Historical Indus Valley Civilization Research papers and Theories.

[Raptor]

<groan!>

Where are face-palm emojis when they are really needed?

@Nilgiri

Are we encouraging a Hindutva/revisionist lobby on this forum?

My whole of the point that the Aryan-dravidian theory is pure crap created by British to divide India.
How am I "hindutva" member

 

[Nilgiri]

My whole of the point that the Aryan-dravidian theory is pure crap created by British to divide India.
How am I "hindutva" member

It need not be conflated (what the british did with what they understood/misunderstood at the time) with what we have since uncovered scientifically (regarding the clear later migration from the steppe).

Have a read: https://scroll.in/article/936872/tw...y-so-why-did-indian-media-report-the-opposite

 

[Raptor]

It need not be conflated (what the british did with what they understood/misunderstood at the time) with what we have since uncovered scientifically (regarding the clear later migration from the steppe).

Have a read: https://scroll.in/article/936872/tw...y-so-why-did-indian-media-report-the-opposite

The scroll article is crap,genetics study of r1a1 dna disproves this stuff.
On rakhigari cell 2019 paper :

If you look at the cell paper 2019 authored by Neeraj Rai (Head of Genetics) and Vasant Shindey(Head or archaeology) of this project, shows that the ivc individual and the IVC periphery individuals separated from the ancestors of the iranian agriculturalists at about 10k BC. So IVC people do not have any relation with the iranian Agriculturalists of the later period from 7k BC.

See-https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30967-5.pdf

This disproves one huge point that many have been saying since a long time, that agriculture is not indigenous to India and was brought from outside. This further proves that agriculture was developed within India and by Indian people.

The paper then explains in great detail how difficult it is to extract genetic details in the harsh Indian climate and the entire process carried out to extract usable genetic information for drawing concrete conclusions from it, including sophisticated statistical analysis.

Based on these statistical analysis, it was found that, the previously analyzed 11 individual from gonur and shahr-i-shokta, and I6113 from Rakhigarhi were of the same origin. So those 11 individual belonged to ivc and had migrated to areas like Iran and Central Asia, from where their remains were excavated and analyzed. This conclusion was reached based on the analysis that they were not local to the areas they found, because their genetic data did not match with 44 other remains found with these 11. These 11 remains matched with ivc data instead. And our I6113 skeleton from Rakhigarhi also matches with these 11. So it can definitely be concluded from this section that the 11 individuals had gone “out of India” to Iran and central Asia during iv times. The paper also provides evidence that these individuals had no Anatolian ancestry as well. This ancestry is clearly present in the Iranian agriculturalists but has no relation with the ivc population.

So from this section we can conclude that, during the mature Harappa phase, people moved “out of India” and mixed with people from those regions. AND SHOULD WE CALL IT the “Harappan Invasion of Central Asia” like aitfags do ? this data would give me enough ammunition to claim an invasion from Harappan by the Indus Valley people to Central Asia.

Btw , this paper also claims following by citing same old gibberish from aitfags authors

“the fact that the steppy pastoralist ancestry in South Asia matches that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, but not Western Europe provides additional evidence for this theory(the theory of Steppe migration to India), as it elegantly explains the shared distinctive features of the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages.”

Infact ,we must know folks this paper ,make no mention of the term ‘aryan’, and yet delusionals merely speculate that migrants may have brought Vedic culture into India. This is mere speculation; the study does not furnish any evidence that would support such a hypothesis. The larp of invasion is long rekt .Does the study demonstrate that the migrants brought Sanskrit and Vedic culture into India? No, it does not. Does the study confirm that there was an "invasion"? No, it does not.

Rather, we find that it is limited in scope, and that its results fit quite well within a larger cycle of back-and-forth population migrations whose most common recent ancestor MRCA originated in present day India.
And even if they came in , they were migrants for whom the Indians felt nothing but pity for and they got assimilated

 

[Nilgiri]

The whole paper is mostly talking about the IVC itself having limited iranian-neolithic connection (having diverged from the earlier human migrations into the subcontinent at large). That is not what I was talking about.

I am talking about the steppe migration (never did I say this was an invasion either, that likely can never be confirmed as to the nature).

Then you reject that part of the paper referencing the steppe migration as "gibberish"? With a "BTW this also"...heh

I don't even know what you are referencing to dismiss it.

