Akbar

[QuickSilver]

by the way AM, I apologize as I seemed to have deviated a lot from the topic. I just went with the flow of the debate.

 

[Flintlock]

About a Brahmin yes, that is what I mean. I have not come accross any major religious conversion into brahmin culture as had happened with islam.

malays are converted muslims. but there is not such 'mass conversion' to be a brahmin. and in medieval ages, any brahmin marrying into another caste is no longer a brahmin. to be a brahmin, it is necessary that your father is a brahmin.

You are right on one count: the lineage of a lot of communities can be traced back to Rigvedic times.
You are also right in that there were no "mass conversions". There was no solicitation/evangelism into hinduism.

However, the Caste system was hardly as iron-clad as you are making it out to be.

There were several waves of migrations into India, and it can be clearly seen that each migrant community was assigned a place in the order of society.

Also, there was movement between castes, when people of lower castes rose up to become gurus or great warriors. (The legend of Valmiki is one example, a robber who became a saint)

 

[roadrunner]

When the answers to the questions "do not prove that Pakistan had the majority of the IVC sites", how does it support the view point that pakistan was the center of IVC?

The answers to the questions support the views that Pakistan was the centre of the IVC because the first sites to be discovered were in Pakistan. It was clear to the British that the sites were located along the Indus river or in the Indus Valley of Pakistan, and not in India.

The odd thing is the way all these Indian sites are popping up now.

The Indus valley civilasation was so called because most of the initial sites that were found were around indus but many are being found away from there as well which itself contends the usage of the name 'indus Valley civilisation' (and eventually 'pakistani culture')

The IVC is a shared back ground IMO.

Not the initial sites. ALL the sites the British discovered were located in Pakistan, except perhaps Lothal (i'll need to check). The British coined it, simply because of the location of the IVC sites.

Brahmins as a rule still practice the 'gayatri mantra' as prescribed in the rigvedic texts, (gayatri is another name for goddess saraswati which is also linked to IVC) and this mantra is supposed to be the mother of all mantras which might show the significance of saraswati as a river. when I talk about brahmins following rigvedic texts , am not saying IVC is exclusive to India but its not exclusive to pakistan. Its more plausible explanation to say it was 'shared' background.

You haven't a clue on the history of the IVC clearly. Rig Vedic texts have nothing to do with the IVC. And Saraswati is most likely not the name of an actual river.

 

[roadrunner]

You are right on one count: the lineage of a lot of communities can be traced back to Rigvedic times.
You are also right in that there were no "mass conversions". There was no solicitation/evangelism into hinduism.

However, the Caste system was hardly as iron-clad as you are making it out to be.

There were several waves of migrations into India, and it can be clearly seen that each migrant community was assigned a place in the order of society.

Also, there was movement between castes, when people of lower castes rose up to become gurus or great warriors. (The legend of Valmiki is one example, a robber who became a saint)

Will you give up on this migration theory? There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence for it. If there is, present it.

The theory that the IVC are a lineage of the people of modern day Pakistan is completely logical. Disprove this, since this is the most likely occurence.

 

[Flintlock]

The answers to the questions support the views that Pakistan was the centre of the IVC because the first sites to be discovered were in Pakistan. It was clear to the British that the sites were located along the Indus river or in the Indus Valley of Pakistan, and not in India.

The odd thing is the way all these Indian sites are popping up now.

Is there some rule which states that no IVC sites can be found to the east of the Pakistan border?

If not, then you have no basis to discount the IVC sites found within India.

Not the initial sites. ALL the sites the British discovered were located in Pakistan, except perhaps Lothal (i'll need to check). The British coined it, simply because of the location of the IVC sites.

There's Dholavira, Rakhigarhi, Banavali, and numerous smaller ones.

You haven't a clue on the history of the IVC clearly. Rig Vedic texts have nothing to do with the IVC. And Saraswati is most likely not the name of an actual river.

Saraswati refers to the Ghaggar-Hakra river, whose dry riverbed can be traced by satellite images.
The distribution of a large number of IVC sites can be clearly seen along the banks of this river.

 

[Flintlock]

Will you give up on this migration theory? There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence for it. If there is, present it.

