Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[Flintlock]

I dont remember ever claiming Tipu to be of Pakistani heritage. And I do understand the concept of him being of Indian heritage, and not related to Pakistani people.

Well, the perhaps you should go and tell that to the Pakistani Government.

But would you say that Pakistanis can claim him to be Pakistani because of the 1947 immigration of some Indian Muslims from that region to Pakistan?

Those Pakistanis who emigrated from India would definitely be entitiled to claim whatever their ancestors achieved back in India, but Pakistan as a country cannot do that.

But by equating the IVC with Tipu Sultan, you are drawing a false comparison. The IVC is present in both countries, and the Indian Harappan sites, though lesser in number, are as important as any Pakistani ones. A couple of Indian sites are as large as Mohenjodaro and Harappa.

 

[roadrunner]

And that history is different from the Afghan Pushtuns? Let's say for argument's sake that the Durand line is shifted to unite the Pushtuns again. What happens then? Overnight your identity and your civilization will change to merge with the Tajiks and Uzbeks of Afghanistan now?

If the Durand line is removed and the Afghan Pashtuns become Pakistani, then "Pakistan history" becomes the territorial history of all the citizens of Pakistan, which would include those recent Afghan Pashtuns who became citizens of Pakistan. Simple?

All I am saying is that the ancient history substantially shared. No one is trying to take it away from you!

ANyway let's leave it at this. No point in going on in circles. Either come up with something new or just leave it.

Ancient history is not shared with people who have nothing to do with it.

Modern day India has nothing to do with Gandhara, and has as much to do with the IVC as modern day Afghanistan and Iran has to do with the IVC.

IVC is an Ancient Pakistani civilization. It's not shared.

And who says so except Mr. Roadrunner!

What you have given is nothing but a figment of your thinking of convenience. Doesn't convince anyone.

It doesn't convince you. But it's convinced quite a few people on here, it seems.

 

[roadrunner]

The vast majority of settlements are not found on the Ghakkar-Hakra River. That's just false and stupid.

The Indus was the biggest water mass in the region. Why would anyone want to settle on the Ghakkar -Hakra as opposed to the Indus. Unless you want to invent a big huge river that disappeared off the face of the earth out of some figment of your imagination.

 

[Flintlock]

Do you even read the posts? I've clearly mentioned the number of sites on the Indus and the Ghaggar-Hakra, with credible sources. So check them before mouthing off please.

The vast majority of settlements are not found on the Ghakkar-Hakra River. That's just false and stupid.

The Indus was the biggest water mass in the region. Why would anyone want to settle on the Ghakkar -Hakra as opposed to the Indus. Unless you want to invent a big huge river that disappeared off the face of the earth out of some figment of your imagination.

 

[roadrunner]

Do you even read the posts? I've clearly mentioned the number of sites on the Indus and the Ghaggar-Hakra, with credible sources. So check them before mouthing off please.

I don't read half your posts because they're so full of crap. Perhaps I missed them, but what you're saying is bull.

 

[Flintlock]

It doesn't convince you. But it's convinced quite a few people on here, it seems.

Yes, you and your cronies it would seem.

 

[Flintlock]

I don't read half your posts because they're so full of crap. Perhaps I missed them, but what you're saying is bull.

Wonderful! No wonder you keep repeating old stuff without considering or countering any of the new information being provided on the thread.

 

[roadrunner]

This is a map from Minnesota State University.

The borders are approximate, yet there's as much of a border inside Iran and Afghanistan, as there is in India.

The three important sites are all located in Pakistan.

The map centres on the Indus Valley.



Indian manipulation of history can claim the IVC was centred on the Ghakkar-Hakra River, but noone else is falling for the fictitious lies of Indian archaeologists.

 

[Flintlock]

Indian manipulation of history can claim the IVC was centred on the Ghakkar-Hakra River, but noone else is falling for the fictitious lies of Indian archaeologists.

Firstly, you cannot claim manipulation without providing a written statement of the same, from an authority which has more credibility than the source under question.

So, if you want to allege that the Indian archaeologist in question is manipulating facts, you will have to provide an equally (or more) credible source which backs up your claims.

Haveing said that, the sources in this case are both Indian and Pakistani.

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).
Mortimer Wheeler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some information about Mughal and Gupta:

Muhammad Rafiq Mugal is a Pakistani archaeologist, engaged in investigating of ethnoarchaeological research in Chitral, northern Pakistan. He has been responsible for the direction, technical support and supervision for restoration and conservation of more than thirty monuments and excavated remains of the Islamic, Buddhist and Proto-historic periods, in Punjab and Frontier Provinces and Northern Areas of Pakistan.
Mohammed Rafique Mughal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SP Gupta:

He was also the editor of several volumes of the Puratattva, the Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society. He was a distinguished archaeologist and art historian who was awarded several gold medals and the Sir Mortimer Wheeler Prize for excellence in archaeology.
S. P. Gupta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, both are prominent and respected archaeologists, and if you want to counter their claims, the correct way would be to produce research findings that come to different conclusions rather than claiming that they are biased or propogandists.

 

[roadrunner]

^^These are bogus Indian sites generated by Indian archaeologists with vested interests, which all neutral archaeologists do not believe exist.

Not one single neutral foreign researcher (non Indian, or non Hindu convert), agrees with you absurd theories of the IVC going along the Ghakkar-Hakra River or further East.

This guy published his work in JAGNES, and he ridicules the idea that North India was any centre or connection to the IVC. He states clearly and with evidence that the IVC, if anywhere was centred on Pakistan, or on Badakshan, Afghanistan.

Relocating the Center Altogether

Identifying Harappan sites in the Indus Valley proper is relatively simple, as is the identification of distinctively Indus objects found far afield in the west. Far more difficult is the conclusive identification of Harappan sites in the regions to the east of the Indus Valley. This is true because the vast majority of the sites in India are considered Late Harappan, rather than Early or Mature Harappan. What makes this trouble-some is that there seems to be no consistency in the usage of the term 'Late Harappan.'

S.R. Rao notes that "to deserve the term 'Late Harappan' it is essential that the inhabitants of the de-urbanized phase must have retained the core of Harappan achievements such as writing, use of the Harappan standard of weights and Harappan religious beliefs including the method of the disposal of the dead" (Rao 1982:354). Unfortunately, almost no one seems to follow this guideline. Despite agreement on the diagnostic traits of the Harappan Civilization, many archaeologists seem bent on labeling sites as 'Harappan' (whether Early, Mature, Late, or otherwise) which often exhibit not one of these basic traits. The sites so named are more likely Non-Harappan or, at best, Late-Harappan.

Further contributing to the problem of identifying a site as being 'Harappan' is the fact that "only about 3% of all the sites reported as being 'Harappan' have been excavated horizontally to the maximum of 20% of their area" (Jansen 1981:251). This problem in identifying Harappan sites becomes all the more difficult the further away the site is located from the Indus Valley proper.

Consider the work by Joshi, Bala, and Ram. By locating some 700 supposedly Harappan sites in India proper, they claim that the Indus Civilization encompassed 'an area of 1.3 million sq. km' (Joshi et al. 1984:511). Compared with Mark Kenoyer's figure of 425,000 sq. miles (688,000 sq. km.), this long-dead civilization seems to have grown by leaps and bounds! In fact, the three archaeologists use this new assessment of the geographical extent of the Indus Civilization to suggest "that instead of persisting with the older title, the Indus Civilization, we might as well call it the 'Saraswati Civilization' or 'Saraswati Culture'" (Joshi et al. 1984:513). So we now have a suggestion put forth not only for a dramatically larger cultural sphere, but for an entirely new center! With enough difficulty involved in defining the periphery of the civilization, this type of nationalistic relocation of the center of the Indus Valley civilization is not only asking for trouble, it is absurd.
Center and Periphery: Indus Valley Civilization

Note the names. Joshi, Bala, and Ram, these are all Indians, the Americans have stated, several of them in fact have stated, that what the Indians are doing is fictitious and bogus. Even Professors, and that is damning.

It's and excellent article. I'd urge you all to read it.

 

[Flintlock]

Erm, but Joshi, Bala and Ram are not mentioned in my sources at all! .

Also, your continual harping on the "Saraswati Civilization" is a red herring, because you are seeking to associate my posts with the nationalist interpretations of some Indian archaeologists with the Rigvedic Saraswati.

 

[DarkStar]

A lot has been made of the sheer number of sites that Bharatiyas are claiming to be of the Harappan civilisation.

After the partition of British India, it became apparent that the physcial remnants of the ancient subcontinental civilisation went to Pakistan, so Bharatiya archeologists worked overtime to try and find, excavate as many sites as possible. While on the Pakistani side, there has been an obvious lull, with even major sites like Mohenjo daro and Harappa not fully excavated, yet.

I am sure that if Pakistan puts more resources into this, it can easily come up with many more sites, especially those of the mature Harappan phase (the golden era of the Harappan Empire).

The non urban cultures that are seen in many of these alleged Harappan sites, have no obvious correlation to Harappan civilisation, except wishful thinking. When these sites start to provide us with those same excquisite ceramics, seals, standardised weights, figurines, then we will think about accepting them as genuine Harappan sites.

First find your own 'dancing girl' or its equivalent from a Bharatia site, and show it to us.

Mounds of rubble do not a civilisation make.

 

[Vinod2070]

How difficult is this to understand?

When someone says "Pakistani history", this includes the history of the Pakistani Pashtuns, not the Afghani Pashtuns.

Pakistani Afghans and Afghan Pashtuns are the same people. When one talks about "Pashtun history", then that includes the Pakistani and Afghani Pashtuns' history.

Got it?

NO! I just don't get (and agree with) this approach of trying to associate history with the accident of modern geography.

I have given the example of modern Turkish people occupying the area of Greco-Roman empire many times. They have nothing to do with that history. Similarly people may move away from their original land and keep their connection to their history.

Like the people of America do have a connection to the European civilization even when they are not citizens of those countries any longer.

Its the people and not the land that matters!

Vedism is a recognized religion and it's recognized as distinct from Hindusim.

I've given examples already of some distinguishing features of it. It's only Hindus that lump the two religions together. I don't lump them because Hinduism is not a part of Pakistani history.

One word. BS.

Two words. Utter BS!

 

[Vinod2070]

If the Durand line is removed and the Afghan Pashtuns become Pakistani, then "Pakistan history" becomes the territorial history of all the citizens of Pakistan, which would include those recent Afghan Pashtuns who became citizens of Pakistan. Simple?

I obviusly painted the hypothetical scenario of the Duran line shifting to the East! Does that overnight remove your link to the IVC while you are sitting in "Atafu"!

Ancient history is not shared with people who have nothing to do with it.

Modern day India has nothing to do with Gandhara, and has as much to do with the IVC as modern day Afghanistan and Iran has to do with the IVC.

IVC is an Ancient Pakistani civilization. It's not shared.

It doesn't convince you. But it's convinced quite a few people on here, it seems.

Gandhara and all of modern Afghanistan had a major connection to the Indian civilization through all of pre-Islamic history. It was ruled form India many times and was definitely under the sphere of influence for the other part. It is mentioned in the tales of Mahabharata. The villain Shakuni comes from Gandhara!

You are going in circles. Try to come up with something new (and better).

 

[Flintlock]

Guys, frankly I think its best to give up this discussion - none of us are historians, and even among historians, there is a lot of controversy and a lot of different interpretations.

I had the pleasure of speaking to a history professor in my university today, and what he said really opened my eyes to how difficult it is to make any accurate judgment about an ancient civilization, and how 90% of the research (even by very prominent historians) done on any civilization simply reconfirms old biases without actually coming up with any credible conclusions.

For example, the popular myth that IVC had a written script is pretty much busted - it was most likely primitive pictograms of some sort, which are very difficult to understand, and haven't been so far.

Another popular myth about their apparent rigorous standardization is not true either - most of the Harappan bricks are of irregular sizes and shapes, and their roads are not aligned along the cardinal directions as often believed.

Regarding Harappan trade, it turns out that the Harappans were actually a mostly agrarian civilization that did trade with other civilizations on a limited basis, but it wasn't the sort of over-hyped ancient "globalized world" as we have been taught to believe.

A lot of the stuff that comes up in popular newspapers and magazines (Time, NYT etc.) simply uses "sexed-up" interpretations of the most sensational claims in order to make the article attractive to the reader, and doesn't bother to paint a real picture of the civilizaton.

Finally, archeology is a boring, laborious job that takes years of work to make even the most basic claims, so frankly, I've come to the conclusion that if you want to discuss ancient history, go to a university conference. Don't chatter on the internet in 3 sentence paragraphs, out of which 1 is an ad-hominem and the other two are sarcastic remarks.