Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[roadrunner]

Very funny. Nice joke, but not worth considering as a serious argument. The people at UNESCO are not fools.

In any case, read my last 3 posts and visit the links. There is some good information for interested readers there.

There's little doubt some IV sites do exist in India. But they have been over hyped. You're trying to say that the IVC was 50% located in India (technologically and so on), and 50% in Pakistan. That's nonsense. The figure, as with all maps and all sites, is more like 75%, 20% with 5% elsewhere. IVC = Indus.

 

[roadrunner]

Thats exactly my point. You have imaginary misgivings against Indian archaeologists.

The rest of the world doesn't.

Dr. Rao and others are respected worldwide in their field and have received grants from well known organizations for their work.

They aren't the hindutva stooges that you imagine them to be!

Kindly leave your prejudices home while debating about science.

What did Dr Rao discover?

 

[Flintlock]

There's little doubt some IV sites do exist in India. But they have been over hyped. You're trying to say that the IVC was 50% located in India (technologically and so on), and 50% in Pakistan. That's nonsense. The figure, as with all maps and all sites, is more like 75%, 20% with 5% elsewhere. IVC = Indus.

By sheer number of sites, perhaps, since most settlements seem to be along the banks of the Indus. 2 major cities are also present in Pakistan.But since I haven't counted the number of settlements on both sides of the border, I really can't be sure.


However, major excavations, which match the scale of the ones in Pakistan, have been found in Gujarat and Haryana.

Smaller, less significant sites have been found as far as central India.

Thats all.

I am not going to comment on the percentage, since putting a number on such a thing is simply a bad idea.

Lothal, Harappa, Mohenjodaro, Rakhigarhi, Dholavira are all significant finds, each with unique features and large settlements. We simply can't rank them on the basis of significance since they are all unique.

This is the history of the subcontinent. Doesn't belong to any one nation.

 

[Flintlock]

What did Dr Rao discover?

Kindly read the interview I posted earlier. All the info is there.

 

[Flintlock]

Here is the link to a brochure about the Indus Heritage Center, established in Gujarat, as a museum and research center for IVC.

It has got the entire civilization in a nutshell....very interesting read.


t was formed with international aid from the Global Heritage Fund, so its not a hindutva propaganda base, as you are likely to say.

http://www.globalheritagefund.org/where/images/GHFIndusHeritageCentreBrochure72006draft.pdf

Its a PDF file, so might take time to load.

 

[UnitedPak]

Stealth, you need to admit that the IV city discovery business in India is real dodgy stuff. They are not even confirmed by Western sources, only Indian sources, and these are the same Indian sources that try to link the IVC to Hinduism. Of course the world doesnt trust these nationalists.

Part of the reason why Mohenjo Daro and Harappa have been labelled the Capitals and Centers of Indus valley was also because of the sheer amount of artefacts found there. The number of artefacts found are something like 1000.
Its not only the distinct architecture of the Cities, but the Artefacts found there, and their Proximity to the Indus river.

You might have noticed how Indian historians first had to invent this third "dried up" river to link their sites to IV. They claim the real Indus river moved East and dried up? That doesnt explain the current Indus river.

Obviously there was presence of other humans in the region, which is totally besides the point. The fact that Indian historians are stuck on making Pakistani history Indian, simply because of the recent shared history is illogical.

 

[Flintlock]

Stealth, you need to admit that the IV city discovery business in India is real dodgy stuff. They are not even confirmed by Western sources, only Indian sources, and these are the same Indian sources that try to link the IVC to Hinduism. Of course the world doesnt trust these nationalists.

They are not shady at all, have been confirmed by western sources. Just because Indian archaeologists discovered them doesn't mean that no western source have acknowledged the find.

This isn't the Vatican where you pass off the bible as history.

Its archaeology, which is a well established science. Very hard to fraud such things.

About the Hinduism part, some of the practices of harappans resemble hinduism, and some don't.
It might be the origin of hinduism, some early form of proto-hinduism. That is the general consensus anyway.

