Historical Indus Valley Civilization Research papers and Theories.

SavageKing456

Active member
Messages
127
Reactions
145
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
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.
Exactly!
Even what I'm saying shiva is not separate deity from rudra
You proved me!
Word shiva being used for him for his auspiciousness exactly what I said from beginning read my previous posts.
People started using the name shiva to describe the SAME deity in later phases which directly debunks myth that Shiva was mixed with rudra.
You wanted to say shiva is not mentioned in rv veda but what i wanted to say shiva is indeed mentioned but not as a separate deity but as a Quality.


You were also saying that saraswati was speculated,proven wrong
 
Last edited:

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Exactly!
Even what I'm saying shiva is not separate deity from rudra
You proved me!
Apparently your comprehension skills are lacking.
"No, there was no different deity from Rudra" means simply what it states. There was only Rudra.
So that single random ascription of the quality of manly beauty does not mean that there was a separate entity, only that in later years, the unfamiliar deity worshipped locally, and unknown to the Vedic people, was brought into the list of deities.
It's quite simple, except to people who are determined to see water roll uphill!
Word shiva being used for him for his auspiciousness exactly what I said from beginning read my previous posts.
People started using the name shiva to describe the SAME deity in later phases which directly debunks myth that Shiva was mixed with rudra.
You wanted to say shiva is not mentioned in rv veda but what i wanted to say shiva is indeed mentioned but not as a separate deity but as a Quality.


You were also saying that saraswati was speculated,proven wrong
LOL.
There is nothing to it but 19th and 20th century speculation.
The Ganga was the Ganga throughout 3,600 years; the Yamuna was the Yamuna was the Yamuna throughout 3,600 years. Only in this single solitary case out of ALL the rivers in India was an unknown name, not known anywhere in the Vedic, Puranic or Classic literature, stuck to a prominent river that was rated, according to revivalists, equally with the Ganga and the Yamuna.
Good luck with proving that, outside the small coterie of true believers!
 

SavageKing456

Active member
Messages
127
Reactions
145
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Apparently your comprehension skills are lacking.
"No, there was no different deity from Rudra" means simply what it states. There was only Rudra.
So that single random ascription of the quality of manly beauty does not mean that there was a separate entity, only that in later years, the unfamiliar deity worshipped locally, and unknown to the Vedic people, was brought into the list of deities.
It's quite simple, except to people who are determined to see water roll uphill!

LOL.
There is nothing to it but 19th and 20th century speculation.
The Ganga was the Ganga throughout 3,600 years; the Yamuna was the Yamuna was the Yamuna throughout 3,600 years. Only in this single solitary case out of ALL the rivers in India was an unknown name, not known anywhere in the Vedic, Puranic or Classic literature, stuck to a prominent river that was rated, according to revivalists, equally with the Ganga and the Yamuna.
Good luck with proving that, outside the small coterie of true believers!

"only that in later years, the unfamiliar deity worshipped locally, and unknown to the Vedic people, was brought into the list of deities."


Which local people worshipped this so called unfamiliar deity and what proof you have?
Have been saying since long time

You couldn't prove a single thing
All you said was this
what migrations?

20220209_210627.jpg
 

SavageKing456

Active member
Messages
127
Reactions
145
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
LOL.
There is nothing to it but 19th and 20th century speculation.
The Ganga was the Ganga throughout 3,600 years; the Yamuna was the Yamuna was the Yamuna throughout 3,600 years. Only in this single solitary case out of ALL the rivers in India was an unknown name, not known anywhere in the Vedic, Puranic or Classic literature, stuck to a prominent river that was rated, according to revivalists, equally with the Ganga and the Yamuna.
Good luck with proving that, outside the small coterie of true believers!
Kek
Literally proved it in my previous post that how saraswati isn't a speculation but based on CLEAR evidence
It's not my problem that you failed to comprehend
You need to grasp knowledge
Both on river and rudra
 
Last edited:

SavageKing456

Active member
Messages
127
Reactions
145
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
The initial evidence for the existence of the Sarasvati came solely from the Rigveda between the Yamuna on the East & Sutlej on the West.

View attachment 39605

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.

View attachment 39610


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.

View attachment 39609
View attachment 39612

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

View attachment 39613

View attachment 39614

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

View attachment 39615

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.

View attachment 39616

"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.
View attachment 39617

This post was a counter to yours that it's mere speculation
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
"only that in later years, the unfamiliar deity worshipped locally, and unknown to the Vedic people, was brought into the list of deities."


Which local people worshipped this so called unfamiliar deity and what proof you have?
Have been saying since long time
It's quite simple. A host of subsidiary deities appeared in post-Vedic times. Who worshipped these, before they were co-opted into the Puranic and Classic theogonies? The same people worshipped Shiva.

Instead of saying for a long time, it might help you to listen and comprehend for a short time. :)
You couldn't prove a single thing
All you said was this
what migrations?

View attachment 39652
And which part of this did you not understand? Other than your valiant efforts to defend a position long since lost, who else might interpret the passage above differently?

While you are brushing up your English comprehension skills, remember to check the meaning of 'You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink!' You have been stood right in front of water; if you choose not to drink, that's your problem.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Kek
Literally proved it in my previous post that how saraswati isn't a speculation but based on CLEAR evidence
It's not my problem that you failed to comprehend
You need to grasp knowledge
Both on river and rudra
How did you get a proof of the Saraswati's existence? Can you point to a single source, Indian or foreign, identifying it with the Ghaggra before modern times? Can you cope with the question put, that you have gracefully slid around, about why in this single, solitary case, the name vanished for centuries and re-appeared only when revivalists set out to prove that every line of the scriptures was to be taken literally? (this, by the way, is derived straight from Christian efforts at proving the Bible to be literally true, and is true of most revivalist Hindu concepts - they are all borrowed from the west.

At this point, you are adding nothing new, but just insisting that all is proven and that your views have prevailed. There is that image - now that we have already considered horses and their utility in discussions - of an ostrich, that avoids unpleasant truths by burying its head in the sand. I hope the temperature does not get too hot.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
This post was a counter to yours that it's mere speculation
How does it disprove that it was mere speculation? My point was precisely that, that it is a recent concept, and that it was never mentioned in the over three thousand years intervening.

Can we point to any examples of this happening anywhere else? This is the sole case of a river mentioned in the Rg Veda 'losing' its name for over three thousand years.

You have to decide how far you let your credulity take you.

Now that you have started citing foreign authorities, I suppose there will be no further trouble in accepting Max Mueller's discredited Aryan Invasion, or Mortimer Wheeler's surmise that the Aryans (sic) were responsible for the destruction of the Indus Valley cities.

It is useful to be consistent, and not to take an issue beyond its limits of credibility.
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,526
Reactions
33 19,478
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
I surmised from the discussions that the civilizations in question near the river are agriculture based settlements, am I correct, but also neolithic. (It got a bit confusing)

Since the rivers seemed to swell over their borders and such, these settlements kept moving after every “catastrophe” ( if I may call it that). I may have misunderstood the part about settlements appearing though.

But would It be possible that the migrations were more of Normadic type. By this I am thinking that the people came from let’s say current days Afghanistan or so, settled for a time by the river, and then move back west. Never bothered going further East. Normadic tribes usually have a route the follow.

Could such a far fetched idea be a possibility.

Looking at Göbekli Tepe in Turkey there are still questions on how such a construction could be made and maintained without any settlement nearby.

These discoveries hopefully shed light on questions elsewhere, but I think that we must have an open mind to see the answers in due time.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,690
Reactions
117 19,607
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Of course, you are going lightly over the complicated story of the development of the Slavic languages, and that is appropriate.

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.

Yes, somewhat subconciously derived omission on my end....as I consider them more or less the most direct conveyors/descendants (at the time) of the yamnaya themselves.

The Germanics, Celts, Greeks, Italics and so on....are more indicative of the effect of more distant seeding

Though things get somewhat nebulous especially with the germanics and celtics who played their part in various sustained migrations and downstream impact into the slavic hearths later on....greatly shaping* how the slavic family would shape up today.

The central and eastern european plain lended itself to this more naturally, compared to say how the mediterranean (with some realtive geographic insularity afforded by the respective mountain ranges to their north).... lended itself more to a sea-based form.

The latter would be the massive impact mediterranean europe would receive via the phoenicians in regards to a semitic langauge being the one that would seed the dominant writing system rather than own or fellow I.E language writing.


*Am reminded of when I clumsily said the Goths defeated the Romans at Teutonberg....and a Russian fellow was quick to correct and chastise me that they were Cherusci.....not Goth.

The story of the Goths (East Germanic) branch intersection and influence upon the Slavic one is quite protracted one that he made a larger point on later....and that the very name Cheruski ---> Heruski might be slavic in origin...which would not be that surprising given the geography and larger slavo-germanic "Sweep"/Arc.

It all involved much of the migration and counter migration theme that has been sounded on this thread a number of times already.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
I surmised from the discussions that the civilizations in question near the river are agriculture based settlements, am I correct, but also neolithic. (It got a bit confusing)
This needs a little winding back.

The preliminary stages of the river civilisations were on the Afghan uplands, in the form of villages, then of towns of increasing complexity. These were inspired by the agricultural revolution in Anatolia and were neolithic.

As the settlements reached into the valley of the Indus, it appears that the incoming agriculturists intermarried with local hunter-gatherers; it was this genetic profile that built and maintained, and finally abandoned the river cities. These cities had acquired the use of copper and bronze and belong to the Chalcolithic Age, one stage further down from the neolithic and post-neolithic precursor settlements that gave rise to them.
Since the rivers seemed to swell over their borders and such, these settlements kept moving after every “catastrophe” ( if I may call it that). I may have misunderstood the part about settlements appearing though.
Actually, the current thinking is that these settlements were inhibited by heavy rainfall and by their proximate rivers being in spate or in heavy flow. There are three distinct periods that are distinguished by palaeogeographers: before 2400 BCE, rainfall that was inhibiting; between 2400 BCE to 1900 BCE, when the rainfall dropped, but not too sharply, and provided ideal conditions for the river-cities to flourish; 1900 BCE to 1300 BCE, when there was a further drop in rainfall, and the cities were unable to sustain themselves.

Further, from all accounts, the cities themselves did not move, as in city, town and large village forms they were very firmly developed bricked habitations; however, once the environment began to fail, and the cities turned unviable, the people moved out. Two directions of movement have been traced through the analysis of pottery and the existence of graveyards: one was out to the north and the north-east, marked at one side by the Swat grave culture, and small village-sized settlements near and outside the older cities, marked by Ochre Coloured Pottery, OCP, that is identified with a Bronze Age pottery similar to the very late Harappan pottery, and that therefore may be interpreted to mean that these were refugees from the cities.

So the settlements did not move, the inhabitants moved, into smaller, meaner settlements.
But would It be possible that the migrations were more of Normadic type. By this I am thinking that the people came from let’s say current days Afghanistan or so, settled for a time by the river, and then move back west. Never bothered going further East. Normadic tribes usually have a route the follow.
Two responses.

The current thinking is different. It hypothesises a one-way migration, through the three main passes from Afghanistan into south Asia, the Khaibar, to the north, the Gomal, immediately some little distance south of it, and the Bolan, much further away, still to the south, quite near the modern city of Quetta. These migrants intermarried with the people coming away out of the Indus cities, with the hunter-gatherers who were still there. These three genetic strains mingled together are considered to form the genetic profile known as Ancestral North Indian (ANI), who account for a significant portion of the genetic profile of ALL North Indians (note that I don't consider myself a north Indian, as we Bengalis have a genetic profile heavily mixed with Tibeto-Burmese genes).

Coming to your intriguing surmise that there was back and forth movement, I had never thought of this before, and on thinking of it, am inclined to agree that in the early days of the migration, there may well have been some back and forth movement. Why so? Well, for starters, the language affinities between the people of the extreme north-west of south Asia and the people who were known to the Achaemenids of the first Persian Empire, thereafter to the Greeks, as Scythians, were close and intimate - up to a point.

It appears that gradually, with the eastward movement of the tribes that had settled and intermarried with the original inhabitants, the links grew weaker. By 600 BCE, the outlying tribes that had NOT migrated were known to the eastern tribes as 'mlechha', = barbarian, outsider, outside the in-group. By then, also, there had been considerable alteration, change and modification to the original language in which the Rg Veda was composed, a derivative language named Prakrit had been developed, and finally, a grammarian took stock of the situation, codified the original Rg Vedic language (=Indo-Aryan) and produced something very logical and very tightly structured that he named the polished language, or Sanskrit (contrasting it to Prakrit, the natural language).

There is further evidence of links, though not necessarily of back-and-forth movement, as one of the tribes that fought in the legendary and mythical war between the cousins, that is known as the Mahabharata, was the Parama Kamboja, a name that is still to be found in the extreme borders of south Asia. These were fierce horsemen from a land of horses some distance away from the migrated tribes, and identify readily with the Scythian tribes in the corner of Afghanistan, the Massagetae, the Sogdianae, the Chorasmians.
1644447330120.png

Could such a far fetched idea be a possibility.
Even today, the Gurjaras, a tribe that exists in two occupational frames, agriculture, and animal husbandry, have the practice among the herders of moving between winter pastures and summer pastures.

So what you thought cannot be altogether ruled out.
Looking at Göbekli Tepe in Turkey there are still questions on how such a construction could be made and maintained without any settlement nearby.

These discoveries hopefully shed light on questions elsewhere, but I think that we must have an open mind to see the answers in due time.
We need to give the researchers more time, as you say.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Yes, somewhat subconciously derived omission on my end....as I consider them more or less the most direct conveyors/descendants (at the time) of the yamnaya themselves.... alongside the Hittites arguably.

The Germanics, Celts, Greeks, Italics and so on....are more indicative of the effect of more distant seeding

Though things get somewhat nebulous especially with the germanics and celtics who played their part in various sustained migrations and downstream impact into the slavic hearths later on....greatly shaping* how the slavic family would shape up today.

The central and eastern european plain lended itself to this more naturally, compared to say how the mediterranean (with some realtive geographic insularity afforded by the respective mountain ranges to their north).... lended itself more to a sea-based form.

The latter would be the massive impact mediterranean europe would receive via the phoenicians in regards to a semitic langauge being the one that would seed the dominant writing system rather than own or fellow I.E language writing.


*Am reminded of when I clumsily said the Goths defeated the Romans at Teutonberg....and a Russian fellow was quick to correct and chastise me that they were Cherusci.....not Goth.

The story of the Goths (East Germanic) branch intersection and influence upon the Slavic one is quite protracted one that he made a larger point on later....and that the very name Cheruski ---> Heruski might be slavic in origin...which would not be that surprising given the geography and larger slavo-germanic "Sweep"/Arc.

It all involved much of the migration and counter migration theme that has been sounded on this thread a number of times already.
You keep astonishing me.
 

OverTheHorizon

Active member
Messages
47
Reactions
45
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
India
Clearly, people underestimate the ability of cultures to mix and move about. There are countless stories that have claimed that a certain civilization lacked movement only to find later that, astonishingly even, these civilizations were mighty seafarers. I am of the opinion that the steppes people via the Iranian/Northwest Indian subcontinent pathways mixed aplenty with the native tribes of the river civilizations spread all over the Indus river system including all feeder rivers. Further there were pretty good to and fro travels between the Mesopotamian and IV civilizations. This mean that the pathways between Iraq/Iran and IVC were well traveled. If people traveled, then the idea of partnering up (again the ritual of marriage and a permanenet partnership like we see today is unknown and not conclusively established) all over these pathways is a given, especially when no racial segregation or warfare existed. This also means the idea of gods, art, language would all have been influenced by each other. Yet the notion that IVC had a separate genesis also is well established simply from the fact that Mesopotamian style writing using reeds has not been found in IVC. The entire writing system is very different clearly indicating a separate genesis.
In some ways, we can apply the modern concepts to ancient civilizations - concepts such as inter-marriage, travel for trade and leisure, use of ownership markers, etc. My assertion here is that people should not make the mistake of overly implying that human behavior was a mystery thousands of years ago. Basic mental faculties that advanced humanity as a whole existed back then too. So, all behaviors including what gods people worshiped, how languages and stories evolved , how customs and rituals came into being etc. should all be looked at from the lens of regular intermixing of distinct civilizations. If we consider this model, then the very attempt to establish a chronological order, even a partial order, of evolution of tribes and races appears futile. And ,unfortunately, the discourse ,at least in India , seems to have heavily devolved into who came first, second etc., as if this is how humanity has evolved. The simple answer is random permutations of geographically connected civilizations is all that can be established and no firm order of evolution.
 

SavageKing456

Active member
Messages
127
Reactions
145
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
It's quite simple. A host of subsidiary deities appeared in post-Vedic times. Who worshipped these, before they were co-opted into the Puranic and Classic theogonies? The same people worshipped Shiva.

Instead of saying for a long time, it might help you to listen and comprehend for a short time. :)
How did you came to this conclusion?
All you have is speculations
How do you know that
"Post-vedic"
You just speculate
When I brought up that how yajurveda has clear identification with shiva you said they mixed up,how and what evidence you have?
Just because clear information is not given in RV linking these two deities you will come to this conclusion whatever you have?
And did you read the link which was sent.
How does it disprove that it was mere speculation? My point was precisely that, that it is a recent concept, and that it was never mentioned in the over three thousand years intervening.

Can we point to any examples of this happening anywhere else? This is the sole case of a river mentioned in the Rg Veda 'losing' its name for over three thousand years.

You have to decide how far you let your credulity take you.

Now that you have started citing foreign authorities, I suppose there will be no further trouble in accepting Max Mueller's discredited Aryan Invasion, or Mortimer Wheeler's surmise that the Aryans (sic) were responsible for the destruction of the Indus Valley cities.

It is useful to be consistent, and not to take an issue beyond its limits of credibility.
Yet again
You really don't understand do you?
Start reading stuff properly atleast
Gave you clear research based links
You said it's merely speculations and listed points in support of your claim
In my previous posts your point especially that it changed its course was debunked.
How did you get a proof of the Saraswati's existence? Can you point to a single source, Indian or foreign, identifying it with the Ghaggra before modern times? Can you cope with the question put, that you have gracefully slid around, about why in this single, solitary case, the name vanished for centuries and re-appeared only when revivalists set out to prove that every line of the scriptures was to be taken literally? (this, by the way, is derived straight from Christian efforts at proving the Bible to be literally true, and is true of most revivalist Hindu concepts - they are all borrowed from the west.