What does the Sanskrit + Steppe migration theory have to do with this paper having to demonstrate it at depth (its not the scope of its subject w.r.t IVC + Iran neolithic). That is left for other papers (specifically linguistic analysis + related archaeological study) of which you can do your due diligence on....or pick+choose and filter as you like I guess.

This conversation is over for me. This is specifically the kind of stuff I had way more than my fill at PDF already.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Saiyan0321 when you are back I think it might be best to move replies from #55 onwards to some new history debate thread about IVC etc.. if you feel it proper of course as I feel this might go off topic from what you intended in this one.

It might also be useful to put "Pakistan" in (this) thread's title so when it appears in shoutbox, ppl know the country the thread refers to etc.

 

[Raptor]

What does the Sanskrit + Steppe migration theory have to do with this paper having to demonstrate it at depth (its not the scope of its subject w.r.t IVC + Iran neolithic). That is left for other papers (specifically linguistic analysis + related archaeological study) of which you can do your due diligence on....or pick+choose and filter as you like I guess.

Buddy as I said in the beginning,it is genetically proven wrong as the frequency of r1a1 dna was higher in Indians supporting outward migration.
IK steppe migration theory has nothing to do with the scroll article ,I put it for a different purpose,to debunk AIT by various other methods and arguements.

 

[Saiyan0321]

I have made this special thread for Indus civilization studies so that the history of Pakistan could be well recorded and researched accordingly.

To start this thread, i would post one of the top books on Indus Civilizxation and Pakistan by the esteemed Aitzaz Ahsan



Warning. Any attempt to declare Pakistan removed from the history of Indus Civilization will be deleted and warning given accordingly nor any troll attempts will be tolerated.

 

[Joe Shearer]

My whole of the point that the Aryan-dravidian theory is pure crap created by British to divide India.
How am I "hindutva" member

There is an overlap of the revisionists of palaeological issues and pre-history, and the anti-science, anti-education, anti-academic views of the Hindutva followers. If you had any serious views on the Aryan-Dravidian matter, and had followed it in its winding course through Academe, you would not have made this mistake.

As far as I know, there are the Aryan Invasion Theory, long since amended and corrected, and the Out Of India Theory. If you do not belong to the one, you belong to the other. Hindutva members invariably belong to the OOI school of thought. My presumption is that you do, and hence, logically, you are in that crowd.

Feel free to refute me (with facts) or to offer additional information if you wish.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have made this special thread for Indus civilization studies so that the history of Pakistan could be well recorded and researched accordingly.

To start this thread, i would post one of the top books on Indus Civilizxation and Pakistan by the esteemed Aitzaz Ahsan



Warning. Any attempt to declare Pakistan removed from the history of Indus Civilization will be deleted and warning given accordingly nor any troll attempts will be tolerated.

FWIW, I disagree with Aitzaz Ahsan, although I recognise and sympathise with his initiative in the context of Pakistan's identity formation, and cannot take his views seriously beyond a point.

Your concluding sentence was disappointing. Very disappointing.

 

[Kaptaan]

created by British to divide India.

You are aware that they [British] united it? We, the locals fought had to be subjugated into their 'India'. I assume your antecedents also fought or tried not to be subjugated into British India? Or did they actually want to be part of this 'India'?

 

[sarthak]

Bullshit.

This is, again, revisionist reconstruction of an entirely imaginary civilisational construct.

We really don't need a Hindutva version of palaeology.

Ghaggar hakra river was the centre of ivc it is no reviosionism simple look at number of ivc sites along indus and ghaghra hakra shows it. Number of ivc sites along ghaggra hakra are 5 times that of indus.

Indus Valley Civilization

www.cs.mcgill.ca

 

[sarthak]

A fallacy in itself, based on an imaginary identification of a single solitary image of an ascetic-like figure that caused sympathetic minds to jump to the conclusion that that is Rudra of the Vedas, identified with considerable expenditure of muscle power to the Siva of Puranic Hinduism.

There is not a single other identification available.