Part of the reason why Mohenjo Daro and Harappa have been labelled the Capitals and Centers of Indus valley was also because of the sheer amount of artefacts found there. The number of artefacts found are something like 1000.
Its not only the distinct architecture of the Cities, but the Artefacts found there, and their Proximity to the Indus river.

Rakhigarhi is the newest find among the IVC sites. It matches Harappa and Mohenjodaro in both size and sophistication.

Who knows which one of these cities was the capital, or maybe each was the capital of a separte state?

Its all very speculative at the moment.

You might have noticed how Indian historians first had to invent this third "dried up" river to link their sites to IV. They claim the real Indus river moved East and dried up? That doesnt explain the current Indus river.

Er...they didn't invent a river. A dry riverbed can be easily ascertained by scientific methods. Also the finding of instruments related to fishing proves the existence of a river.

The linkage between sites of the IVC isn't the river indus, but their culture, pottery, beads, seals, and city planning.
All these factors are common among the sites found in both India and Pakistan.

Obviously there was presence of other humans in the region, which is totally besides the point. The fact that Indian historians are stuck on making Pakistani history Indian, simply because of the recent shared history is illogical.

Don't you get the point? We have no clue who these people are!! They might have been proto-dravidian, proto-indo-iranian etc.

Do you think that after 3000 years of migrations and invasions, people remain the same? No!! They cross breed, get conquered, conquer other lands, evolve, get wiped out, have genetic upheavals.

History is too complicated to label this history as Indian or Pakistani.

The use of the word "Indian" is just a matter of convenience, nothing to do with political India.

The world knows this region as the "Indian subcontinent". Its a name, thats all.

So just chill out and concentrate on the civilization rather than on which side of the British-drawn artificial boundary more of it lies.

 

[UnitedPak]

Don't you get the point? We have no clue who these people are!! They might have been proto-dravidian, proto-indo-iranian etc.

Indian sources which you are quoting have a clear agenda to link the IVC culture with Hinduism and modern Indian culture. They even showed this in a recent BBC documentary. The program started of with a lot of interesting stuff about Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, then it went on to show some rather wishful CGI pictures of Dholvira, and to top it off the civilisation was linked to modern Indian Hindu culture.
Not to my surprise it was directed by an Indian. And these views are very main stream among Indian historians.

History is too complicated to label this history as Indian or Pakistani.

Indian and Pakistani yes, which is why its actually called Indus Valley, i.e the area surrounding the Indus River, i.e Entirely within Pakistan.
You dont seem to understand that "Indus Valley" is actually the name of the region. The number of times I see the phrase, "Indus Valley, Ancient India", which just doesnt make sense. At the time IV existed, there was no India, and now Indus Valley is not any way near India.
And another fact, Indus Valley has never been part of the 60 year old Hindu India in existence today.

The use of the word "Indian" is just a matter of convenience, nothing to do with political India.

Thats the entire reason why you are so eager to call it "India". Indus Valley is the name of the region surrounding the Indus river, which is entirely within Pakistan, (like I explained above). Indus Valley is just another word for Pakistan.
During the era of IV, there was no India, and today IV is not in India, the term India cannot be associated with Indus Valley.
Its really that simple.

 

[Flintlock]

Indian sources which you are quoting have a clear agenda to link the IVC culture with Hinduism and modern Indian culture. They even showed this in a recent BBC documentary. The program started of with a lot of interesting stuff about Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, then it went on to show some rather wishful CGI pictures of Dholvira, and to top it off the civilisation was linked to modern Indian Hindu culture.
Not to my surprise it was directed by an Indian. And these views are very main stream
among Indian historians.

Of course, as I pointed out earlier, there are many similarities between Hinduism and IVC culture. It is very likely that their reliigion is an early form of either Hinduism, or Proto-Dravidian Hinduism or an Indo-Iranian religion, out of which Hinduism evolved.


Also, the 3D images aren't fanciful, but based strictly on the archaeological site. Don't discredit someone's work because you can't accept in emotionally.

I have seen similar 3D representation of Harappa and Mohenjodarol. Are those fanciful as well?