At this point, you are adding nothing new, but just insisting that all is proven and that your views have prevailed. There is that image - now that we have already considered horses and their utility in discussions - of an ostrich, that avoids unpleasant truths by burying its head in the sand. I hope the temperature does not get too hot.
Woah
What does it have to do with modern/ancient times
Clearly you have the bias
Just because we have started discovering doesn't mean that thing is irrelevant.
And I gave the Indian one
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Clearly, people underestimate the ability of cultures to mix and move about. There are countless stories that have claimed that a certain civilization lacked movement only to find later that, astonishingly even, these civilizations were mighty seafarers. I am of the opinion that the steppes people via the Iranian/Northwest Indian subcontinent pathways mixed aplenty with the native tribes of the river civilizations spread all over the Indus river system including all feeder rivers.
You may well be right. When @Saitan mentioned this in his post, I was taken aback, as one tends to get sucked into the minutiae of the situation due to arguments (like the one I am facing with the online equivalent of a Waffen SS formation - NO SURRENDER! May the lords help me; as long as the young gentleman is able to, he will battle on.
But yes, what you say is quite possible; there is no proof or disproof.
Wait, there is no proof or disproof of travels within the system; there is, however, ample proof of travel and meetings between the IVC people and points in the steppes close to the north-western passes. Meaning thereby Bactria and Tajikistan, mostly, but with branches along the trade routes of those times (3300 BCE to 1900 BCE, the flourishing period of the IVC).
Further there were pretty good to and fro travels between the Mesopotamian and IV civilizations. This mean that the pathways between Iraq/Iran and IVC were well traveled. If people traveled, then the idea of partnering up (again the ritual of marriage and a permanenet partnership like we see today is unknown and not conclusively established) all over these pathways is a given, especially when no racial segregation or warfare existed. This also means the idea of gods, art, language would all have been influenced by each other. Yet the notion that IVC had a separate genesis also is well established simply from the fact that Mesopotamian style writing using reeds has not been found in IVC. The entire writing system is very different clearly indicating a separate genesis.
Very nicely summed up.
In some ways, we can apply the modern concepts to ancient civilizations - concepts such as inter-marriage, travel for trade and leisure, use of ownership markers, etc. My assertion here is that people should not make the mistake of overly implying that human behavior was a mystery thousands of years ago. Basic mental faculties that advanced humanity as a whole existed back then too. So, all behaviors including what gods people worshiped, how languages and stories evolved , how customs and rituals came into being etc. should all be looked at from the lens of regular intermixing of distinct civilizations. If we consider this model, then the very attempt to establish a chronological order, even a partial order, of evolution of tribes and races appears futile. And ,unfortunately, the discourse ,at least in India , seems to have heavily devolved into who came first, second etc., as if this is how humanity has evolved. The simple answer is random permutations of geographically connected civilizations is all that can be established and no firm order of evolution.
Very interesting, and very valid points.
 

SavageKing456

Active member
Messages
127
Reactions
145
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Interesting w.r.t horse and stuff

"The report claiming the earliest date for the domesticated horse in India, ca. 4500 B.C.E., comes from a find from Bagor, Rajasthan, at the base of the Aravalli Hills" (Edwin Bryant 2001:170)


Horse at Lothal "There is occurrence of horse bones in the mature Harappan levels of Lothal (Rao, 1979). Obviously, the Harappans were familiar with the horse as early as 2200 B.C"

Source:Animal Remains Excavated from Lothal Archaeological Site (Gujarat) and Relevance of the Fauna to this Ancient Civilization by Saha, U.; Ghosh, M.; Pal, T. K.

The single tooth of horse reffered to above Indicates the presence of horse at Lothal during harappan period.The tooth from lothal resembles Closely with that of the modern horse and has the pre-callabian..which is well distinguishable of the cheek tooth of horse(S.R.Rao1985:641)

Refer - The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History (pg 69 to 70)

Phase III of Lothal at Gujarat which belongs to Mature Harappan phase has yielded a terracotta figure of horse(ibid)

Evidence of horse from Rakhigarhi and Harappa

"excavations have been carried out at Rakhigarhi...a diverse set of figurines that are very similar to those discovered in Harappa has been recovered.These include figurines identified as zebu,water buffalo,dog,lion,leopard,rabbit, and horse" (Sharri Clark & Mark Kenoyer 2017)


Refer to The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines(pg 510)

"Perhaps the most interesting of the model animals is one that I personally take to represent a horse" -Mackay (in 1938)

DHARMA Triumph1.jpg



Then what mortimer wheeler also talks about the same horse model in (Refer pg 92 of The indus valley Civilization)


DHARMA Triumph2.jpg



In the work The ivc Civilization pg 82


DHARMA Triumph3.jpg



Bhola Nath identified horse : https://archive.org/details/records-indian-museum-59-336-367/page/n27/mode/2up

The horse bone recorded at Mohenjodaro (1931, p. 653) by Sewell(ibid) Also Bryant in his 2001 book Notes this "Sewell and Guha, as early as 1931, had confirmed the existence of true horse, Equus caballus Linn from Mohenjo-Daro itself"

"cannot either deny or alter the find of a scientific fact that the horse was present at Hallur before the (presumed) period of invasion
" -K. R. Alur(quoted by Bryant)

Hallur is situated in Karnataka . There remains were dated to 1500 bce and 1300 bce.


