What is 'Civilizational Continuity'?

[Rafi]

LoL at the theory of wide spread migration away from one of the most fertile lands on the face of this earth, with unprecedented pasture. It is more likely that the people stayed where they were. A far more reasonable supposition.

Punj-Ab (Persian for land of the five rivers) laughable, and only possible for indians - because of strictly ideological reasons.

 

[vsdoc]

LoL at the theory of wide spread migration away from one of the most fertile lands on the face of this earth, with unprecedented pasture. It is more likely that the people stayed where they were. A far more reasonable supposition.

Punj-Ab (Persian for land of the five rivers) laughable, and only possible for indians - because of strictly ideological reasons.

Wonder what the pilgrims and early settlers of the American subcontinent would have to say to your theory of human migration were they to be limited and satisfied with the first patch of irrigated land they came upon.

Americans would never have moved beyond their great river basins were that brilliant hypothesis to be true. And we are talking merely 300+ years there. Not millenia.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Yes, I agree. My point was simply that this region made its share of contributions to the Vedic thought and those features were incorporated into the whole.

Agree.

Except for brief empires, the region was a foreign land with a foreign culture to the rest of the subcontinent. Therefore, these contributions were foreign ideas.

Here I disagree. Even in the non-Empire periods, political boundaries were not relevant to the civilizational identity. Something like the situation of Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece.

 

[Developereo]

You confuse discrete temporal geographical limits of an age to be inclusive of blood. Nay, to extrapolate the same to the undiluted, uncorrupted continuity through time of blood - limited today to the same geographical discrete limits of that particular age thousands of years ago.

How can you do that?

When all the evidence points to the fact that the IVC was displaced southwards by the race migrating in from the west?

You as Pakistanis today can only lay claim to occupation of the land that was once a major part of the IVC. NOT the blood. Not by far. For all intents and purposes, till evidence to the contrary clearly roves otherwise, it is those from our South who are by blood the true descendants of the IVC.

Ditto for Panini. You as Pakistanis can at best lay claim to the fact that you now occupy today the land that in ancient times was ONE of the centers fom where Vedic literature originated from - the Gangetic basin being the other.

You can also lay claim to being the western fringe of the Indic arm of the Aryan migration westwards - with a portion of your current POLITICAL blood being the collision front of two ancient civilizations.

Where is the scientific evidence that the people of IVC picked up and shifted en masse to the south?

In the absence of conclusive genetic evidence to the contrary, the logical approach is to treat any group as static, albeit with immigrant infusions over time. We also have absolutely no issue with having incorporated various waves of migration. That is the norm in human civilizations.

The land was carved out as a breakaway political state from the larger civiliztional land mass.

Cherry picking and pointing back to the IVC for exclusivity does not work when you have 3000+ years of intervening common history painting common hued cultural and religious swathes across your land and further westward.

The only claim to Pakistan today is an area of Muslim majority in undivided India at the time of Independence in 1947. If you were to base this on IVC and forget 3+ millenia of Hindu civilization inbetween, then Rajasthan and Gujarat as well should have been part of Pakistan.

The fact that it was not was because Pakistan was always an artificially imagined "Muslim" Indian state. With no before. And the after is up to you guys now.

So can thank us for letting you go instead.

You are arguing backwards from a predetermined conclusion. Political boundaries are always fluid and have changed numerous times over the millenia. Modern political boundaries do not constrain history. Whatever justifications were or were not made for this particular setup is irrelevant. We are not saying we are inheritors of IVC because we are Muslim -- that claim is just as wrong as the claim that we can't be. We are making that claim because the land is where it is; the people are who we are; and the history of the land and the people remains inviolate regardless of shifting political boundaries.

You are right, it just so happens that the current State of Pakistan happens to encompass most of the ancient IVC and the land of Panini, etc. But so what? We are the people who have lived here for millenia. That history is ours and would be ours regardless of political boundaries. Just as the history of ancient Tamils belongs to the Tamil people in perpetuity, whether they are part of India or a separate country.

Because when you changed faith, you ceased to be part of the old civilization.

Given one to a few thousand years, if things remain the same with you, then you could probably evolve into the status of a new civilization in your own right.

Like the Iranians.

Like the Egyptians.

Like Italians and the Greeks.

But that would still not make you Indian.

That is the essence of continuity versus evolution.

We've been through this. You are grasping at straws to argue backwards from your conclusion.

The Greeks, Swedes, Egyptians and Brits have changed faiths and are perfectly legitimate inheritors of the ancients. Just because you want to claim exclusivity is irrelevant to us. We don't need to be constrained by your self-serving rules which don't apply across the world anyway.

 

[LaBong]

LoL at the theory of wide spread migration away from one of the most fertile lands on the face of this earth, with unprecedented pasture. It is more likely that the people stayed where they were. A far more reasonable supposition.

Punj-Ab (Persian for land of the five rivers) laughable, and only possible for indians - because of strictly ideological reasons.

That's a stupid argument, if that was the case then humans never would have ventured out of fertile cresent or African continent. Also you are not taking into consideration of the frequent invasion from semi normandic central Asian tribes which compelled the eastward migration of political center in post ivc and Vedic civilisation.

Also their was no Punjab at that time, calling the ivc population Punjabi is same as calling mouryas bihari.

Anyway its futile to talk about these with you as you are more into point scoring than any constructive discussion. Also I find this whole argument of Punjabi ivc, which is based on the uncanny logic that the present day punjabis should look same as people dwelling in the same place back in 3000 bc, thus are the sole inheritor of ivc, as idiotic.

 

[vsdoc]

Developer, I need to rush home to pick up my bike from the workshop.

But just a quick question for tomorrow (hopefully).

You say there is no genetic evidence to prove that the IVC did not migrate south under pressure from the Aryan waves.

Do you have gentic proof that Pakistanis today are gentically linked to the people of the IVC?

Most historical views would deem otherwise, but I'd like to hear a firmer basis than that you are forwarding of the indigenous populace staying put in the face of inlux pressure of a foreign race.

Please remember that this was not just scattered, isolated epochal invasions.

This was one of the largest known and postulated migrations known to humankind.

Cheers and good night.

 

[Developereo]

Even in the non-Empire periods, political boundaries were not relevant to the civilizational identity. Something like the situation of Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece.

Depends how you look at it. Most countries in South America today, except Brazil, are very similar linguistically and culturally. Yet, if one country invaded another and imposed some aspect of its culture which was absent in the other, it would still be called a foreign influence.

Developer, I need to rush home to pick up my bike from the workshop.

But just a quick question for tomorrow (hopefully).

You say there is no genetic evidence to prove that the IVC did not migrate south under pressure from the Aryan waves.

Do you have gentic proof that Pakistanis today are gentically linked to the people of the IVC?

Most historical views would deem otherwise, but I'd like to hear a firmer basis than that you are forwarding of the indigenous populace staying put in the face of inlux pressure of a foreign race.

Please remember that this was not just scattered, isolated epochal invasions.

This was one of the largest known and postulated migrations known to humankind.

Cheers and good night.

I think it's the other way round. Since most populations tend to stay put, and you are proposing something different, you need to provide conclusive evidence that

- the IVC people migrated elsewhere
- all the IVC people migrated; i.e. the post-IVC population was genetically different

 

[LaBong]

Where is the scientific evidence that the people of IVC picked up and shifted en masse to the south?

In the absence of conclusive genetic evidence to the contrary, the logical approach is to treat any group as static, albeit with immigrant infusions over time. We also have absolutely no issue with having incorporated various waves of migration. That is the norm in human civilizations.




You are arguing backwards from a predetermined conclusion. Political boundaries are always fluid and have changed numerous times over the millenia. Modern political boundaries do not constrain history. Whatever justifications were or were not made for this particular setup is irrelevant. We are not saying we are inheritors of IVC because we are Muslim -- that claim is just as wrong as the claim that we can't be. We are making that claim because the land is where it is; the people are who we are; and the history of the land and the people remains inviolate regardless of shifting political boundaries.

You are right, it just so happens that the current State of Pakistan happens to encompass most of the ancient IVC and the land of Panini, etc. But so what? We are the people who have lived here for millenia. That history is ours and would be ours regardless of political boundaries. Just as the history of ancient Tamils belongs to the Tamil people in perpetuity, whether they are part of India or a separate country.




We've been through this. You are grasping at straws to argue backwards from your conclusion.

The Greeks, Swedes, Egyptians and Brits have changed faiths and are perfectly legitimate inheritors of the ancients. Just because you want to claim exclusivity is irrelevant to us. We don't need to be constrained by your self-serving rules which don't apply across the world anyway.

There are two kind of history, one is of the land one is of the people. Let me give you an example - Ronald Ros discovered the pathogen which causes malaria while working in calcutta medical college and won Nobel for the feat. This is part of history of calcutta but not part of history of bengalis. Same way ivc is part of history of the land which now known as Pakistan but not part of the history of pastuns or balochs just because they are citizens of Pakistan.

When you say majority of ivc is situated in present day Pakistan, you're putting a geographical limit in which people can claim ivc and history. Well why not farther limiting it and say only people living in Punjab and sindh can claim it, or even people living in 100 sq km of ivc can claim ivc. Sounds idiotic, doesn't it?

 

[Rafi]

Depends how you look at it. Most countries in South America today, except Brazil, are very similar linguistically and culturally. Yet, if one country invaded another and imposed some aspect of its culture which was absent in the other, it would still be called a foreign influence.



I think it's the other way round. Since most populations tend to stay put, and you are proposing something different, you need to provide conclusive evidence that

- the IVC people migrated elsewhere
- all the IVC people migrated; i.e. the post-IVC population was genetically different

There is not one shred of evidence that the people of the IVC up sticks and left, like I have said, this region has many flowing rivers and therefore is extremely fertile, the perfect environment for a pre-industrial pastoral society. It is only indians with a certain extreme nationalism who believe this, just like they deny the Aryan invasion theory.

 

[LaBong]

Depends how you look at it. Most countries in South America today, except Brazil, are very similar linguistically and culturally. Yet, if one country invaded another and imposed some aspect of its culture which was absent in the other, it would still be called a foreign influence.



I think it's the other way round. Since most populations tend to stay put, and you are proposing something different, you need to provide conclusive evidence that

- the IVC people migrated elsewhere
- all the IVC people migrated; i.e. the post-IVC population was genetically different

If one thing you should have understood by now, that is civilizational continuity has nothing to do with genetics. We all share African DNA, but that doesn't mean we are same civilization.

 

[Rafi]

If one thing you should have understood by now, that is civilizational continuity has nothing to do with genetics. We all share African DNA, but that doesn't mean we are same civilization.

Yes but the people of Sindh and Punjab, KPK, Kashmir, Balochistan - have the same blood as the people of IVC.

 

[LaBong]

^ you forgot gilgit baltistan, junahgarh and Hyderabad.

 

[Developereo]

There are two kind of history, one is of the land one is of the people. Let me give you an example - Ronald Ros discovered the pathogen which causes malaria while working in calcutta medical college and won Nobel for the feat. This is part of history of calcutta but not part of history of bengalis.

Thanks. I'll remember that example when someone claims that zero was invented in India. The inventor was from Multan but worked in present-day India.

Same way ivc is part of history of the land which now known as Pakistan but not part of the history of pastuns or balochs just because they are citizens of Pakistan.

When you say majority of ivc is situated in present day Pakistan, you're putting a geographical limit in which people can claim ivc and history. Well why not farther limiting it and say only people living in Punjab and sindh can claim it, or even people living in 100 sq km of ivc can claim ivc. Sounds idiotic, doesn't it?

We have to constrain it by the accepted boundaries of the IVC. I never denied that NW India was part of it.

If one thing you should have understood by now, that is civilizational continuity has nothing to do with genetics. We all share African DNA, but that doesn't mean we are same civilization.

There is a difference. The African migrations happened as hunter gatherers and there was mass migration of tribes. Eventually, after agriculture, people put a stake in the ground and formed permanent settlements with distinct civilizations, albeit influenced. The criteria I am using are no different than the ones used (and accepted) for Brits, Greeks, Egyptians, Swedes, etc.

 

[Rafi]

Thanks. I'll remember that example when someone claims that zero was invented in India. The inventor was from Multan but worked in present-day India.



We have to constrain it by the accepted boundaries of the IVC. I never denied that NW India was part of it.



There is a difference. The African migrations happened as hunter gatherers and there was mass migration of tribes. Eventually, after agriculture, people put a stake in the ground and formed permanent settlements with distinct civilizations, albeit influenced. The criteria I am using are no different than the ones used (and accepted) for Brits, Greeks, Egyptians, Swedes, etc.

Exactly right, it would be insanity to leave the Punjab and Sindh two extremely fertile regions on this earth, and which are the breadbaskets of this region till this very day.

 

[Developereo]

Exactly right, it would be insanity to leave the Punjab and Sindh two extremely fertile regions on this earth, and which are the breadbaskets of this region till this very day.

We don't need to prove that the IVC people stayed. The people making the claim of a complete population replacement need to prove their assertion.