Of course there is not we don't have much to go on to determine what they worshipped and neither can we understand the writings they left behind. But we do know these people would have coexsisted with Vedic Aryans and there are clear departures in brahminic Hinduism that came after Vedic Hinduism and other indo European religions but all historians do agree some aspects did drive from native belief systems maybe from ivc or perhaps other tribes that existed in india at the time. I only said so in response to captaan insinuating Hindus and Indians have nothing to with ivc in the end ivc is still the majority source of genetics in modern indians so they were our forefathers I think it was 60 to 85 percent of genes of Indians are derived from ivc in some study

 

[sarthak]

All uniformly of Indo-Aryan descent, through the well-known linguistic branches and descendants of western Prakrit. Prakrit itself was a derivative of Indo-Aryan, while Sanskrit was a highly artificial codification, of great sophistication and power, by a single source in the 6th century BC. It was never, anywhere a language spoken by the people. Look at the range of dialects spoken in Kalidasa for examples of what was spoken.

Here I was only pointing that speakers of indo European languages and Dravidian languages have intermixed and it shouldn't be a cause of division in modern India. The only sanskrit speaking village is in South India if I remember correct.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ghaggar hakra river was the centre of ivc it is no reviosionism simple look at number of ivc sites along indus and ghaghra hakra shows it. Number of ivc sites along ghaggra hakra are 5 times that of indus.

Indus Valley Civilization

www.cs.mcgill.ca

Sure, sure.

 

[Joe Shearer]

But we do know these people would have coexsisted with Vedic Aryans

LOL.

Already proven wrong.

 

[Joe Shearer]

ivc is still the majority source of genetics in modern indians so they were our forefathers I think it was 60 to 85 percent of genes of Indians are derived from ivc in some study

I sincerely recommend that you do some serious reading.

 

[Joe Shearer]

there are clear departures in brahminic Hinduism that came after Vedic Hinduism and other indo European religions but all historians do agree some aspects did drive from native belief systems maybe from ivc or perhaps other tribes that existed in india at the time.

That does not equate to borrowing theological concepts from the IVC. That could come from completely autonomous beliefs of system. Even today, the vast gulf between north India and south India, even between north India and east India is glaring and obvious.

Commenting on these aspects requires a first step. That is to take off one's ideological spectacles.

 

[sarthak]

LOL.

Already proven wrong.

Vedics came around 2000 bce to 1800bce in Indian subcontinent ivc survived up until 1300 bce. They would have come in contact and interacted

 

[sarthak]

I sincerely recommend that you do some serious reading.

Would you suggest any research papers?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Vedics came around 2000 bce to 1800bce in Indian subcontinent ivc survived up until 1300 bce. They would have come in contact and interacted

There is absolutely no evidence about immigrants from the steppes having come in around 2000 BC to 1800 BC. This is a favourite ploy of both the Out Of India and the Inheritance of the IVC propaganda machines - putting the earliest evidence of Indo-Aryan language presence so far back that everything is naturally subsumed into it.

The facts are rather different.

First, the earliest likely date for the appearance of the Indo-Aryan language is 1500 BC. Those refer to the first approaches into South Asia, and do not mean that they were present up and down the entire extent of the sub-continent. It is worth remembering that the time taken for the Indo-Aryan language and its extensions to reach the Ganges delta in present-day Bangladesh took around a thousand years; nobody was jumping into a chariot and thundering off to bring civilisation to the wild men of the rest of the country.

Second, let us assume for a moment that it was 300 years earlier, as has been stated. There is still no evidence that there was contact - none whatever. Stating that 'they would have come in contact' sounds hopeful, but with not a smidgin of evidence to underlie it, this is at best a colourful speculation.

Third, by the time they entered, the IVC was in very bad shape. The grand cities had got degraded due to a gradual degradation in the level of administrative will, indicated by the smaller and smaller constructions in higher layers of the cities, and the evident loss of civic discipline. You must ask yourself if self-important, self-confident wanderers and animal herders from the steppes would be so impressed by the degraded human remnants in what had degenerated practically to slums would stoop to conquer. Is it likely that they gave up their nature-based religious beliefs to dabble in whatever the conquered races believed in? There is then neither evidence nor circumstantial possibility that the methods and objects of worship of the older inhabitants were absorbed by the newer.

Repeating pleasing untruths and speculations does not really get very far in any kind of rational discussion. Without accusing you personally of anything untoward, one is forced to suggest much more firmly-grounded reading on which to build one's thoughts and mental discipline.