DHARMA Triumph0.jpg

DHARMA Triumph5.jpg


Refer: Domestication of animals in Harappan culture: a socio−economic study by Sajjan Kumar chapter IV (pg 126-130)

Read this paper "The Harappan Horse was buried under the dunes of..." By A.K.Sharma to get more details regarding the horse finds at Kalibangan,Surkotada and other sites



DHARMA Triumph10.jpg

DHARMA Triumph14.jpg

DHARMA Triumph23.jpg


Source: Horse Remains From the Prehistoric Site of Surkotada, Kutch, Late 3rd Millennium B.C by Sandor Bokonyi
DHARMA Triumph41.jpg
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
How did you came to this conclusion?
All you have is speculations
What does absence of evidence mean to you?

Does it mean the opportunity to retro-fit evidence, from ages much later, onto original forms, so that everything is ordered according to the reconciliations that later circumstances demanded?

Is it a secret to you that there was considerable development of thinking about deities and divine beings, and that it was a continuous process beginning with the original Indo-Iranian split in or around the Andronovo culture around 2000 BCE to 1500 BCE? That there was no uniformity and nothing was frozen in place throughout the duration between the probable composition of the Rg Veda and the emergence of the Puranas at different times, in different places, starting from their original mention in the Atharva Veda, itself a very late creation?

It is because of this dogged insistence that everything was created simultaneously, this dependence on some kind of magical discovery made at one time by divine interpretation that makes it childish to engage with your arguments.
How do you know that
"Post-vedic"
Because the Vedas - the Rg Veda, specifically - does not contain these references.

What would have been preferred, pre-Vedic? That would assume - but nothing to be surprised about, a point of view that tries to justify even non-existent fact will go to any lengths - that there were compositions pre-dating the Vedas. There is, of course, the view that the Rg Veda itself was composed over a period of time - the different references to the Saraswati is one clue, the relative importance of divine beings is another - and perhaps you wish to claim that there was a seed message that pre-dated the Vedas. I suppose that assertion is on the way.
You just speculate
I just eliminate what is not present, and what is an interpretation that is intended to cover an embarrassing gap. It cannot be helped that revisionists find this awkward.
When I brought up that how yajurveda has clear identification with shiva you said they mixed up,how and what evidence you have?
Please look up my statement carefully.
Just because clear information is not given in RV linking these two deities you will come to this conclusion whatever you have?
Of course. What is more clear and original than the Rg Veda, even though it is itself a compilation? Why on earth should anyone adopt fanciful theories and read backwards to build a case, other than those desperately in search of a solution to an unsolvable problem?
And did you read the link which was sent.

Yet again
You really don't understand do you?
Start reading stuff properly atleast
Gave you clear research based links
You said it's merely speculations and listed points in support of your claim
In my previous posts your point especially that it changed its course was debunked.
Ah, it is good to learn that you sit satisfied having 'debunked' whatever was put on record, by repeating the same stuff again and again and again. If you believe that repetition is a convincing, winning argument, there is nothing further to be done. Or said. Once a mind is frozen and is determined to align all facts, all evidence in favour of one position, there is no point in putting up the same thing every time those repetitive exercises occur.
Woah
What does it have to do with modern/ancient times
Clearly you have the bias
Just because we have started discovering doesn't mean that thing is irrelevant.
And I gave the Indian one
This part is about the perhaps mythical Saraswati River, one of the pillars of the revisionist quest for a past that never existed, but is invoked now to prove the Out Of India theory, for political and social reasons that are perfectly clearly understood.

Here we have a typical instance of evasion. My question was direct and brutal; why was only the name and identification of the Saraswati lost through the ages, and no other river suffered that fate? That is what it has to do with modern and ancient times. If the river had existed in ancient times, it would have survived until today, as every single other river has done, other than obscure hill streams and rivulets. NO major river has been lost to contemporaries other than this.

We are being asked to believe that the name was missing during the time of the Janapadas, during the time of the rise of Magadha, during the Maurya Empire, during the times of troubles following the fall of the Maurya Empire, when Greeks from Bactria, Sakas, Kushana, Huns fought for mastery of north India, that it was lost during the rule of the Western Satraps, who were responsible for so much building and restoration of temple sites and holy places during their rule, before and after the Satavahanas, and until Samudra Gupta, that again, during the period of the Rajput kingdoms, and the Rastrakuta ascendancy, nobody knew anything about this river, except as an underground tributary at Allahabad to the combined Ganga and Yamuna - to cut a long story short, nobody knew where the river was, and only suddenly, in the 19th century, was it re-discovered by some mystically visionary individuals.

Possibly the argument will be that the Indus Valley Civilisation itself remained lost to the Indian world, even to the world at large, until the 19th century, so why should not the Saraswati? That more than anything else makes the point quite clear; if there was such a river, it had nothing to do with the confluence of the Ganga and the Yamuna, and it had nothing to do with a foaming, brimful river as described in the earlier passages of the Rg Veda, it was a local name given to a local river that vanished along with the culture that it had nourished for two millennia with decreasing strength.

There was no mythical river of great proportions, only a seasonal river, as it is today, in even greater state of depletion, and there is no possibility of mistaking this palaeo channel with some other that is clearly described as quite different in quality and volume of waters borne; not unless we accept the second reference and agree that this was the Saraswati that vanished into the desert.

