IVC, Septa-Sindhu, Bharat-Versha, Mahajanapada, etc are different names to different land parts, inhibited byhttp://
www.newsproxy.xyz/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2RlZmVuY2UucGsvZm9ydW1zL3dvcmxkLWFmZmFpcnMuNTkv various different cultures and nations at different courses of time are facts not theories.
All above show the eastward movement of Aryans and its influence (culture, Sanskrit, religion etc) then south of Vindyas, Aryan influence reached south in first century B.C or first century C.E. This is not theory but fact.
As mentioned earlier, Bharat Varsha referred to the entire Indian subcontinent.
Since there is no such thing as "aryan" race, there is no movement of them either. Neither eastward, nor westward nor to the south or north. I refuse to give legitimacy to this foolish theory.
Drawings may be facts (unadulterated), but the time frame that you are attributing to them is not fact and not supported.
There is no technique that I know of that can date a drawing or picture directly; A relative study of items sheds some light and risk of unintentional adulteration is there.
As of Harapan horse myth; there was a great debate in The Hindu news paper, which I remembered for a long time and some excerpts are posted below with link to original article;
Harappan horses?
Existence of horse men hunting a Giraffe and Elk speaks for itself since both could not have survived in India after 6000 BC.
Nothing in this assertion is correct, even if — or rather because — it comes from an archaeologist and inventive rewriter of history, S.P. Gupta. For example, the horses found in the early excavations at Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa do not come from secure levels and such `horse' bones, in most cases, found their way into deposits through erosional cutting and refilling, disturbing the archaeological layers.
Do you see how absurd the argument is ?
It rejects Facts for Assumptions that the horse bone was found due to "erosional cutting and refilling".
Even more importantly, the only true native equid of South Asia is the untamable khur (Equus hemionus, onager/half-***) that still tenuously survives in the Rann of Kutch. Both share a common ancestor which is now put at ca. 1.72 million years ago (while the first Equus specimen is attested already 3.7 mya.). The differences between a half-*** skeleton and that of a horse are so small that one needs a trained specialist plus the lucky find of the lower forelegs of a horse/onager to determine which is which, for "bones of a larger khur will overlap in size with those of a small horse, and bones of a small khur will overlap in size with those of a donkey." (Meadow 1996: 406).
Rig-Veda47 describes the horse as having 34 ribs; so does a passage in the Shatapatha Brahmana.48 However, the true horse generally has two pairs of 18 ribs, i.e. 36 and not 34.
This suggests that the horse referred to in the Rig-Veda may have been a different species, such as the smaller and stockier Siwalik or Przewalski horses, which often (not always) had 34 ribs.
co
Putting the archaeological evidence along with the text gives the proof of local horse in India.
...............
To merely compare sizes, as Rajaram does following the dubious decades old Harappan data of Marshall, and then to connect the long gone "Equus Sivalensis" with the so-called "Anau horse", resulting in the "Indian country" type, is just another blunder, but Rajaram, the scientist, is not aware of it.
Proper judgment is not possible as long as none of the above precautions are taken, and when — as is often done — just incomplete skeletons or teeth are compared, all of which is done without the benefit of a suitable collection of standard sets of onager, donkey and horse skeletons. Rajaram and his fellow rewriters of history thus are free to turn any local half-*** into a Harappan horse, just as he has already done (see Frontline, Oct./Nov. 2000) with his half-bull.
They only claim is that the proof is not conclusive enough.
However they do not take into account that this is consistent with the DNA studies which suggest that the modern Indian “true horses” are autochthonous to India, and the morphological studies which suggest that the Equus sivalensis was one of the ancestors of the “true horse”.
Further, the archaeologists claiming to have found horses in Indus sites are not trained zoologists or palaeontologists. When I need to get my teeth fixed I do not go to a veterinarian or a beauty salon. Typically, S.P. Gupta (1999) does not add any new evidence, and just repeats palaeontologically unsubstantiated claims that are, to quote Rajaram, "myths and conjectures... through the force of repetition."
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/op/2002/03/05/stories/2002030500130100.htm
Except the evidence of a spoked wheel built for speed defeats that argument.
Aryan invasion/migration is not the only one that happened in history of Subcontinent; before Dravidian and after Scythians, Greeks, Huns, mongols, central asians Turkic tribes made it a habit to attach after few hundred of years........... thats, how the flow of people happened in this part of world.
There is nothing fiction about it. Both linguistic and Archaeological studies support it.
Insignificant amount of migration always takes place in history and happens all over the world, not enough to change the culture of any land. The migrants adapt the culture of the majority, not the other way around.
There is no mention of any invasion in any of the purans, or ithias in Hinduism. So this whole thing is a fantasy.
Later day attacks by neighboring kings did nothing to change the culture of India.
My observation and query was the following;
Maha-Bharata is called because it is a narrative of clash of the decedents of Bharata, son of Dushyanta and Shakuntal, the famous poem Shakuntala of Kalidasa.... Nothing to relate the land where the events were taking place.
As I would remember, only the decedents of Bharatas are alternatively addressed as Bharata in MahaBarata, no person relating to other tribe or state, for example, Kosala, Sindu, Magda etc were addressed as Bharata, ...................................................... I wondor why all indians are called Bharatis?
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/does-india-have-a-history-of-10000-years.468258/page-11#ixzz4Twv6I9k8
And you post#136 said that
Vishnu Puran gives the description of the country known as "Bharat".
uttaram yatsamudrasya himadrescaiva daksinam,
varsam tadbharatam nama bharati yatra santatih
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/does-india-have-a-history-of-10000-years.468258/page-10#ixzz4TwvigYbo
Vishnu Purana is dated at about first or second century C.E., that is the time, when Vedic influence solidified in South.
No one other than from the line of Bharata is called by tribal/family/surname Bharta......................... Much, much later in time..... land north of sea and south of himalaya is called Bharata.
The land of Bharat was identified by the rulers of the land, not by the people. The same way Egypt was the land of the Pharaohs.
Details of the Jathi's were never recorded in ANY Hindu text due to the prevalence of Varna as the predominant factor. So the books talk about the roles and responsibilities of various Varna's not of their jaathis.
So tribal history was never part of Indian tradition, unlike Abhrahamic religion.
The problem arose when people of abrahamic religion tried to interpret Indian history through their own prejudice and colored lens of Tribal history.
There is no discontinuous Hindu culture or Today‘s Indian culture. Indian culture founded on Hinduism dated back 200 BC that is not direct decendant or heir of the ancient Indus river civilization. The Indus river civilization discontinued because of the vanished unity of religion、language、ethnicity and so on. Maybe the direct decendants genetically still exist but now they belong to different religion、ethinic groups and spread in different areas.
You Hindu Indians want to take everything for yourselves and it sounds a bit funny or absurd. To be frankly,after the Verdic whites invaded and ruled Indus river region for more than a thousand years, the locals might have forgotten their rulers were foreign. They created Buddism and later Hinduism to run away from the masters. In this sense Indus river civilization discontinued by an International definition.
On the other hand,a few Chinese characters found on 5000-7000 year old archilogical sites are still being used in our daily language and those sacred dragon figures are still being worshipped. Our people over 70% consist of three major haplotypes dated back to the same ancestors 30000 years ago after genetic split with Northern Asians. That’s called continuous and unique in the world. We are only 4000-5000 year old civilization with written records over 4000 years as recognized by the world.
No one would be able to deprive the heritage of hinduism from you but you can not claim everything of indus river civilization for yourself.
Existence of primitive hieroglyphics script in china does not prove continuity, it only proves lack of imagination, intelligence and stable civilization.
Your dietary habits and lack of any art forms , religion or moral and ethical values indicates a civilization that never evolved beyond survival.
Beyond that there is no need to counter your absurd claims about Hindu civilization. You are free to imagine anything you want. Maybe you need to start with imagining a modern script for chinese.