Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[roadrunner]

LOL.. learn the basics of Hinduism please:

Hinduism as we know it can be subdivided into a number of major currents. Of the historical division into six darshanas, only two schools, Vedanta and Yoga survive. The main divisions of Hinduism today are Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Smartism and Shaktism. The vast majority of present day Hindus can be categorized under one of these four groups, although there are many other, partly overlapping, allegiances and denominations.
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I couldnt care less about the modern divisions of Hinduism.

It was never anything to do with my point, only your proselytizing.

LOL - Krishna is NOT a "main deity". Infact, Shiva is worshipped by far more people than Krishna in India today.

I'm not talking about today. Krishna is a latter day God. It is not a Rig Vedic God, and therefore is not found in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Krishna is a Gangetic God. This is a Hindu God.

Get your basics right Mr. RR, before passing judgment on Hinduism.

Here, read the wikipedia article on Shaivism:

Shaivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've no time for wiki.

I know who Siva and the Gods of the Rig Vedic people are. I know who the Gods of the Gangetic people are. There's a difference. You can carry on waffling and proselytizing as you like.

Ask any historian about the differences between the Rig Vedic people, and Hindus. The differences between their societies and Hindu societies. You'll be educated.

 

[Flintlock]

So, erm, the people who worship Shiva in India are following "Rig Vedic Religion"?

Gosh, I wonder what the Shaivites of Tamil Nadu will think about the "Gangetic Gods" and "Non Gangetic Gods". Laughable.

And wait, you totally forgot the Ganesha Idol in Afghanistan with the King's name on it!!

Not very sharp today, eh RR?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Flint:

Now, what the researcher is saying, which by the way is backed up by archaeological evidence, is that gradual climate change, i.e. weakening of the summer monsoon and drying up of the Ghaggar-hakra river, led to the decline of the Harappan civilization and the gradual migration (not a sudden migration like a flock of birds, but a progressive eastward shift of settlements) of the people eastwards into the fertile gangetic plains.

This now brings us back to a discussion we had a while back. The major centers of the IVC were around the Indus, not the alleged Ghagar-Hakra, and there is doubt over whether the Ghagar Hakra even existed. So if the center of the civilization, the Indus plains, and the source of its life (The Indus river) continued to exist, why would the region become uninhabited?

It is possible, as I said earlier, that there was a gradual shifting/migration of people to the east as the population of the IVC grew, and these people dispersed the IVC culture etc as the moved east, but there is nothing to show that the Indus dried up or climactic change rendered both the Indus and the alleged Ghagar Hakra dry, and therefore forced all of the inhabitants East.

The movement of people East was 'overflow', with IVC peoples continuing to inhabit the Indus plains.

 

[Flintlock]

Flint:


This now brings us back to a discussion we had a while back. The major centers of the IVC were around the Indus, not the alleged Ghagar-Hakra, and there is doubt over whether the Ghagar Hakra even existed. So if the center of the civilization, the Indus plains, and the source of its life (The Indus river) continued to exist, why would the region become uninhabited?

It is possible, as I said earlier, that there was a gradual shifting/migration of people to the east, an these people dispersed the IVC culture etc as the moved east, but there is nothing to show that the Indus dried up or climactic change rendered both the Indus and the alleged Ghagar Hakra dry, and therefore forced the inhabitants East.

Okay, I never claimed that the Indus ran dry. But Climate Change does suggest that the Ghaggar-Hakra river ran dry, as shown in the video.

Now, there were post-Harappan settlements along the Indus river, but for some reason, they were few and far between.

Clearly, we don't know the reason. But what is clear, is that the bulk of the post-Harappan settlements moved further from the Indus and deeper into the Gangetic plains as time progressed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It belongs to all people who were historically a part of that civilization. Whatever be their current country. That civilization is not as cut and dry as modern boundaries.

I disagree - if the Indus Civilization only had a peripheral impact on the people in South India and East India, then what claim do they have on this civilization and culture?

 

[roadrunner]

So, erm, the people who worship Shiva in India are following "Rig Vedic Religion"?

Gosh, I wonder what the Shaivites of Tamil Nadu will think about the "Gangetic Gods" and "Non Gangetic Gods". Laughable.

And wait, you totally forgot the Ganesha Idol in Afghanistan with the King's name on it!!

Not very sharp today, eh RR?

You're just being silly now, and following me round my threads.

This is not worth a reply, but i'll give it one.

A statue of Ganesh means very little. There's such things as trade routes and I don't doubt some Bharatis used these trade routes and brought with them statues of Ganesh and whatever else. This proves very little, except trade did occur.

You're now deliberately confusing the issue about the Rig Vedic Gods. You know perfectly well that I'm right, and so you're resorting to obfuscation.

I'll put it clear.

You can worship Shiva in modern day India and be a Hindu.

You could have worshipped Siva in Ancient Afghanistan and been a Vedic.

Shiva/Rundra is not the crucial piece of the puzzle.

It's the Gangetic Gods like Krishna that are never found in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Why is this? I'll tell you why. Because Hinduism in its modern form with the Gangetic Gods was never practised in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Vedism was.

It's clearly explained. I don't need to repeat this again.

 

[Flintlock]

I disagree - if the Indus Civilization only had a peripheral impact on the people in South India and East India, then what claim do they have on this civilization and culture?

Do the achivements of Islamic Civilization belong to all Muslims? Sincere question.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Okay, I never claimed that the Indus ran dry. But Climate Change does suggest that the Ghaggar-Hakra river ran dry, as shown in the video.

Now, there were post-Harappan settlements along the Indus river, but for some reason, they were few and far between.

Clearly, we don't know the reason. But what is clear, is that the bulk of the post-Harappan settlements moved further from the Indus and deeper into the Gangetic plains as time progressed.

But here we are just quibbling over numbers.

More discovered does not mean that the majority of the people moved East. We after all can only get snapshots of history through archeology, and some areas offer richer information than others, depending upon a variety of factors.

I am familiar with the argument of the Ghagar-Hakkra, but at the same time it seems illogical that when that river dried, the entire existing IVC people, even those around the Indus, started shifting East.

While some would shift East, it is reasonable to expect that many, humans seeking familiarity as part of their nature, would shift West to become part of the remainder of the IVC along the banks of the Indus.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Do the achivements of Islamic Civilization belong to all Muslims? Sincere question.

Personally, I do not see an Arab's achievement as being mine. I think the answer will vary depending upon the individual.

I think I posited on this before - people have layers of identity. These layers are composed of nationality, ethnicity, faith etc. The order and importance of these layers varies for each individual - for me faith is a part of my idnetity, but not strong enough for me to claim the achievements of Arabs, Indonesians or Malaysians. They are different people.

From the point of view of 'faith', yes, the achievements of Muslims belong to all Muslims, since Islam talks of a bond of brotherhood amongst all Muslims, but the achievements of Iraqis and Iranians do not belong to Pakistanis, nor do we claim them in our history books as Pakistanis.

That make sense?

 

[Flintlock]

But here we are just quibbling over numbers.

Its all in the numbers bhai.

More discovered does not mean that the majority of the people moved East. We after all can only get snapshots of history through archeology, and some areas offer richer information than others, depending upon a variety of factors.

In that case lets stop studying archaeology! Sorry, but we have to go where the archaeological evidence takes us.

I am familiar with the argument of the Ghagar-Hakkra, but at the same time it seems illogical that when that river dried, the entire existing IVC people, even those around the Indus, started shifting East.

Well, I guess the BBC lacks common sense then.

But look at the map:


There are settlements along the Indus valley as you can see, but there is a clear eastward shift in the "centre of gravity".

Dr. Gupta said in the video that the Summer Monsoon had weakened, which IMO means that less rainfall, erratic rainfall, probably that's the reason why they chose to migrate eastward.
After all, they were not irrigation farmers, they depended on the rain for harvests. So if the monsoon weakened, the river would be of no use without some irrigation system, so they moved to areas with better rainfall.

 

[Flintlock]

You could have worshipped Siva in Ancient Afghanistan and been a Vedic.

Shiva/Rundra is not the crucial piece of the puzzle.

It's the Gangetic Gods like Krishna that are never found in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Why is this? I'll tell you why. Because Hinduism in its modern form with the Gangetic Gods was never practised in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Vedism was.

It's clearly explained. I don't need to repeat this again.

Except, my friend, the "Vedism" that you talk about died out, lets see, in 500BC!!

The beliefs and practices of the pre-classical era (1500–500 BCE) are called the "historical Vedic religion".
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hindu Shahi Kings ruled during the 8th to 10th centuries AD, clearly indicating that they were worshipping the deity Shiva as he is recognized in current day Hinduism, and not the Rigvedic deity. Get the point?

One more Important thing - the word SHIVA is never mentioned in Rig Veda. Infact, the word Shiva first appears here:

The Śvetāśvatara Upanishad (400 - 200 BCE)[21] is the earliest textual exposition of a systematic philosophy of Shaivism.[22]
History of Shaivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shiva is a product of the Gupta age - of Classical Hindiusm !

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, I guess the BBC lacks common sense then.

But look at the map:


There are settlements along the Indus valley as you can see, but there is a clear eastward shift in the "centre of gravity".

Dr. Gupta said in the video that the Summer Monsoon had weakened, which IMO means that less rainfall, erratic rainfall, probably that's the reason why they chose to migrate eastward.
After all, they were not irrigation farmers, they depended on the rain for harvests. So if the monsoon weakened, the river would be of no use without some irrigation system, so they moved to areas with better rainfall.

What I gather about the cemetery H culture is that it was one of 3 cultures that developed out of the IVC. Cemetery H out of the northern IVC. There was also the Gandhara grave culture that remained largely exclusive to Pakistan.

So I do not see a shift in the 'center of gravity of the IVC'. I see the decline of the IVC and its remnants branching off into various cultures, one of which
was the Cemetery H.

 

[Flintlock]

What I gather about the cemetery H culture is that it was one of 3 cultures that developed out of the IVC. Cemetery H out of the northern IVC. There was also the Gandhara grave culture that remained largely exclusive to Pakistan.

So I do not see a shift in the 'center of gravity of the IVC'. I see the decline of the IVC and its remnants branching off into various cultures, one of which
was the Cemetery H.

Erm, the Gandhara Grave Culture is associated with the arrival of the Aryan migrants from Central Asia (BMAC). (1500 BC to 500 BC)

The Cemetary - H culture (1900 BC) was a significant shift eastward from the IVC, and the later Painted Gray Ware culture (1100 BC) succeeded the Cemetery H culture.

Remember, before Cemetery H, the Gangetic plains were uninhabited, thickly forested.

The painted gray ware culture on the other hand is associated with the Mahabharata.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And the question still remains, what happened to the IVC people settled along the banks of the Indus, that did not go dry?

 

[Flintlock]

And the question still remains, what happened to the IVC people settled along the banks of the Indus, that did not go dry?

Well, they seem to have moved out!

The actual number of sites along the Indus is quite less:


In a survey conducted by M.R. Mughal between 1974 and 1977, over 400 sites were mapped along 300 miles of the Hakra river.[8] The majority of these sites were dated to the fourth or third millennium BCE.[9]

S. P. Gupta however counts over 600 sites of the Indus civilization on the Hakra-Ghaggar river and its tributaries.[10][11] In contrast to this, only 90 to 96 Indus Valley sites have been discovered on the Indus and its tributaries (about 36 sites on the Indus river itself.)[12][13][14] V.N. Misra[15] states that over 530 Harappan sites (of the more than 800 known sites, not including Late Harappan or OCP) are located on the Hakra-Ghaggar.[16] The other sites are mainly in Kutch-Saurashtra (nearly 200 sites), Yamuna Valley (nearly 70 Late Harappan sites) and in the Indus Valley, in Baluchistan, and in the NW Frontier Province (less than 100 sites).

Ghaggar-Hakra river - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia