Flintlock
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
- Reaction score
- 0
This is all related to water and proving the existence of the Saraswati, when no Saraswati existed in history. Look at his map. He's giving the impression IVC sites were located along this fictitious Saraswati River.
Arey Bhai, the term Saraswati doesn't appear till much later in the Rig Veda. Here we are discussing a satellite image which clearly shows the bed of an extinct river, and numerous harappan sites located strung along it.
The Ghakkar-Hakra river was at best a minor river that perhaps did dry up. But it was not a major river, such that inhabitants would look to settle along it as opposed to the Indus. The Indus always was the main river in the region. That is why Harrappa and Mohenjendara (which Michael Wood mentions by name in your clip), were located along the Indus.
Actually, in terms of numbers, the sites along the Ghaggar -Hakra river system far outnumber the ones along the Indus.
In a survey conducted by M.R. Mughal between 1974 and 1977, over 400 sites were mapped along 300 miles of the Hakra river.[8] The majority of these sites were dated to the fourth or third millennium BCE.[9]
S. P. Gupta however counts over 600 sites of the Indus civilization on the Hakra-Ghaggar river and its tributaries.[10][11] In contrast to this, only 90 to 96 Indus Valley sites have been discovered on the Indus and its tributaries (about 36 sites on the Indus river itself.)[12][13][14] V.N. Misra[15] states that over 530 Harappan sites (of the more than 800 known sites, not including Late Harappan or OCP) are located on the Hakra-Ghaggar.[16] The other sites are mainly in Kutch-Saurashtra (nearly 200 sites), Yamuna Valley (nearly 70 Late Harappan sites) and in the Indus Valley, in Baluchistan, and in the NW Frontier Province (less than 100 sites).
Ghaggar-Hakra river - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is as speculative as the rest of your ideas.
Speculative? Its hard cold fact. The FACT is that the climate of Central Asia is far harsher and much less hospitable than the climate of the Indian subcontinent. The soil is far less fertile also. Which is why the Aryan migrants were nomads and not settled people. Infact if you examine the history of Central Asia, you will find a predominance of nomadic hunter-gatherers over settled life.
Your reason for the IVC inhabitants allegedly leaving, is that their water source (monsoons, rivers etc) drying up.
Not only that, but change in climatic patters like the strength of the monsoon, the duration of the monsoons, the weather patterns. All these factors can lead to the decline of a civilization.
If this was the case, then the Rig Vedic people would leave also, they had more advanced technology for travelling.
Bhai, this is not a railway platform, and nobody had perfect information. The Rig Vedic people settled progressively from west to east, is it not? Didn't they settle in the Gangetic plains as well, and fight wars among themselves, as attested in Rig Ved, and later Mahabharata?
This theory of yours that everyone one day decided to pack their bags and leave what was their home is absurd.. The IVC inhabitants were not animals they migrate from place to place in search of fresh pastures. IVC was their home, such a migration you're talking about has never happened in history, and it wouldn't ever happen.
You're joking right? Humans migrate all the time. This is getting ridiculous. The history of humanity is the history of migrations, first out of Africa into South India, then progressively northwards, and then reverse migrations from the northern parts of the globe into the southern parts (Iranians, Indian Aryans, Mediterranean tribes etc.).
Then there's your suggestion that it was a harsher climate in central asia is just speculation. First the Rig Vedic people coming from central asia is an assumption. Second, the Rig Vedic people evolved whole languages, cultures, and civilizations in the Indus Valley, so it was clearly not an uninhabitable place where the IVC inhabitants could not live.
Again its not an assumption. Its a fact. Why don't you google the climate of central asia?
The Rig Vedic people did Indeed come from Central Asia. Infact, they found one of the settlements of the Aryan tribes in Central Asia. It is shown in the BBC documentary as well. Why don't you watch the entire documentary from start to finish, so that we can have a more informed discussion?
Michael Wood is not a researcher, he's a presenter. His academic opinion means very little. He's doing an investigative piece. I could cite some other things, but no need.
Obviously, he has a whole team of researchers behind him, as well as the BBC editorial board. Don't be ridiculous please. The documentary is as legit as it can possibly be. If you want to somehow insinuate that the BBC is allied with "Hindutva groups" then you are fooling yourself and also in a complete and utter state of denial.
Reminds me of your ridiculous denials and obfuscations in the light of mounting evidence that the Mumbai attackers were from Pakistan. Haha - the Pakistani Media, the Pakistani establishment, the Americans, the British, the Indians, the Indian media - everybody said that the attackers were from Pakistan. But No. Mr. RoadRunner here refuses to believe it, like an ostrich with his head in the sand refusing to lift up his head and see the real world around him.
It's good enough for Dr Gupta. However, those LANSAT maps do not show the existence of a major river. They show the existence of the Ghakkar-Hakra River afaik, and that's it. They do not show the main bulk of the Saraswati, and provide no evidence it was a major river. That is all extrapolated.
Dr. Gupt is not a historian. He is Geologist, and one of the most reputed ones in Britain to boot. If he says its a major river, then it probably is a major river. Nobody, except perhaps your like-minded groupies will take your word against his. Grow up already.
And agian your bringing the Saraswati into it. Don't. Saraswati is related to the Aryans of the Rig Veda, nothing to do with Harappans.
This is a quote from Oldham's 19th century archaeology:
"Between Sutlej and Yamuna there is no opening in the Himalaya through which a large river could have entered the plains"
19th century? You are quoting from a book which is 200 years old, and I am quoting from the most recent research. Guess which is more valid?
Your researcher, Dr Gupta, is trying to make it look like IVC sites were only located along the Ghakkar Hakra River. This is blatantly false.
What? When did he do that? "He's trying to make it look like" - that's just your perception, and nothing to do with reality. He was infact focussing on the Ghaggar-Hakra riverbed, so obviously he wouldn't mention the Indus River, which by the way is described in detail in the earlier parts of the documentary.
You are trying your best to introduce a perception of bias where there is none.
Last edited: