so long. There was no identification of Rudra with Shiva originally; only when the reconciliations and the expansion started was there an identity suggested. It was a development intended to cover the variations that they encountered.

Since there was no Shiva for the Indo-Aryan speaking migrants, he cannot have appeared out of thin air. Clearly, he was a figure worshipped by the autochthones. His absence from the original texts proves that he must have been a figure of worship by others, not the Indo-Aryan speakers, and that this was reconciled after the Rg Veda.

 

[SavageKing456]

You seem to be of the opinion that the Vedas were a summary, and what followed was the conscious expansion of those texts. That is precisely correct, and that is precisely what has been explained to you carefully and painfully for so long. There was no identification of Rudra with Shiva originally; only when the reconciliations and the expansion started was there an identity suggested. It was a development intended to cover the variations that they encountered.

Since there was no Shiva for the Indo-Aryan speaking migrants, he cannot have appeared out of thin air. Clearly, he was a figure worshipped by the autochthones. His absence from the original texts proves that he must have been a figure of worship by others, not the Indo-Aryan speakers, and that this was reconciled after the Rg Veda.

I already gave you the hymn of rv in which rudra is named shiva with auspiciousness as it's quality
सतोमं वो अद्य रुद्राय शिक्वसे कषयद्वीराय नमसादिदिष्टन |
येभिः शिवः सववानेवयावभिर्दिवःसिषक्ति सवयशा निकामभिः ||
stomaṃ vo adya rudrāya śikvase kṣayadvīrāya namasādidiṣṭana |
yebhiḥ śivaḥ svavānevayāvabhirdivaḥsiṣakti svayaśā nikāmabhiḥ ||


Here the word शिवः is used for praising rudra
This is where the identification came of rudra being SHIVA.
If shiva was a different deity from rudra there would be different hyms for him.

 

[SavageKing456]

Since there was no Shiva for the Indo-Aryan speaking migrants, he cannot have appeared out of thin air. Clearly, he was a figure worshipped by the autochthones. His absence from the original texts proves that he must have been a figure of worship by others, not the Indo-Aryan speakers, and that this was reconciled after the Rg Veda.

Speculations
You're going for possibly
Prove it that people worshipped non-vedic deity shiva

 

[Saithan]

Interesting read. While I’m an outsider, and not well versed in the topic I can’t help but wonder if as mentioned migration to and from could explain some of these differences. I don’t think it says anywhere that civilizations popped out like flowerbuds from one day to another.

I think Turks and Europeans are good examples of migration one way or another. Turks from Central Asia to Europe and Europeans to Americas etc. (E.g. Vikings).

I’m on thin ice, but could the references or meeting of different cultures deities be reasonably explained by how the Turkish Mythology also developed or came to be ?

Turkic mythology - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Even Christianity has meshed with others.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I already gave you the hymn of rv in which rudra is named shiva with auspiciousness as it's quality
सतोमं वो अद्य रुद्राय शिक्वसे कषयद्वीराय नमसादिदिष्टन |
येभिः शिवः सववानेवयावभिर्दिवःसिषक्ति सवयशा निकामभिः ||
stomaṃ vo adya rudrāya śikvase kṣayadvīrāya namasādidiṣṭana |
yebhiḥ śivaḥ svavānevayāvabhirdivaḥsiṣakti svayaśā nikāmabhiḥ ||


Here the word शिवः is used for praising rudra
This is where the identification came of rudra being SHIVA.
If shiva was a different deity from rudra there would be different hyms for him.

LOL.
No, there was no different deity from Rudra, so there were no different hymns for him. As you pointed out, Shiva is used here as an attribute; he is not a separate deity.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Speculations
You're going for possibly
Prove it that people worshipped non-vedic deity shiva

Actually, when there is a dispute of this type, the person making the assertion has to do the proving. It is your assertion that Rudra in the Rg Veda was the same as Shiva subsequently. So, you see, you have to do the proving.
Spoiler alert: you can't. We've been around and around on this already.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Interesting read. While I’m an outsider, and not well versed in the topic I can’t help but wonder if as mentioned migration to and from could explain some of these differences. I don’t think it says anywhere that civilizations popped out like flowerbuds from one day to another.

Accurate enough. A good way to understand this issue might be to divide it into little bits.

A preliminary apology - much of what is said below is probably already perfectly familiar to you; bear with me for the recapitulation.

First, we have the whole raft of steppe cultures that has been mapped by Soviet, thereafter (to a limited extent) Russian archaeologists. I am tempted to put up a presentation on the entire set, so that we get a perspective on what happened, where, and when - all these being interpretations of the physical evidence on the ground, as well as historical linguistics.

These can be presented as a chronology of the growth of PIE, the Proto-Indo-European language. Historical linguists, having established very approximate dates for changes in the PIE and the development of entire language trees, archaeologists have been strongly tempted, and even more than them, academicians specialised in cultural history combining archaeology and historical linguistics, to identify certain locations with specific stages of development of the PIE.

Second, we have the question of what people speaking any of the languages on this tree found at their final locations. What we call European today is an admixture of far older habitations that range into the neolithic age, and then forward into the Copper Age - Chalcolithic Age, to use the proper academic term - and mingled with the steppe wanderers from the Central Asian steppe cultures referred to above. We have tantalising clues - the extinct language Etruscan, the existing Basque language, the Pelasgians, or people speaking the Pelasgian languages before the Greeks brought Greek to be everything.

Not all of these were non-PIE; as you already must know, there were very old PIE languages spoken in Anatolia, and these were well-recorded. These included Hittite, Palaic, Luwic and Lydian, and Luwic itself was divided into at least another six languages. There is controversy about how they came to Anatolia; the three main streams being by the Caucasus, by the west, via the Balkans, and developed within Anatolia itself (meaning that PIE started in Anatolia, not in the more popular central Asian steppe beyond the Black Sea.

Third, we have the path-breaking research of the renowned archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, who broke away from the idea that human habitation is dated as recently as 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, and in a series of astonishing digs, demonstrated the existence of older habitations. After her lead, there has been a great deal of discovery of such very old sites.

Why are we looking at these three reasons? Because the combination of the language reconstruction by age, and archaeological discoveries have given us some of our interesting findings. It is too large to be dealt with over here, but a reference to the Bell Beaker Culture, and to the Corded Ware Culture, will help to illustrate how steppe dwellers moved into Europe, interacted with their predecessors, and formed composite cultures, the seeds of which were carried back, when the move back to the steppes happened.

With this background, let us look at your question once again.

I think Turks and Europeans are good examples of migration one way or another. Turks from Central Asia to Europe and Europeans to Americas etc. (E.g. Vikings).

Yes, and perhaps yes in a way that you might want to mention in this context in future.

Turks are an excellent example of migration, from Siberia to north Central Asia, then to Anatolia, before moving into the heart of Europe, right up to Budapest.

Europeans, the Vikings, whom you have mentioned, are very good examples of migration, but I put it to you that the true European migration was the incursion of Ancient Greek, Archaic Latin, Celtic, German and Slavic speakers into the habitations of Old Europeans.

I’m on thin ice, but could the references or meeting of different cultures deities be reasonably explained by how the Turkish Mythology also developed or came to be ?

A very good example; however, I will leave this point for the wise men.

It did seem to me that we would have had an easier time with this question if it was 'reversed'.

That is to say, could the development of Turkish mythology have been reasonably explained by how different cultures and deities met?

Turkic mythology - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Even Christianity has meshed with others.