Indus Valley civilisation could be older than Egypt’s pharaohs, Mesopotamia

[Nilgiri]

History is boring to many people, often eliciting long yawns. But a new development in Indian history should make everyone sit up and take notice. A new study by scientists from IIT-Kharagpur and Archaeological Survey of India which shows that the Indus Valley Civilization is at least 8,000 years old, and not approximately 5,000 years old as previously believed demands a fundamental and objective rethink of old assumptions about the antiquity of Indian civilisation and its role in world history.

If this evidence, published in the journal ‘Nature’, and using cutting-edge ‘optically stimulated luminescence’ on technologies on ancient pottery shards, is correct then it would substantially push back the beginnings of ancient Indian history, proving that it took root well before the pharaohs of Egyptian (7000BC to 3000BC) and the Mesopotamian (6500BC to 3100BC) civilizations in the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates. Researchers have also found evidence of a pre-Harappan civilization that existed for at least 1,000 years before this and it may force a global rethink on the generally accepted timelines of so-called ‘cradles of civilization’.

This is a quantum leap, if their claims are correct. The scientists are not just shifting a few years here and there. They are saying that their evidence pushes back the mature phase of the Indus Valley Civilisation (with big remains in Harapa and Mohen-jo-Daro in modern Pakistan and Dholavira in Gujarat along with a 100 other sites) from its current dating of 2600-1700 BC to 8000-2000 BC. This also pushes back the pre-Harappan phase from 9000-8000 BC.

Ever since the discovery and dating of the Harappa and Mohen-jo-Daro civilisations in colonial India, Indian history has been politicised: divided between those who believe in the Aryan invasion theory, those who think it was a clever colonial device to justify their own rule on racial dominance-lines and those who think Aryans may have spread into India through cultural diffusion. This has long been a crucial political fault-line in Indian history between the Left and the Right but this new evidence demands that we step away from ideological hardlines and objectively reassess our historical past.

After all till a 100 years ago, we didn’t even understand what the ruins of Harappa and Mohen-jo-Daro were. We reclaimed them as part of the Indian past because of new archaeological evidence put out by the colonial archaeologist John Marshall in 1924.


John Marshall’s announcement of Harappa’s discovery The Illustrated London News, Sept. 20, 1924.

This process must continue and we must look with fresh minds at new evidence like the discovery of a Harappa-like ancient site in Tamil Nadu’s Shivganga by ASI, for example, which may lend new archaeological credence to the narratives in Tamil Sangam literature about ancient Tamils and the Madurai and Pandya kingdoms. Received wisdoms should not inhibit this search.

For detailed discussion on the new findings and why it matters, watch our Times of India live chat on the Indus Valley Civilisation

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatime...ld-be-older-than-egypts-pharaohs-mesopotamia/

http://qz.com/694925/the-indus-valley-civilisation-is-2500-years-older-than-previously-believed/

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/ind...old-not-5-500-years-iit-asi-scientists-331690

@Zibago @Nilgiri

We must keep an open unbiased mind when searching for truth. Preconceived notions that there is a link with Dravidian culture, pre-vedic religion etc should not cloud the evidence collected. They remain theories for now.

In fact there is new evidence coming out that there could be a significant connection between the IVC and Sanskrit. That the IVC is what produced the split between Avestan and Sanskrit....and that proto-Tamil has much Sanskrit influence/roots. So where exactly the branches are will be revealed over many more years of research. There is still not enough interest among Indians for their prehistory and pre-vedic history.

 

[Maira La]

In fact there is new evidence coming out that there could be a significant connection between the IVC and Sanskrit. That the IVC is what produced the split between Avestan and Sanskrit....and that proto-Tamil has much Sanskrit influence/roots. So where exactly the branches are will be revealed over many more years of research. There is still not enough interest among Indians for their prehistory and pre-vedic history.

So where did you see this new evidence? Post a link maybe? Anyone can make these bold claims.

 

[Nilgiri]

So where did you see this new evidence? Post a link maybe? Anyone can make these bold claims.

You can google can't you?

Papers by Ranganatha Rao, Parpola and Bryan Wells are a good place to start.

 

[Maira La]

You can google can't you?

Papers by Ranganatha Rao, Parpola and Bryan Wells are a good place to start.

Can't google each time anyone makes an absurd claim. Onus is on you to back your "new evidence is coming out" with reliable sources.
I'll take a look at the papers. With India's highly politicised academia, I'm more interested in papers written entirely by non-Indian/Western authors.

 

[Nilgiri]

Can't google each time anyone makes an absurd claim. Onus is on you to back your "new evidence is coming out" with reliable sources.
I'll take a look at the papers. With India's highly politicised academia, I'm more interested in papers written entirely by non-Indian/Western authors.

OK so you are basically a lazy heavily biased individual. I even gave the author names. Do a Sci-direct, epub, springerlink, scribd search whatever...even plain google...add indus and the authors name.

You are not interested in the actual IVC evidence and epistemology...this was proven when you didn't even know what the Marshall paper was in a previous thread (which you still haven't read). The whole utility for you is to somehow link Indian "Hindu-radicalism" with IVC theory development. Most of the studies and analysis of the Indus script these days are Indian or joint-Indian efforts.

Since you have some aversion to Indian authors, here is a good place for you to start since I have to spoon feed you everything:

https://www.harappa.com/category/author/bryan-k-wells

Either buy the book like I have or maybe you can find it online somewhere.

 

[Maira La]

You are not interested in the actual IVC evidence and epistemology...this was proven when you didn't even know what the Marshall paper was in a previous thread (which you still haven't read). The whole utility for you is to somehow link Indian "Hindu-radicalism" with IVC theory development. Most of the studies and analysis of the Indus script these days are Indian or joint-Indian efforts.

Since you have some aversion to Indian authors, here is a good place for you to start since I have to spoon feed you everything:

https://www.harappa.com/category/author/bryan-k-wells

Don't be too smart - I don't know which thread you're referring to by putting words in my mouth ("you didn't even know"). Stick to the discussion in this thread.

Since you have some aversion to Indian authors, here is a good place for you to start since I have to spoon feed you everything:

https://www.harappa.com/category/author/bryan-k-wells

This is the same guy you mentioned earlier, working with those indian 'scholars' and letting them add his name to their research paper. I believe it is safe to assume those Indian guys are his primary source of information about IVC.

 

[Nilgiri]

This is the same guy you mentioned earlier, working with those indian 'scholars' and letting them add his name to their research paper. I believe it is safe to assume those Indian guys are his primary source of information about IVC.

LOL ok, so you aren't even going to read his book then. Fine.

Don't expect to have any reasonable conversation about the IVC, especially with anyone thats actually read the papers by the archaeologists that have worked there.

Don't be too smart - I don't know which thread you're referring to by putting words in my mouth ("you didn't even know"). Stick to the discussion in this thread.

The fact you didn't even know what the John Marshall (who was one of the original discoverers of the IVC cities) paper was and how instrumental it was in IVC development theory told me all I need to know about your agenda....i.e you are just a passing cursory observer (for reasons other than pursuit of the truth) that hasn't actually committed any serious time to exploring the subject. Each subsqequent "post" of yours just further solidifies what you are.

 

[Maira La]

The fact you didn't even know what the John Marshall (who was one of the original discoverers of the IVC cities) paper was and how instrumental it was in IVC development theory told me all I need to know about your agenda....i.e you are just a passing cursory observer (for reasons other than pursuit of the truth) that hasn't actually committed any serious time to exploring the subject. Each subsqequent "post" of yours just further solidifies what you are.

As I said earlier, I never denied knowing John Marshall paper and I absolutely do not recall having that discussion with you anywhere else.

You seem to be intent on going off on a tangent to dodge my questions on the source of your absurd claims in this thread - claims like "proto-Tamil has Sanskrit roots"!

It's fine if you don't want to quote any reliable sources, as long as your academic dishonesty is laid bare for other forumers to see.

 

[Nilgiri]

As I said earlier, I never denied knowing John Marshall paper and I absolutely do not recall having that discussion with you anywhere else.

You seem to be intent on going off on a tangent to dodge my questions on the source of your absurd claims in this thread - claims like "proto-Tamil has Sanskrit roots"!

It's fine if you don't want to quote any reliable sources, as long as your academic dishonesty is laid bare for other forumers to see.

I posted a whole bunch of papers on some thread asking if you knew anything about who their authors were and what the main points of their theory were. But you had nothing to say about it. I tried looking for that thread but cant find it.

You seem to be intent on going off on a tangent to dodge my questions on the source of your absurd claims in this thread - claims like "proto-Tamil has Sanskrit roots"!

I said evidence of much roots/influence..and it goes both ways. Most of the roots of Tamil lie external to Sanskrit so one definitely cannot say all or even majority of Tamil came form Sanskrit:

https://defence.pk/threads/indias-s...-to-revive-dead-language.413797/#post-7999213

Languages evolve from many different sources.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/05/indian-historical-linguistics

Sanskrit also influenced (and was influenced by) Tamil, another major southern Indian language.

Do you really want me to post every single instance of Tamil and Sanskrit's cross pollination?

Its why there are completely divergent views:

http://tamilfromsanskrit.blogspot.ca/2013/01/there-have-been-many-blogs-and-debates.html

https://www.quora.com/Is-Tamil-the-unacknowledged-mother-of-Sanskrit

and also syncretic ones:

https://tamilandvedas.com/2014/11/13/origin-of-tamil-and-sanskrit/

 

[Tergon18]

We must keep an open unbiased mind when searching for truth. Preconceived notions that there is a link with Dravidian culture, pre-vedic religion etc should not cloud the evidence collected. They remain theories for now.

In fact there is new evidence coming out that there could be a significant connection between the IVC and Sanskrit. That the IVC is what produced the split between Avestan and Sanskrit....and that proto-Tamil has much Sanskrit influence/roots. So where exactly the branches are will be revealed over many more years of research. There is still not enough interest among Indians for their prehistory and pre-vedic history.

The IVC really predates Sanskrit, the language used by them hasnt been deciphered as of yet, and they had a written form similar to hieroglyphs. Sanskrit or Rig Vedic Sanskirt atleast is a later phenomenon having diverged from Proto-Indo-Iranian in around 1800 BC, along with the timeline of the decline of IVC.

 

[Thorough Pro]

It could be a million years old and planets greatest civilization but how does that benefit the lives of current population? What is current Sindh civilisation? people are living like animals with a few filthy dacoits ruling the masses