The theory that the IVC are a lineage of the people of modern day Pakistan is completely logical. Disprove this, since this is the most likely occurence.

BTW I was talking about migrations during and after the vedic period, and not during the IVC.

I have already argued in the "Ancient History" thread that the genes of most, if not all, modern day Pakistanis can be traced to areas outside of Pakistan, in the context of the IVC.

The original inhabitants of the IVC no longer exist in today's Pakistan.

 

[roadrunner]

Is there some rule which states that no IVC sites can be found to the east of the Pakistan border?

If not, then you have no basis to discount the IVC sites found within India.

I don't deny some sites were found even by the British in India. These were a very small minority though. The majority was located in Pakistan. That's why it's IVC.

There's Dholavira, Rakhigarhi, Banavali, and numerous smaller ones.

All of a sudden out of nowhere!

Saraswati refers to the Ghaggar-Hakra river, whose dry riverbed can be traced by satellite images.
The distribution of a large number of IVC sites can be clearly seen along the banks of this river.

The Saraswati is all a load of hocus pocus, I've come to the conclusion. Look at the evidence, if the Saraswati described in the Rig Veda were a river, it would be a big river to rival that of the Indus. The Greeks don't even record it on their maps, whilst they do record the Ganges, Indus, and numerous other smaller rivers. Why then, 3000 years ago, did the Greeks not draw the so called Saraswati on their maps? Care to answer this question first?

 

[QuickSilver]

The answers to the questions support the views that Pakistan was the centre of the IVC because the first sites to be discovered were in Pakistan.

You said in your previous post that
"The answers to these questions do not prove that Pakistan had the majority of the IVC sites " So if it does not prove that most of the sites are in pakistan, how does it prove Pakistan to be the center?

also, please bear in mind, 'the first sites to be 'discovered' were in Pakistan and there is no proof that these are the sites that came first (in other words, no proof that these sites were built before the ones found elsewhere) and hence the naming of IVC itself is still debatable !!

The odd thing is the way all these Indian sites are popping up now.

If you do not want to belive it, there is nothing anyone can do about it. And moreover, it wont alter the history anyways. (this was on a lighter note dude.. )

Not the initial sites. ALL the sites the British discovered were located in Pakistan, except perhaps Lothal (i'll need to check). The British coined it, simply because of the location of the IVC sites.


You haven't a clue on the history of the IVC clearly. Rig Vedic texts have nothing to do with the IVC. And Saraswati is most likely not the name of an actual river.

Can you provide any good link to prove this?

Cheers

 

[QuickSilver]

The Saraswati is all a load of hocus pocus, I've come to the conclusion. Look at the evidence, if the Saraswati described in the Rig Veda were a river, it would be a big river to rival that of the Indus. The Greeks don't even record it on their maps, whilst they do record the Ganges, Indus, and numerous other smaller rivers. Why then, 3000 years ago, did the Greeks not draw the so called Saraswati on their maps? Care to answer this question first?

because IVC is more than 3000 years old, because there is evidence Saraswati changed its course and even dried up and because it very much possible the greeks cannot see a dried river.

 

[Flintlock]

I don't deny some sites were found even by the British in India. These were a very small minority though. The majority was located in Pakistan. That's why it's IVC.

The name, as Quicksilver points out, is simply coincidental. If Lothal was found first, it would have been called by some other name.

The consensus is that civilizations should be named according to the first discovery site, so its official name is "Harappan Civilization" as of now.

All of a sudden out of nowhere!

Even Harappa was discovered by railroad workers "all of a sudden out of nowhere".

The Saraswati is all a load of hocus pocus, I've come to the conclusion. Look at the evidence, if the Saraswati described in the Rig Veda were a river, it would be a big river to rival that of the Indus. The Greeks don't even record it on their maps, whilst they do record the Ganges, Indus, and numerous other smaller rivers. Why then, 3000 years ago, did the Greeks not draw the so called Saraswati on their maps? Care to answer this question first?

Didn't the Greeks come way after the Saraswati dried up?

 

[roadrunner]

because IVC is more than 3000 years old, because there is evidence Saraswati changed its course and even dried up and because it very much possible the greeks cannot see a dried river.

Do you know when the Greeks were making maps of the region? Around 2, 500 years ago, more or less when the Rig Veda was written. They could not even spot a drop of water flowing along the so called Saraswati course. The IVC has nothing to do with the Rig Veda for the last time. If the Saraswati was a river really, why did the Greeks not see it?

Also, the reason you see some tracks from satellites are numerous. There might not have been activity, and probably wasn't, for say 30,000 years along the Saraswati so called illusionary course, let alone 3,000 years or whenever.

 

[QuickSilver]

Do you know when the Greeks were making maps of the region? Around 2, 500 years ago, more or less when the Rig Veda was written.

Evidence that saraswathi dried up exists. and it could have dried up before they came. the rig veda was written in this time.. but it takes a lot of time to compose the whole text of rig veda and also, the tradition is more of passing the knowledge through oral recitation than writing it down. so when u say rig veda was written around this time, it is very good way to say that rig veda was composed -or atleast began to be composed - much before that time!!

They could not even spot a drop of water flowing along the so called Saraswati course.

seems logical to me.

The IVC has nothing to do with the Rig Veda for the last time. If the Saraswati was a river really, why did the Greeks not see it?

the harappan civilisation just disappeared.. and the rig veda just came up from somewhere?? The rig veda is a compilation of 'how to lead a life' and a work like that can come up only after generations of civilisations and understanding. and why the greeks did not see Saraswati, already explained.

Also, the reason you see some tracks from satellites are numerous. There might not have been activity, and probably wasn't, for say 30,000 years along the Saraswati so called illusionary course, let alone 3,000 years or whenever.

again.. please give a link which suggests what you say.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The original inhabitants of the IVC no longer exist in today's Pakistan.

Of course not - they would be thousands of years old!

Their genes do though, in the absence of any proof showing mass migration or extinction, hence the descent of Pakistanis from the IVC people claim.

On the Saraswati river issue, assuming it existed when the IVC was flourishing, it still seems to have fewer sites along its edge, and the theory of IVC people migrating East is also questionable - why would people from the same civilization migrate a further distance East, through a desert, rather than relocating or being absorbed by the large settlements far closer along the Indus in the West?

One other thing - do we have evidence from geologists regarding the 3000 year drying up claim? I know that theories have been proposed that seismic events caused the two tributaries to shift, but given that the Greeks never saw this river, why couldn't the event have taken place 30,000 instead of 3000 years ago?

 

[Flintlock]

Of course not - they would be thousands of years old!

Their genes do though, in the absence of any proof showing mass migration or extinction, hence the descent of Pakistanis from the IVC people claim.

By the original inhabitants I mean the original tribes or people are extinct today.
Their genetic component is minimal or even nonexistent in modern Pakistanis, who for the most part, trace their roots to regions outside the subcontinent.

On the Saraswati river issue, assuming it existed when the IVC was flourishing, it still seems to have fewer sites along its edge, and the theory of IVC people migrating East is also questionable - why would people from the same civilization migrate a further distance East, through a desert, rather than relocating or being absorbed by the large settlements far closer along the Indus in the West?

The desert was in Rajasthan, and consderably smaller at the time. IVC people migrated through Gujarat into Maharashtra and through Punjab, Haryana, into UP.

The reason they migrated west is perhaps because their lands in the west had been occupied by invaders/settlers

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

About a Brahmin yes, that is what I mean. I have not come accross any major religious conversion into brahmin culture as had happened with islam.

malays are converted muslims. but there is not such 'mass conversion' to be a brahmin. and in medieval ages, any brahmin marrying into another caste is no longer a brahmin. to be a brahmin, it is necessary that your father is a brahmin.

My point is that life was not created on the subcontinent with the people being born Brahmin. The vedic ideology had to be created and it had to spread - so while there may have not been mass conversions (though we cannot say that definitively, given that we are referring to a time thousands of years ago), the ideology was born out of priests and thinkers in some town of the IVC, and ti diffused outwards from there, morphing over the ages into whatever exists now.

So it doesn't matter whether India still follows some of those traditions through Hinduism, if the civilization itself was primarily based in modern Pakistan, the history is still that of Pakistan. Hindus, like Muslims outside of the Arab world, have a connection to that history through faith - but that history is not that of Modern India as a nation.