South Asia's native horses disappeared by 8000 BC. But Rig Veda mentions them more than the cow

[Chhatrapati]

Vedics used to cremate their dead on funeral pyre. Burying the dead has nothing to do with Vedic civilization.

Now, to show some link to the burials with Ponga Pandats, they started searching Vedas for some reference to dead body burial rituals. There is no reference to Dead body burial in Vedas.


There is not proof of Vedas older than 553 years to exact. Buddhist texts and inscriptions are way older than Rig Veda.

There are 30 manuscripts of Rigveda at the Institute, collected from different parts of India like Kashmir, Gujarat, the then Rajaputana, Central Provinces etc. They are written in Sharada, Devanagari and Devanagari with Prishthamatra and the material used for writing is birch bark as well as paper. The oldest of these manuscripts is dated 1464 A. D.
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/mow/nomination_forms/india_rigveda.pdf

Here come interpreters of Vedas with quick google searches and conclusions.

Vedic used different methods to dispose of dead bodies depending on various factors. Cremation is the most commonly used form of Burial, a Child for example is not cremated but as per Vedic tradition given water burial, a Saint is simply buried and not cremated.

I have read those 'only 500 years' old BS in the last conversation in another thread, thought to ignore the idiocy in it. Because I will have to write two-page essays on some well known, historically verifiable facts because some Rando Muslim believe his book is older than Vedas.
No, the age of Vedas were calculated based on the historic events, and the kingdoms that are mentioned in those texts. You base your theory on manuscripts (your own Abrahamic texts were written much, much later. Not gonna show you the mirror now), which would mean Buddha was born when Ashoka was king, but records show Buddha was born before Ashoka.

Take, for example, Aryabhatta who born in around 476 AD describes his date of birth by counting the Kali Yuga described in Mahabharata. Now, if you want to discredit Arybhatta you need to discredit astronomy which positioned stars whose relative position was used to determine the specific time of his era or the Persians who studied Aryabhattiya. Mahabharata texts talk about Brahma, whose four faces representing each 4 Vedas he recited.

Also, the reason why Vedas were not written, is because Vedas were not textual they are an oral tradition, Vedas were composed in a way that writing it would not actually meet the purpose and was composed when writing was non-existent, that's the pre-Buddha period.

Guess that's enough for now. Come back with such theories, I will give more evidence.

 

[KaiserX]

What a joke. This explanation is fairly simple. There Vedas and all of Hinduism came from abroad ie central asia and was imported by these Gangedeshis.

1) Horses have always been native to central asia
2) Hindus have a hard time accepting their own religion was imported, since that is their main argument against muslims/islam
3) Aryan invasion theory is real. The genetics of brahmin north/south indians is very similar to that of afghans/pakistani. Twist it anyway you like but we are your forefathers.

 

[Chhatrapati]

There Vedas and all of Hinduism came from abroad ie central asia and was imported by these Gangedeshis.

Then why doesn't Vedas talk about any Central Asian rivers? Or even any places in Central Asia?

 

[khanmubashir]

I donot deny vedic civilization post dates Harappa and is different from Harappa..I just wanted to throw that in there, to show the previous researches in this area

No expert is saying Vedic civilization is older than Harappan civilization Sonny nor does your excript says so
The question is did it came out of Harappan civilization or from outside
Most experts say outside some mostly Indians on government pay say from Harappa
From your own excript
However, archaeologists like Meadow (1997) disagree, on the grounds that the remains of the Equus ferus caballus horse are difficult to distinguish from other equid species such as Equus asinus (donkeys) or Equus hemionus (onagers).[2][7] According to Ram Sharan Sharma, the Surkotada remains belong to around 2000 BCE, but its identity remains doubtful. The Harappan culture wasn't horse-centred, and horse seals are absent. Neither the bones of the horse nor its representations are found belonging to early or mature Harappan culture, which suggests that the Surkotada 'horse' remains might just be an exception and horse weren't well known to the people of IVC.[8][note

 

[Hiptullha]

There Vedas and all of Hinduism came from abroad ie central asia and was imported by these Gangedeshis.

The Vedas came from Punjab but ask them where their Indo-European language came from and watch the Gangadeshis squeal

 

[nang2]

Nobody uses the term Aryans anymore in academic thought since the end of 2nd World War

You know what I mean.

 

[Drizzt]

Here come interpreters of Vedas with quick google searches and conclusions.

Vedic used different methods to dispose of dead bodies depending on various factors. Cremation is the most commonly used form of Burial, a Child for example is not cremated but as per Vedic tradition given water burial, a Saint is simply buried and not cremated.

I have read those 'only 500 years' old BS in the last conversation in another thread, thought to ignore the idiocy in it. Because I will have to write two-page essays on some well known, historically verifiable facts because some Rando Muslim believe his book is older than Vedas.
No, the age of Vedas were calculated based on the historic events, and the kingdoms that are mentioned in those texts. You base your theory on manuscripts (your own Abrahamic texts were written much, much later. Not gonna show you the mirror now), which would mean Buddha was born when Ashoka was king, but records show Buddha was born before Ashoka.

Take, for example, Aryabhatta who born in around 476 AD describes his date of birth by counting the Kali Yuga described in Mahabharata. Now, if you want to discredit Arybhatta you need to discredit astronomy which positioned stars whose relative position was used to determine the specific time of his era or the Persians who studied Aryabhattiya. Mahabharata texts talk about Brahma, whose four faces representing each 4 Vedas he recited.

Also, the reason why Vedas were not written, is because Vedas were not textual they are an oral tradition, Vedas were composed in a way that writing it would not actually meet the purpose and was composed when writing was non-existent, that's the pre-Buddha period.

Guess that's enough for now. Come back with such theories, I will give more evidence.

1. Show me where its written in Vedas about burial of bodies ? Word "Water burial" itself is misleading, it maybe called water funeral. Show me the Samadhis's which does not involve cremation, mostly its asti-kalash or cremated ashes buried and a shrine build on it.

2. Which are the Historical events/kingdoms in your Vedas? and back them up with proper historical proofs, Not some ponga pandat oral proofs.

3. Aryabhatta got few things right, that does not mean he was right about everything, Now, learn about the things Aryabhatta was idotically wrong about.
Volume of a sphere, Volume of tetrahedron , Diameter of planets, volume of a Pyramid etc. Just like Aryabhatta was wrong about these, he was wrong about Kali Yuga and other mythological bull shit. Vedas and other mythological texts like Mahabharat and Ramayan, are not historical texts, have little actual history in them.

4. There is nothing special about oral tradition, craftsmen and other people engaged in other professions also passed down knowledge orally. Anyone can claim to possess some oral traditional knowledge passed down, since thousands of years and then write them down, so accuracy of this oral knowledge is dubious. Even Bush people of Australia claim to have oral knowledge of 1000s of years.

I agree about the oral version being older than written, but the reason for not writing them down is because of Aryans being mostly ill-literate at that time. And accuracy of oral knowledge is always poor and is not comparable to written. If there is clashing narrative/fact, Buddhist inscription will always triumpf over oral-origin Vedic.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It's also Western academics who do it.......and they do it the most.....may be they have their reasons...so the people you need to convince are the ones that are ensconced in the high citadels of Western academia...May be really go gung-ho with the ancient identifiers of Pakistan:


Change the name of Pakistan to Gandhara and see how rapidly you achieve the changes you intend to see...


Because as of now you are fighting the battle with the wrong tools

I agree that this is something Pakistanis, and specifically the government of Pakistan, needs to work on in terms of making the case with academia and pushing for more neutral terminology.

In the meantime, the average Pakistani can also play a role by highlighting this issue wherever possible, such as on this forum or social media.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Apply that logic you would start calling Saraiki as Modern-Day-Pakistani - European language family.
There are certain nomenclature, a geographical description that is accepted by general consensus among historians and they use parts of Pakistan as India itself when talking about say area controlled by King Porus. There is no point contesting that by saying "hey, he is a Pakistani".

Take partition as a demerger of companies, the largest stakeholder gets to retain the name of the company. Similarly, when the British split British India into two dominions, they named it, as per your requirement, Pakistan for the land you got and since India inherited most of the people and land, it was called India.
The first Europeans who went searching for India landed on the Shores of today's South India. All of them called these regions India. So, why should we rename India into something else. That will be a great disservice to our history.

German history is shared too, but I'm sure Austrians don't complain about Germany retaining its name despite the shared history. They formed their own identity and cultures. So, when historians use the word Germania or Deutschland to describe history in the regions that cover modern-day Austria there is nothing wrong with it considering the context in which that particular name is evoked.

That's a whole bunch of flawed analogies. Seraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Punjabi or Brahui represent the ethno-linguistic composition of Pakistan at a more granular level - not sure how or what relevance they have to the terms South Asia, Pakistan and India.

If Porus isn't Pakistani, then he's South Asian. He certainly isn't Indian, given the contemporary understanding & use of the word 'Indian'.

Words and phrases evolve and take on different meanings over time, and it is time that academia start understanding that the use of the term India to describe the history of South Asia is misleading and incorrect. Like I said, if not South Asia, then terms like 'modern day Pakistan and modern day India' would be more accurate.

And you can name YOUR country whatever you want, but you have no right to choose a name for Pakistan's history and lands and certainly no right to essentially steal Pakistan's history by using the term India or Indians, given the modern understanding of those terms. In fact, as you pointed out, the word India and Indians was invented by outsiders, and therefore is a foreign, colonial imposition upon a ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse region. Just because one State created in 1947 decided to adopt the name does not give it or academia the right to use that term to subsume the history of the myriad countries and peoples that comprise South Asia.

 

[KaiserX]

Then why doesn't Vedas talk about any Central Asian rivers? Or even any places in Central Asia?

Your vedas talk extensively about afghanistan. Mountains, horses, chariots, valleys, polmegranate. All of which are native to central asia and none existent in gangedesh at that time.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Your vedas talk extensively about afghanistan. Mountains, horses, chariots, valleys, polmegranate. All of which are native to central asia and none existent in gangedesh at that time.

it goes as far as eastern afghanistan and stops...coming from a person who has actually gone through the thing in multiple editions...not even eastern afghanistan to be honest...it just mentions the afghan rivers that drain into the Indus.....The Battle of the Ten Kings shows really well where the home land of the Vedic people composing the Rig Veda was, and who were their enemies

 

[Chhatrapati]

Your vedas talk extensively about afghanistan. Mountains, horses, chariots, valleys, polmegranate. All of which are native to central asia and none existent in gangedesh at that time.

Lol! Vedas talk extensively about Afghanistan? That's your Central Asia connection? Afghanistan was part of the Gandhara kingdom, and our culture extended to Afghanistan for a brief period. But Vedas don't extensively talk about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the Southernmost tip of Central Asia. You claimed Vedas came from Central Asia. Then where are the stories of Central Asia. All Vedas talk about are centred around rivers that are found in India and Pakistan. The most relation we may have is with Persians, I mean, Zoroastrians.

Again, another case of a Pakistani teaching Indians about Hinduism from his internet knowledge.

 

[Chhatrapati]

1. Show me where its written in Vedas about burial of bodies ? Word "Water burial" itself is misleading, it maybe called water funeral. Show me the Samadhis's which does not involve cremation, mostly its asti-kalash or cremated ashes buried and a shrine build on it.

Show me where it's written cremation is mandatory. You're simply stalling with the semantics, who cares if it's burial or funeral. You can't cremate someone in water, and we don't have the European custom of putting someone on a boat and burning it.

2. Which are the Historical events/kingdoms in your Vedas? and back them up with proper historical proofs, Not some ponga pandat oral proofs.

Bruh! Where do you think this map came from? How do you think fellow Pakistanis are throwing names like Sindhu, Gandhara etc... etc... or Takshashila (Taxila). Where do you think Chandragupta Maurya went to study Vedas (that originated in 1500 AD) or Chanakya who wrote Arthsasthra where it tries to interpret Vedas and concepts in it like Samkhya, yoga.

3. Aryabhatta got few things right, that does not mean he was right about everything, Now, learn about the things Aryabhatta was idotically wrong about.
Volume of a sphere, Volume of tetrahedron , Diameter of planets, volume of a Pyramid etc. Just like Aryabhatta was wrong about these, he was wrong about Kali Yuga and other mythological bull shit. Vedas and other mythological texts like Mahabharat and Ramayan, are not historical texts, have little actual history in them.

haha I don't know why you're trying to be consistently wrong. Aryabhatta was accurate in his calculation of the circumference of the earth, he missed by a few tens of miles but we are talking about methods used 1600 years before. He was also able to accurately calculate the days in a year, like I said, I'm sure he got his age and the century he lived in right. How do you know he was wrong about Kaliyuga? Lol!

4. There is nothing special about oral tradition, craftsmen and other people engaged in other professions also passed down knowledge orally. Anyone can claim to possess some oral traditional knowledge passed down, since thousands of years and then write them down, so accuracy of this oral knowledge is dubious. Even Bush people of Australia claim to have oral knowledge of 1000s of years.

Except, this passed down knowledge is not about craftsmanships but full-on books that detail stories through poems. The only issue now between some well-known historians is if Vedas were actually older than 1800 BCE because it was Oral tradition.

I agree about the oral version being older than written, but the reason for not writing them down is because of Aryans being mostly ill-literate at that time. And accuracy of oral knowledge is always poor and is not comparable to written. If there is clashing narrative/fact, Buddhist inscription will always triumpf over oral-origin Vedic.

Here's why I said you have no clue on what you're talking about instead you are embarrassing yourself by grasping at straws trying to defend your own fallacies, Buddhist inscriptions came hundreds of years after Buddha passed on. Which surprise surprise, was an oral tradition. Oral traditions can be very accurate if they are spoken in the right way.


Here is another thing, Panini codified Sanskrit, he lived around the time of Buddha 300-500 BCE) though that's a huge approximation, panini wrote Ashtadhyayi, taking up verses from Vedas and other texts available at the time to refine Sanskrit from Vedic Sanskrit to give it more of a grammatical form and style.

But hey, I didn't know Panini had to pick Vedas from 1500 AD to try and codify it in 300 BCE. Bring more theories like this.

 

[Chhatrapati]

That's a whole bunch of flawed analogies. Seraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Punjabi or Brahui represent the ethno-linguistic composition of Pakistan at a more granular level - not sure how or what relevance they have to the terms South Asia, Pakistan and India.

ha so you have no problem associating language with India, but have a problem with Associating parts of history.

If Porus isn't Pakistani, then he's South Asian. He certainly isn't Indian, given the contemporary understanding & use of the word 'Indian'.

But the greeks who fought Porus disagree with you. I'm sure they made a mistake not calling it South Asia, but who would've thought there will be a bunch of people taking offence in the term India.

Words and phrases evolve and take on different meanings over time, and it is time that academia start understanding that the use of the term India to describe the history of South Asia is misleading and incorrect. Like I said, if not South Asia, then terms like 'modern day Pakistan and modern day India' would be more accurate.

Well, you are free to take up with relevant entities that have been using terms like India to describe ancient India as per the records available to them. The ancient Greeks are culprit number one in messing up the region for sure.

And you can name YOUR country whatever you want, but you have no right to choose a name for Pakistan's history and lands and certainly no right to essentially steal Pakistan's history by using the term India or Indians, given the modern understanding of those terms. In fact, as you pointed out, the word India and Indians was invented by outsiders, and therefore is a foreign, colonial imposition upon a ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse region. Just because one State created in 1947 decided to adopt the name does not give it or academia the right to use that term to subsume the history of the myriad countries and peoples that comprise South Asia.

Like I said, if you want to call it ancient Pakistan, you are free to do so, but you can't push a narrative that goes against written history it will have no takers. And histories of our region are not formed separately, but together and is shared. Certainly not Indus Valley ---- Dark ages---- then Muhammed Bin Qasim -- then 1947, as you're taught.

Also, India didn't steal your history, you can't steal history from a country. What you're doing is quite wrong, the prejudice you have for India is clouding the logic and needlessly diving through semantics to find an issue when there is none.

What you should be doing is concentrating on what's available to you, instead of defacing them as we see commonly in Pakistan.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Lol! Vedas talk extensively about Afghanistan? That's your Central Asia connection? Afghanistan was part of the Gandhara kingdom, and our culture extended to Afghanistan for a brief period. But Vedas don't extensively talk about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the Southernmost tip of Central Asia. You claimed Vedas came from Central Asia. Then where are the stories of Central Asia. All Vedas talk about are centred around rivers that are found in India and Pakistan. The most relation we may have is with Persians, I mean, Zoroastrians.

Again, another case of a Pakistani teaching Indians about Hinduism from his internet knowledge.

I am going to post the map of early Rig Vedic tribes...And the tribe that actually composed the Rig Veda straddles what would be modern day Haryana...and Bahlika (Bactria) is actually considered later Rig Vedic peoples...and this is coming from independent American historical cartographers...so it's not a "Hindutva" saazish...full on cringe when non-HIndus try to gaslight HIndus regarding their history


@Chhatrapati

-- Schwartzberg Atlas -- Digital South Asia Library

dsal.uchicago.edu