Indian and Pakistani yes, which is why its actually called Indus Valley, i.e the area surrounding the Indus River, i.e Entirely within Pakistan.
You dont seem to understand that "Indus Valley" is actually the name of the region. The number of times I see the phrase, "Indus Valley, Ancient India", which just doesnt make sense. At the time IV existed, there was no India, and now Indus Valley is not any way near India.
And another fact, Indus Valley has never been part of the 60 year old Hindu India in existence today.

The nomenclature in use is "Ancient India" as a matter of convenience. It has little to do with present boundaries.

There was no "modern India", but there was "Ancient India". The area is part of Ancient India. This is the term used, and widely accepted also. Its just a term thats all.

Indus valley itself might not be in Modern India, but a significant number of IVC sites are within India.

You have to dissociate the civilization and the valley.

The IVC wasn't restricted to the banks of the Indus, there were major cities far away from the Indus as well.

The term "Indus Valley Civilization" is also a term of convenience, since the first settlement was found near the Indus river. Thats all.

Thats the entire reason why you are so eager to call it "India". Indus Valley is the name of the region surrounding the Indus river, which is entirely within Pakistan, (like I explained above). Indus Valley is just another word for Pakistan.
During the era of IV, there was no India, and today IV is not in India, the term India cannot be associated with Indus Valley.
Its really that simple.

"Indus Valley" might be synonymous with Pakistan, but "Indus Valley Civilization" is not synonymous with "Pakistani Civilization". You must understand this.

the term Ancient India, for better or worse, is associated with Indus valley. Its origin has more to do with the Europeans than the present day Indians.

Also, the IVC culture and religion has much more common with Hindu culture than with Islamic culture or any other culture.

Hence, the origins of Hinduism are believed to be from the IVC.

 

[UnitedPak]

So first you tell me that Nothing is know about the IVC people or their culture, and their language has never been deciphered.
And then you go on to tell me that they were really Hindu?

Its one or the other, you simply cant pretend everyone was Hindu because Islam wasnt in the region yet.
You should know best of all that Indians consider everything to be part of Hinduism, including Buddhism, Sikhism, any way of life which is more than a few thousand years old. You need something called evidence, and the theory of the "evolving religion" doesnt quite count as evidence.

IVC is restricted to the region called Indus Valley. Its not a convenience of names. Harappa and Mohanejo daro were cities of the Indus river. If you wish to label any other site IV, it has to at least show evidence of being built by the same people as Harappa and Mohenjo Daro. Indian so called IVC sites are associated with Harappa and Mohajo daro, because these are the only 2 cities which make those newly discovered brick walls so "great". If Harappa and Mohejo daro didnt exist, those brick walls would just be, (surprise surprise) brick walls.

You refusal to recognise the Pakistani identity is whats causing this massive ego clash.
Pakistani identity is not reliant on anything Indian, its a distinct Identity of its own. It could be called anything, but just face the fact that its a distinct Identity which has very little to do with India.
You are very eager to take away this identity. I am not quite sure why.

But consider this:

It was the Pakistan which was part of the Persian empire while India wasnt.
It was Pakistan which was invaded by Alexander while India wasnt.
It was Pakistan which was introduced to Islam first and remained heavily Muslim majority states right up till independence from the British while India remained Hindu majority. (exception being Bengal, which still didnt compare with the percentage of Muslims as the rest of Pak)

It was also Pakistan which was the home of successive Muslim empires which ruled over the rest of India
And not to mention, Pakistan was the Indus Valley, while India wasnt.

These are "some" of the things which make up the "Pakistani" identity which India cant lay claim over.

p.s Your arguments are getting very repetitive.

 

[Flintlock]

So first you tell me that Nothing is know about the IVC people or their culture, and their language has never been deciphered.
And then you go on to tell me that they were really Hindu?

Kindly read my posts. You are generalizing and oversimplifying.

Its one or the other, you simply cant pretend everyone was Hindu because Islam wasnt in the region yet.
You should know best of all that Indians consider everything to be part of Hinduism, including Buddhism, Sikhism, any way of life which is more than a few thousand years old. You need something called evidence, and the theory of the "evolving religion" doesnt quite count as evidence.

Again, you are oversimplifying and generalizing. If you can't understand the nuances then kindly refrain from replying.

IVC is restricted to the region called Indus Valley. Its not a convenience of names. Harappa and Mohanejo daro were cities of the Indus river. If you wish to label any other site IV, it has to at least show evidence of being built by the same people as Harappa and Mohenjo Daro. Indian so called IVC sites are associated with Harappa and Mohajo daro, because these are the only 2 cities which make those newly discovered brick walls so "great". If Harappa and Mohejo daro didnt exist, those brick walls would just be, (surprise surprise) brick walls.

They are more than just "brick walls" and are fully evolved IVC cities, which rival Harappa and Mohenjodaro in their sophistication and size.

Please don't make such silly statements. Shows you in poor light.

You refusal to recognise the Pakistani identity is whats causing this massive ego clash.
Pakistani identity is not reliant on anything Indian, its a distinct Identity of its own. It could be called anything, but just face the fact that its a distinct Identity which has very little to do with India.
You are very eager to take away this identity. I am not quite sure why.

I would disagree. Harappan culture has a lot in common with modern Hinduism.
There is sufficient evidence that points to the "evolution" of HInduism from these early cultures.

Think about cemetary-H culture, Vedic and modern Hinduism....there is a clear evolutionary line.

But consider this:

It was the Pakistan which was part of the Persian empire while India wasnt.
It was Pakistan which was invaded by Alexander while India wasnt.
It was Pakistan which was introduced to Islam first and remained heavily Muslim majority states right up till independence from the British while India remained Hindu majority. (exception being Bengal, which still didnt compare with the percentage of Muslims as the rest of Pak)

Off topic. Nothing to do with IVC. Please keep on the topic.

It was also Pakistan which was the home of successive Muslim empires which ruled over the rest of India
And not to mention, Pakistan was the Indus Valley, while India wasnt.

Mughals, Sultanate, Malmuks etc. ruled from Delhi as well, incase you forgot.

p.s Your arguments are getting very repetitive.

....maybe it seems so because you can't gauge the subtle differences.

 

[Keysersoze]

Guys I am spotting the early signs of a potential fire here.... keep it under control!!!!!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

According to some archaeologists over 500 Harappan sites have been discovered along the dried up river beds of the Ghaggar-Hakra River and its tributaries, in contrast to only about 100 along the Indus and its tributaries, consequently, in their opinion, the appellation Indus Ghaggar-Hakra civilisation or Indus-Saraswati civilisation is justified. However, these arguments are disputed by other archaeologists who state that the Ghaggar-Hakra desert area has been left untouched by settlements and agriculture since the end of the Indus period and hence shows more sites than found in the alluvium of the Indus valley; second, that the number of Harappan sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra river beds have been exaggerated and that the Ghaggar-Hakra, when it existed, was a tributary of the Indus, so the new nomenclature is redundant

Wikipedia
Reference Link:
# ^ Ratnagar, Shereen (2006). Understanding Harappa: Civilization in the Greater Indus Valley. New Delhi: Tulika Books. ISBN 8189487027.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But consider this:

It was the Pakistan which was part of the Persian empire while India wasnt.
It was Pakistan which was invaded by Alexander while India wasnt.
It was Pakistan which was introduced to Islam first and remained heavily Muslim majority states right up till independence from the British while India remained Hindu majority. (exception being Bengal, which still didnt compare with the percentage of Muslims as the rest of Pak)

The thread title does make this fair game "Ancient history not appreciated by Pakistanis". Doessn't have to be specifically about IVC - all ancient Pakistani history counts.

 

[Flintlock]

The thread title does make this fair game "Ancient history not appreciated by Pakistanis". Doessn't have to be specifically about IVC - all ancient Pakistani history counts.

Yeah, but can we just do one topic at a time? Its rather difficult to make credible arguments on 7 different empires at the same time.