Whether it was the great river or a seasonal stream that continued to weaken is important for the simple reason that revisionists are fond of building a huge structure around this stream, comparing it in importance to the Indus. There are two considerations for determining this: the number and size of settlements, and the nature of the culture and its reason for depending on river traffic.

First, it has frequently been stated that there have been very many more discoveries of settlements along the course of what is today hopefully described as the Saraswati, so that must have been the core around which the Indus Valley Civilisation grew, and so, too, should it be re-named either the Harappan Culture, most acceptable to all points of view, or the Indus-Saraswati Culture, or the Sindhu-Saraswati Culture.

The problem with this is two-fold: an identification of the Ghaggra-Hakra seasonal river with the Saraswati has been proposed very hopefully, and has no acceptance other than in the ranks of those who wish to be told that Indian civilisation started in these cities, and continued unbroken throughout until the modern day.

The second problem is one that is not appealing at all to revisionists: Mohenjodaro and Harappa were sizable cities, with populations estimated, taking the number of dwellings into consideration, of between 35,000 to 40,000 people each; the other settlements, including Ropar, Rakhigarhi and all the rest, except for some from the extreme southern edges in Gujarat, consist of around 100 villages and towns of relatively small size, exactly as might be expected in an economy where metal tools and implements, pottery and foodgrains were the backbone, and had to be exported for prosperity to result. That export was the reason for the growth of this culture.

What about Lothal? Quite simply, Lothal is a very late development in the IVC, built after floods had washed away earlier villages existent on the same general location, probably around 2350 BCE, according to the findings of the Indian archaeological service. It is a very small site, some 17 acres in size, nowhere near the 'metropolitan' centres of Mohenjodaro or Harappa. It suffered a major setback around 2050 BCE, but recovered quickly, and continued as long as the climate permitted navigation up to the settlement. In 1900 BCE a massive flood destroyed the town, and much of the habitation around the town. Survivors trickled back to the old settlement, including, it is surmised, refugees from the north, from Punjab, and from the west, from Sindh, where too the culture was in decline.

So citing the large number of discoveries is about the same as pointing out that Mumbai is surrounded by a host of villages in all directions, and that they are greater in number than the single settlement of Mumbai.
 

SavageKing456

Active member
Messages
127
Reactions
145
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
What does absence of evidence mean to you?

Does it mean the opportunity to retro-fit evidence, from ages much later, onto original forms, so that everything is ordered according to the reconciliations that later circumstances demanded?

Is it a secret to you that there was considerable development of thinking about deities and divine beings, and that it was a continuous process beginning with the original Indo-Iranian split in or around the Andronovo culture around 2000 BCE to 1500 BCE? That there was no uniformity and nothing was frozen in place throughout the duration between the probable composition of the Rg Veda and the emergence of the Puranas at different times, in different places, starting from their original mention in the Atharva Veda, itself a very late creation?

It is because of this dogged insistence that everything was created simultaneously, this dependence on some kind of magical discovery made at one time by divine interpretation that makes it childish to engage with your arguments.

Because the Vedas - the Rg Veda, specifically - does not contain these references.

What would have been preferred, pre-Vedic? That would assume - but nothing to be surprised about, a point of view that tries to justify even non-existent fact will go to any lengths - that there were compositions pre-dating the Vedas. There is, of course, the view that the Rg Veda itself was composed over a period of time - the different references to the Saraswati is one clue, the relative importance of divine beings is another - and perhaps you wish to claim that there was a seed message that pre-dated the Vedas. I suppose that assertion is on the way.

I just eliminate what is not present, and what is an interpretation that is intended to cover an embarrassing gap. It cannot be helped that revisionists find this awkward.

Please look up my statement carefully.

Of course. What is more clear and original than the Rg Veda, even though it is itself a compilation? Why on earth should anyone adopt fanciful theories and read backwards to build a case, other than those desperately in search of a solution to an unsolvable problem?

Ah, it is good to learn that you sit satisfied having 'debunked' whatever was put on record, by repeating the same stuff again and again and again. If you believe that repetition is a convincing, winning argument, there is nothing further to be done. Or said. Once a mind is frozen and is determined to align all facts, all evidence in favour of one position, there is no point in putting up the same thing every time those repetitive exercises occur.

This part is about the perhaps mythical Saraswati River, one of the pillars of the revisionist quest for a past that never existed, but is invoked now to prove the Out Of India theory, for political and social reasons that are perfectly clearly understood.

Here we have a typical instance of evasion. My question was direct and brutal; why was only the name and identification of the Saraswati lost through the ages, and no other river suffered that fate? That is what it has to do with modern and ancient times. If the river had existed in ancient times, it would have survived until today, as every single other river has done, other than obscure hill streams and rivulets. NO major river has been lost to contemporaries other than this.

We are being asked to believe that the name was missing during the time of the Janapadas, during the time of the rise of Magadha, during the Maurya Empire, during the times of troubles following the fall of the Maurya Empire, when Greeks from Bactria, Sakas, Kushana, Huns fought for mastery of north India, that it was lost during the rule of the Western Satraps, who were responsible for so much building and restoration of temple sites and holy places during their rule, before and after the Satavahanas, and until Samudra Gupta, that again, during the period of the Rajput kingdoms, and the Rastrakuta ascendancy, nobody knew anything about this river, except as an underground tributary at Allahabad to the combined Ganga and Yamuna - to cut a long story short, nobody knew where the river was, and only suddenly, in the 19th century, was it re-discovered by some mystically visionary individuals.

Possibly the argument will be that the Indus Valley Civilisation itself remained lost to the Indian world, even to the world at large, until the 19th century, so why should not the Saraswati? That more than anything else makes the point quite clear; if there was such a river, it had nothing to do with the confluence of the Ganga and the Yamuna, and it had nothing to do with a foaming, brimful river as described in the earlier passages of the Rg Veda, it was a local name given to a local river that vanished along with the culture that it had nourished for two millennia with decreasing strength.

There was no mythical river of great proportions, only a seasonal river, as it is today, in even greater state of depletion, and there is no possibility of mistaking this palaeo channel with some other that is clearly described as quite different in quality and volume of waters borne; not unless we accept the second reference and agree that this was the Saraswati that vanished into the desert.

Whether it was the great river or a seasonal stream that continued to weaken is important for the simple reason that revisionists are fond of building a huge structure around this stream, comparing it in importance to the Indus. There are two considerations for determining this: the number and size of settlements, and the nature of the culture and its reason for depending on river traffic.

First, it has frequently been stated that there have been very many more discoveries of settlements along the course of what is today hopefully described as the Saraswati, so that must have been the core around which the Indus Valley Civilisation grew, and so, too, should it be re-named either the Harappan Culture, most acceptable to all points of view, or the Indus-Saraswati Culture, or the Sindhu-Saraswati Culture.

The problem with this is two-fold: an identification of the Ghaggra-Hakra seasonal river with the Saraswati has been proposed very hopefully, and has no acceptance other than in the ranks of those who wish to be told that Indian civilisation started in these cities, and continued unbroken throughout until the modern day.

The second problem is one that is not appealing at all to revisionists: Mohenjodaro and Harappa were sizable cities, with populations estimated, taking the number of dwellings into consideration, of between 35,000 to 40,000 people each; the other settlements, including Ropar, Rakhigarhi and all the rest, except for some from the extreme southern edges in Gujarat, consist of around 100 villages and towns of relatively small size, exactly as might be expected in an economy where metal tools and implements, pottery and foodgrains were the backbone, and had to be exported for prosperity to result. That export was the reason for the growth of this culture.

What about Lothal? Quite simply, Lothal is a very late development in the IVC, built after floods had washed away earlier villages existent on the same general location, probably around 2350 BCE, according to the findings of the Indian archaeological service. It is a very small site, some 17 acres in size, nowhere near the 'metropolitan' centres of Mohenjodaro or Harappa. It suffered a major setback around 2050 BCE, but recovered quickly, and continued as long as the climate permitted navigation up to the settlement. In 1900 BCE a massive flood destroyed the town, and much of the habitation around the town. Survivors trickled back to the old settlement, including, it is surmised, refugees from the north, from Punjab, and from the west, from Sindh, where too the culture was in decline.

So citing the large number of discoveries is about the same as pointing out that Mumbai is surrounded by a host of villages in all directions, and that they are greater in number than the single settlement of Mumbai.
I'm done with your laughable claims
Even ISRO has Confirmed the Existence of SARASVATI is owned acknowledged by Government of India too.
IsroconfirmstheexistenceofSARASVATI51.JPG
IsroconfirmstheexistenceofSARASVATI.JPG
IsroconfirmstheexistenceofSARASVATI1.JPG
IsroconfirmstheexistenceofSARASVATI2.JPG
IsroconfirmstheexistenceofSARASVATI3.JPG
1644506357692.png


Now you can close your eyes and ignore the facts but it won't deter them,upto you if you want to take them
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,111
Reactions
21 1,942
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
I'm done with your laughable claims
Even ISRO has Confirmed the Existence of SARASVATI is owned acknowledged by Government of India too.
View attachment 39692 View attachment 39693 View attachment 39694 View attachment 39695 View attachment 39696 View attachment 39697

Now you can close your eyes and ignore the facts but it won't deter them,upto you if you want to take them
Don't be so despondent and fall back on government statements to buttress your claims. The statements of this bigoted government will hardly determine the thinking about history and archaeology.
 

SavageKing456

Active member
Messages
127
Reactions
145
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Don't be so despondent and fall back on government statements to buttress your claims. The statements of this bigoted government will hardly determine the thinking about history and archaeology.
You guys are so predictable
Nice comeback
Gg wp!
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom