Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[sajan]

What about DNA results? Were ancient people tamils?

Actually the Indus valley civilization belongs to the Dravidan people.. thats the present South Indians. The Survival of Brahui; a Dravidian language, spoken even today by large numbers of people in Baluchistan and the adjoining areas in Afghanistan and Iran, is an important factor in the identification of the Indus Civilization as Dravidian. Brahui belongs linguistically to the North Dravidian group with several shared innovations with Kurukh and Malto; no dialectal features connect it with the South or Central Dravidian languages. So Brahui represents the remnants of the Dravidian language spoken in the area by the descendants of the Harappan population.

Dravidian languages - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase

 

[UnitedPak]

Actually the Indus valley civilization belongs to the Dravidan people.. thats the present South Indians. The Survival of Brahui; a Dravidian language, spoken even today by large numbers of people in Baluchistan and the adjoining areas in Afghanistan and Iran, is an important factor in the identification of the Indus Civilization as Dravidian. Brahui belongs linguistically to the North Dravidian group with several shared innovations with Kurukh and Malto; no dialectal features connect it with the South or Central Dravidian languages. So Brahui represents the remnants of the Dravidian language spoken in the area by the descendants of the Harappan population.

Dravidian languages - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase

No western historian has accepted that wishful theory, obviously made in India. This theory is so ridiculous that its not even funny.

You pick Brahui, compare it with Tamil, and see similarities, and then you reach a totally random conclusion that IVC were Dravidian?
I honestly dont see how that works, there is a huge gap in that theory, number one being, what did the Brahui have to do with IVC?
Even if the Brahui were "related" to tamils, you seem to have made up every part in between.

Lets for the sake of argument say that the Brahui are descendants of the IVC- Okay...Full stop, you have your answer, why pull the Dravidian in this theory again?

I suppose you also have a theory explaining why the IVC people abruptly stopped building huge cities when they entered India?
Why not for once look at evidence and accept that proof of IVCs existence lies in the cities, and if there are no cities, there were no IVC people there, so please do let me know what on earth makes the Tamils descendants of IVC.

In case you cant let me tell you. All the Pro Indian theories appeared mysteriously after 1947, go figure.

 

[roadrunner]

Actually the Indus valley civilization belongs to the Dravidan people.. thats the present South Indians. The Survival of Brahui; a Dravidian language, spoken even today by large numbers of people in Baluchistan and the adjoining areas in Afghanistan and Iran, is an important factor in the identification of the Indus Civilization as Dravidian. Brahui belongs linguistically to the North Dravidian group with several shared innovations with Kurukh and Malto; no dialectal features connect it with the South or Central Dravidian languages. So Brahui represents the remnants of the Dravidian language spoken in the area by the descendants of the Harappan population.

Dravidian languages - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase

Your argument here is purely a language-based one. IMO, it's nonsensical at best. Languages do not remain stuck on people. One example that even you might understand is Sanskrit. Who speaks it now? Noone does. Yet a group of people in history did speak Sanskrit (the Gandarans for example). These Sanskrit speaking Gandarans then adopted another language (the languages of Northern Pakistan), and Sanskrit was no more in the region. However, the descendants of these Sanskrit-speaking Gandarans did not disappear. They did not even relocate or migrate. They remained stuck in the same area and became various people of Northern Pakistan. This is much the same as what has happened with the Brahui speakers of Balochistan. They have just adopted a language at some time or other, but this does not make them related to Dravidian people genetically, just as speaking an Iranic language does not make Pashtuns Iranian/Persian people genetically.

There is a theory (known as the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis), which explains how the Brahui came to have a Dravidian tongue. In this theory, Brahui is a derivation of Elamite from Western Iran. It sounds the most likely explanation, as that area of Balochistan was under the Archemid Empire and various others for quite a while.

Finally compare pictures of Brahui today, and of Tamils. There's very little resemblance in build or in physical features..They're not the same people genetically for sure. This is the strongest evidence that the Tamils never were in the Pakistan region, and never contributed to the IVC (some Dravidian influence was there, but not much). If they were, there would be a lot of Tamil looking people in Pakistan today. Not to mention that many skulls of non-Dravidian origin have been found in Harrappa and Mohen-jendaro.

A Brahui boy

Some South Indians


Would you say these two "Dravidian speakers" are racially the same? If not, then how do you come to the conclusion that the IVC was a Dravidian civilization, since your theory is based on the Brahui being a Tamil people (and this based on them speaking a similar language classification!).

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Actually the Indus valley civilization belongs to the Dravidan people.. thats the present South Indians. The Survival of Brahui; a Dravidian language, spoken even today by large numbers of people in Baluchistan and the adjoining areas in Afghanistan and Iran, is an important factor in the identification of the Indus Civilization as Dravidian. Brahui belongs linguistically to the North Dravidian group with several shared innovations with Kurukh and Malto; no dialectal features connect it with the South or Central Dravidian languages. So Brahui represents the remnants of the Dravidian language spoken in the area by the descendants of the Harappan population.

Dravidian languages - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase

I was asking about DNA results if they have done that.

 

[roadrunner]

I was asking about DNA results if they have done that.

I don't understand what you're asking. You want to know if DNA tests have been done that show ancient people of Pakistan were Tamils? In that case no. Skull sizes have been measured though, and the DNA of today's Pak people have been investigated a bit.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

I don't understand what you're asking. You want to know if DNA tests have been done that show ancient people of Pakistan were Tamils? In that case no. Skull sizes have been measured though, and the DNA of today's Pak people have been investigated a bit.

So why the hell Indians can't accept the fact that Indus vally people were not tamils? Don't they have their own history to be proud of? Or does they love to steal history of every country?

 

[UnitedPak]

So why the hell Indians can't accept the fact that Indus vally people were not tamils? Don't they have their own history to be proud of? Or does they love to steal history of every country?

Indus Valley is the oldest civilisation in South Asia. For nationalistic purposes they want to link it with Hinduism, and since the Tamil theory is the only one which allows Pakistanis to be excluded altogether they went for it.

They have a history to be proud of, but the oldest and advanced civilisations were based in Pakistan, and they are desperately trying to tell the world that Pakistanis are not related to their own ancestors, and Indians are behind everything that happened in South Asia.

Its a very strange mindset where they seem to think they own the entire subcontinent, even though their ancestors never had anything to do with the region of Pakistan.

In simple words, they dont recognise the distinct identity of the Pakistani people, but seem to think that 1.6 billion people are the same, "the same" being Indian.

 

[roadrunner]

They have a history to be proud of, but the oldest and advanced civilisations were based in Pakistan, and they are desperately trying to tell the world that Pakistanis are not related to their own ancestors, and Indians are behind everything that happened in South Asia.

Generally what you find is that all the internationally renowned history of South Asia occurred in Pakistan land area. However it comes under the banner of "Indian" (due to a misnaming of the subcontinent at partition), and Indians use this to leech away on Pakistan's history. The outside world and the Bharatis themselves didn't record much of their own history except in the Mahabharata, but that was fairly recent, so basically they don't really have any history. Pakistan would not have had much of a history either, had it not been for the Vedic people of Pakistan, and the Greeks (who weren't very good with facts, but noted some down). It's wrong to leech the history of another country, because there's none of note in your own.

 

[roadrunner]

So why the hell Indians can't accept the fact that Indus vally people were not tamils? Don't they have their own history to be proud of? Or does they love to steal history of every country?

I think they love to steal the history of Pakistan, because Pakistan has genuine history. They don't have much of note it seems.

 

[EagleEyes]

RR,

What about the Aryan guys?? Those Hanuman hero, and monkeys? Which I believe Indian call them gods. Aren't they part of the now (India) history? Thats all of what i can think of, other than the recent british time history.

Sorry for the arrogance.

 

[sajan]

I think they love to steal the history of Pakistan, because Pakistan has genuine history. They don't have much of note it seems.

The present day Pakistans history is based on the arrival of muslims from the middle east and nothing to do with the Indus valley civilization. But the tradition and culture which was praticed in Indus civilization is still praticed in some part of South India especially Tamil nadu.

Different views are expressed in the world of research on Indus Valley Civilization. Some say it is of the Aryans while others opine that it is of the Dravidians.If Indus Valley Civilzation is of the Aryans, mother goddess worship that plays an important role in the Indus Valley Civilization should be described in the Vedas. But in the Vedas only minor female deities are mentioned. The Indus Valley deities normally have horns, whereas the deities of the Vedas are not portrayed with horns. Sivalinkas which are found in the Indus Valley Civilization is later on degraded in the Vedas.If you look to the Tamil culture, they still workship mother godess than male gods.

The Vedas describe the wheels of the Chariots with spokes, but the wheels that are seen on the seals and vehicles of clay in Indus valley do not have wheels with spokes.Archaeological evidence shows that the Indus Valley culture moved from west to east, with sites towards central and southern India flourishing after Harappa and Mohenjo-daro had declined.Apart from Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, Ropar in Punjab,Lothal in Gujarat and Kalibangan in Rajasthan is a part of Indus valley civilization. Madurai,the ancient capital of the Pandya Kingdom of the south have evidence that connecting Indus valley.

The Tamils have legends that their ancient history extends up to about ten thousand years, sea swallowing up their lands twice and kings establishing new capitals and fostering Tamil in three successive academies. The legend is first mentioned in the commentary of kalavijal, which is assigned to about 8th century AD.

 

[UnitedPak]

Indus Valley sites are not found in South India, or anywhere in India for that matter. Indians would call anything an Indus valley site. Cities like Harappa and Mohenjo Daro are Indus valley which is recognisable by their architecture. Unlike the so called "Indus valley" sites in west India, which is usually a brick wall and nothing more. As for South India, nothing there what so ever.
If the people of IVC moved from West to East, shouldnt they have improved their building, but evidence suggested they didnt bother building anything as they moved east?

As for traditions. Nobody knows what the IVC people did. Their language has never been deciphered. How Indians seem to know what the IVC people had for breakfast is beyond me. But even if the Indians did practise IVC traditions, that doesnt make them IVC descendants.
If I started practising Chinese customs, that doesnt make me Chinese. or does it?

And most of your evidence is based on pretty much nothing. Carvings? I dont understand, whats your point? Egyptians made Carvings, are they Indian too? Carvings of wheels is hardly concrete proof which makes Tamils the descendants of IVC.

You dont seem to appreciate the time difference here. The Tamil history you speak of, is no where near as old as the IVC. IVC is 5000 years plus. The cities you speak of are just over 1000 years.

But why do Indians insist on ignoring the population of Pakistan? Which ever theory you present, it usually involves everyone moving out of the Pakistan region and in to India. Pakistanis seem to have magically come out of no where in 1947. What is that about?
Pretty much every Indian peoples claim to have originated from IV.

I dont doubt Tamil history, but I doubt any claims which link Indians to the Pakistan region. Unless of course you can explain the origin of the Pakistani people before ranting about how the ancient people of Pakistan made a habit of mass migrating to India.

 

[roadrunner]

RR,

What about the Aryan guys?? Those Hanuman hero, and monkeys? Which I believe Indian call them gods. Aren't they part of the now (India) history? Thats all of what i can think of, other than the recent british time history.

Sorry for the arrogance.

Good example of the Bharati method of leeching Pak history. It is centuries old which they've managed to perfect. Let me summarize how this Aryan/Hanuman/Aryan monkeys and rats came into being.

There was a time of pure Vedism which occurred in Pakistan in around 1500 BC to 500 BC or somewhere around this time. These people were known as Vedic Aryans (they called themselves this in fact). One or two Vedic Aryan tribes then migrated from Pakistan to Bharat (which I'm sure they regret now), and introduced the Vedic religion to the Dravidian people inhabiting the country. At first the Dravidians worshipped the Aryans, but then they overthrew this rule, but not after the varna (caste system) had been entrenched in Bharat society. Now over the centuries, the Dravids in India gradually changed the Vedic religion of Pakistan, by adding blue eyed Aryan monkeys and representing the Dravidian Gods (none of whom were a part of Vedic Pakistani religion) as blue beings. This is how Hanuman became an "Aryan being" (it's a Bharati addition). The Vedic religion has many differences with today's Hinduism, they're completely different religions.

My belief is that some Aryans did move into Pakistan some to Afghanistan, one or two tribes might have made their way to Northwestern India, but these tribes became overrun by Dravidians and have gradually become Dravidianized so that they are unrecognizable. Also I think the same happened with Iran, in that one or two of the Aryan tribes migrated from Afghanistan to Iran (Zoroaster and his followers) and set up Zoroastrianism there. There's fairly good evidence imo.

 

[roadrunner]

Different views are expressed in the world of research on Indus Valley Civilization. Some say it is of the Aryans while others opine that it is of the Dravidians.If Indus Valley Civilzation is of the Aryans, mother goddess worship that plays an important role in the Indus Valley Civilization should be described in the Vedas. But in the Vedas only minor female deities are mentioned.

Nonsense. The Vedas were written AFTER the Indus Valley Civilization finished. The religion of the IVC is unknown. So why are you looking into the Vedas for IVC culture?

The Indus Valley deities normally have horns, whereas the deities of the Vedas are not portrayed with horns. Sivalinkas which are found in the Indus Valley Civilization is later on degraded in the Vedas.If you look to the Tamil culture, they still workship mother godess than male gods.

The Vedas describe the wheels of the Chariots with spokes, but the wheels that are seen on the seals and vehicles of clay in Indus valley do not have wheels with spokes.

This is all nonsense copied from Jattworld by some equally illiterate historian who doesnt know anything about Indus Valley chronology.

Archaeological evidence shows that the Indus Valley culture moved from west to east, with sites towards central and southern India flourishing after Harappa and Mohenjo-daro had declined.Apart from Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, Ropar in Punjab,Lothal in Gujarat and Kalibangan in Rajasthan is a part of Indus valley civilization. Madurai,the ancient capital of the Pandya Kingdom of the south have evidence that connecting Indus valley.

A couple of IVC sites exist in the extreme Northwest of India (Bharat), but then so do some IVC sites exist in the extreme East of Afghanistan, and some more in the extreme East of Iran. The IVC was centred on Pakistan though, and Bharat can at best claim it was a small part of the IVC, just like Afghanistan can also claim. But I don't see Afghanistan trying to leech all the inventions of the IVC.

The Tamils have legends that their ancient history extends up to about ten thousand years, sea swallowing up their lands twice and kings establishing new capitals and fostering Tamil in three successive academies. The legend is first mentioned in the commentary of kalavijal, which is assigned to about 8th century AD.

What factual creditability does the "Kalavijal" have? If I wrote a book saying that a shark bit a bit of India off and Sri Lanka was formed, calling it the "kalavijal II", would you believe it?

 

[sajan]

What factual creditability does the "Kalavijal" have? If I wrote a book saying that a shark bit a bit of India off and Sri Lanka was formed, calling it the "kalavijal II", would you believe it?

Mate.. you are asking what factual credibility does "kalavijal" have..
Then let me ask you what credibility does all the religious texts have which is followed by the world today. So does that mean that all are fools...?