Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[Flintlock]

According to some archaeologists over 500 Harappan sites have been discovered along the dried up river beds of the Ghaggar-Hakra River and its tributaries, in contrast to only about 100 along the Indus and its tributaries, consequently, in their opinion, the appellation Indus Ghaggar-Hakra civilisation or Indus-Saraswati civilisation is justified. However, these arguments are disputed by other archaeologists who state that the Ghaggar-Hakra desert area has been left untouched by settlements and agriculture since the end of the Indus period and hence shows more sites than found in the alluvium of the Indus valley; second, that the number of Harappan sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra river beds have been exaggerated and that the Ghaggar-Hakra, when it existed, was a tributary of the Indus, so the new nomenclature is redundant

So, according to these sources, the number of sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra river are more than the ones along Indus?

I am not disputing the name "Indus Valley Civilization". The name is of least significance and is just a term of convenience.

But the fact is that a huge chunk of sites have been found far away from the Indus riverbed, which needs to be taken into consideration while labeling it as solely the history of Pakistan.

 

[Flintlock]

Guys I am spotting the early signs of a potential fire here.... keep it under control!!!!!!

Well if it does, just remember who started it

 

[roadrunner]

Stealth Assassin,

I don't have enough time, but here are some replies to the wild claims you've been making on here. I haven't done the nitty gritty research on the discoveries at Dolivira. However, several aspects of it strike me as odd, and not only that I have not seen one non Indian researcher being part of the team to research this and the other Indian sites.

The archaeologists whom this correspondent spoke to say that information on the material used to construct these structures will provide a crucial link to the period of the site. Raman explains: "Brick structures could be tied to the early Harappan culture. All Harappan sites used brick for building except Dholavira which used stone.
Questionable claims

Can you explain to me why Dholivira uses stone structures, instead of brick structures as per the rest of the IVC?

This is my second finding:

"Even the recent Dholavira [Gujarat, India] find - I was disappointed that the very large, nearly 10 feet wide, wooden board contained really nothing but a magnified version of a seal. In fact, I have identified all the 10 characters in that famous board as occurring on seals already in the same sequences."
Ancient Indus Valley Script: Iravatham Mahadevan Interview

Does it not strike you as odd, that

• no foreign researcher has done any research on some of these Indian sites that have suddenly popped up.
• that Dholivira used stone (a more ancient construction material), whereas all the other IVC sites used more advanced brick technology?
• what do you make of the find of a seal that has been found in other IVC sites with nothing in? Why on earth would anyone want to create a seal by itself?Why is it plagiarized from other IVC scripts? If the primary construction technology was less advanced than IVC, therefore the seal is the original, why is that the only thing found with nothing in? Coincidence?

I'll get back to you with the rest. But these are things which some foreign (not an Indian) researcher needs to investigate for these sites to attain creditability. There's no way you can put them on the same level as Harrappa and Mohenjendaro. No researcher that is serious and creditable would agree with you.

 

[Flintlock]

Here is an article, by a foreign author by the way, for all those who would consider Indian authors biased, explaining the continuity between IVC religion and Hinduism:

The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr

 

[roadrunner]

So, according to these sources, the number of sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra river are more than the ones along Indus?

I am not disputing the name "Indus Valley Civilization". The name is of least significance and is just a term of convenience.

But the fact is that a huge chunk of sites have been found far away from the Indus riverbed, which needs to be taken into consideration while labeling it as solely the history of Pakistan.

Dude, are you suggesting the Indus Valley Civilization should not be called the Indus Valley Civilization? Can you find some creditable, non Indian researcher that agrees with you (that more IVC sites have been found in India than in Pakistan?)

Remember a large part of the Ghaggar-Hakra River flows/ed through Pakistan.

EDIt - Alright here's the reference that says 500! IVC sites were found along the Ghagghar-Hakra river!

Gupta, S. P. (ed.) (1995). The lost Sarasvati and the Indus Civilisation. Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan.

Dr Gupta is an Indian clearly. Now if this sort of nonsense is permitted and given for public consumption, how much more nonsense have Indian archaeologists been telling us? Can you not see the need to establish creditability of these sites by allowing the major researchers to conduct research in these areas and perform experiments on the materials found in these areas?

 

[Flintlock]

Stealth Assassin,

I don't have enough time, but here are some replies to the wild claims you've been making on here. I haven't done the nitty gritty research on the discoveries at Dolivira. However, several aspects of it strike me as odd, and not only that I have not seen one non Indian researcher being part of the team to research this and the other Indian sites.

As I said, the Indian researchers are not kooks. They are renowned and well qualified.
Your argument is bunk.

The archaeologists whom this correspondent spoke to say that information on the material used to construct these structures will provide a crucial link to the period of the site. Raman explains: "Brick structures could be tied to the early Harappan culture. All Harappan sites used brick for building except Dholavira which used stone.
Questionable claims

It shows a regional variation , thats all. There is nothing primitive about using stone.

Stone was used in construction till the 20th century.

On most other parameters, including culture, seals, city planning, sanitation, etc. it conforms to the IVC standard.

Also, it is older than the Harappan and Mohenjodaro cities.

Does it not strike you as odd, that

• no foreign researcher has done any research on some of these Indian sites that have suddenly popped up.
• that Dholivira used stone (a more ancient construction material), whereas all the other IVC sites used more advanced brick technology?
• what do you make of the find of a seal that has been found in other IVC sites with nothing in? Why on earth would anyone want to create a seal by itself?Why is it plagiarized from other IVC scripts? If the primary construction technology was less advanced than IVC, therefore the seal is the original, why is that the only thing found with nothing in? Coincidence?

They haven't "popped up", as you say. Some were discovered pre-independence, and others in the 60s.

Only recently has proper excavation taken place, thats all. I have said this over and over, please read all my posts.

I didn't get your part about the seal.

The wooden board that was found, was a signboard with magnified harappan letters on it.
According to researchers, it was probably used on the main gate.

I'll get back to you with the rest. But these are things which some foreign (not an Indian) researcher needs to investigate for these sites to attain creditability. There's no way you can put them on the same level as Harrappa and Mohenjendaro. No researcher that is serious and creditable would agree with you.

That I would disagree with completely. Sorry. But you simply can't accept the facts.....

 

[Flintlock]

Dude, are you suggesting the Indus Valley Civilization should not be called the Indus Valley Civilization? Can you find some creditable, non Indian researcher that agrees with you (that more IVC sites have been found in India than in Pakistan?)

Remember a large part of the Ghaggar-Hakra River flows/ed through Pakistan.

EDIt - Alright here's the reference that says 500! IVC sites were found along the Ghagghar-Hakra river!

Gupta, S. P. (ed.) (1995). The lost Sarasvati and the Indus Civilisation. Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan.

Dr Gupta is an Indian clearly. Now if this sort of nonsense is permitted and given for public consumption, how much more nonsense have Indian archaeologists been telling us? Can you not see the need to establish creditability of these sites by allowing the major researchers to conduct research in these areas and perform experiments on the materials found in these areas?

Sorry my friend, but according to you Indian= bullshit.

If thats the argument you are going to make, then I am not interested in contesting it.

These archaeologists are financed by well known foreign universities and institutions, as well as the ASI. They are well respected in their field and are not spreading any propaganda.

Their research is as credible as any other.

If you don't realize that, then there is very little that can stop you from living your daydream.

 

[roadrunner]

Here is an article, by a foreign author by the way, for all those who would consider Indian authors biased, explaining the continuity between IVC religion and Hinduism:

The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr

Dude, do you know who Tarini J Carr is? She's a traveller with no qualifications, and not even an archaeologist. She just writes on that stuff from time to time, and judging by what she's written, she sounds like she doesn't know much....isn't Tarini a Hindu name anyhow?

Anyway, she is not a researcher. Dude, give us names and research papers of famous names in archaeology that are not Indian that have discovered and performed research at the major sites in India..You will not be able to come up with many. In contrast, the world's greatest Indologists frequently visit the Pakistani sites to get samples, such as Asko Perpola.

 

[roadrunner]

Sorry my friend, but according to you Indian= bullshit.

If thats the argument you are going to make, then I am not interested in contesting it.

These archaeologists are financed by well known foreign universities and institutions, as well as the ASI. They are well respected in their field and are not spreading any propaganda.

Their research is as credible as any other.

If you don't realize that, then there is very little that can stop you from living your daydream.

Alright, then we agree to disagree. But at least acknowledge that some Indian researchers make up stuff on the IVC. There are several articles by well known Indologists that have mentioned the nonsense that they've come out with. Gupta's 500 sites along the Saraswati is one example, which got published in a major Indian journal!

 

[roadrunner]

It shows a regional variation , thats all. There is nothing primitive about using stone.

Yes, but why was Dholivira the only "IVC site" that used stone, while every other IVC sites used brick? Why were they not connected with the IVC technology?

On most other parameters, including culture, seals, city planning, sanitation, etc. it conforms to the IVC standard.

Why the anomalies though? And what was the culture of Dholivira? I don't think anyone even knows the culture of Mohenhendaro yet much. How was the planning of Dholivira similar to Harrappa and Mohenjendaro? Do you know, or are you just making this up?

 

[Flintlock]

Dude, do you know who Tarini J Carr is? She's a traveller with no qualifications, and not even an archaeologist. She just writes on that stuff from time to time, and judging by what she's written, she sounds like she doesn't know much....isn't Tarini a Hindu name anyhow?

Yes, I know that she has collected her information from various sources, which are clearly mentioned on the page.

She has quoted several well known foreign archaeologists and is siimply reflecting their views, not airing her own.

Now, can you just consider the article on its own merit, and the merit of its sources, very few of which seem to be from Indian authors?

I think the article is well written and outlines the salient features of IVC very well indeed.

 

[Flintlock]

Yes, but why was Dholivira the only "IVC site" that used stone, while every other IVC sites used brick? Why were they not connected with the IVC technology?

he sites were separated by more than 500 kilometers from Harappa and Mohenjodaro, I believe.

Even today the cities of London and Paris have significant variation in architecture and planning, inspite of all communication.

Its something called regional variation, which makes each harappan site unique. Why does only one site have the great bath? Why not others?
Why does only one site have a reservoir-canal system, why not others?

Why the anomalies though? And what was the culture of Dholivira? I don't think anyone even knows the culture of Mohenhendaro yet much. How was the planning of Dholivira similar to Harrappa and Mohenjendaro? Do you know, or are you just making this up?

Again, its not an anomaly, its a variation.

By culture I mean beads, pottery, seals, bangles, necklaces, script, mathematics, brick sizes, toilets, roads, metal works, burial practices....etc etc etc.

get it?

I am not making anything up. Just read my earlier posts explaining the details of these sites.

 

[Flintlock]

Alright, then we agree to disagree. But at least acknowledge that some Indian researchers make up stuff on the IVC. There are several articles by well known Indologists that have mentioned the nonsense that they've come out with. Gupta's 500 sites along the Saraswati is one example, which got published in a major Indian journal!

Well....I don't think we have any other choice now do we, considering your unshakable hatred for all things said and done by Indians?

Its not nonsense. You just can't call anything you disagree with nonsense.

There are several theories on the IVC.

Some Hindutva "experts" do publish propaganda from time to time, but none of those guys are archaeologists, nor do they publish academic papers.

 

[Flintlock]

Interesting InterviewFrench Gentleman selected for doubting Pakistanis)

INTERVIEW: M. Jean-Francois Jarrige, Membre de L’Institut, and President of the Musee National des Arts Asiatiques- Guimet

P.S>>>above French means "President of National Museum of Asian Art"<<<


Harappan civilisation came from an internal dynamic

Jean-Francois Jarrige, member of the French Academy, has carried out extensive work over the last 30 years in the Indian sub-continent. His excavations centre around the Indus civilisation, and he is the excavator of the famous proto-historic site of Mehrgarh (Pakistan). Director of the National Museum of Asiatic Arts of Paris, Jarrige was recently in New Delhi. Excerpts from an interview:

QUESTION: How would you reinterpret the whole Indus Valley civilisation scenario in the light of your excavations in India and Pakistan?

ANSWER: The work we have been conducting on the western side of the Indus and all the work done by Indian archaeologists on the eastern side are giving us a much more comprehensive picture. The Indus Harappan civilisation is a synthesis of many elements. All these features and developments now shown by the Indian archaeologists on the eastern side were not known 30 years ago. Seeing the work at Dholavira, Kalibangan, and our work, we can say that there has been a lot of diversity before 2500 BC. There was an economical dynamic already by 3000 BC and many contacts between the east and west. So it seems that the Harappan civilisation developed from an internal dynamic and this internal dynamic is now to be understood within a much larger framework and comprising data from what is now India and Pakistan.

Question: What is that internal dynamic?

Now we know that by 3000 BC already the craft activities had developed to a level which was not expected before. In the time of Sir Mortimer Wheeler and other old archaeologists, it was felt that there was a gap between this early culture and the Indus culture. There is a change in the scale of the Indus civilisation which is enormous, but it takes its roots in the dynamic of the chalcholitic culture around 3000 BC. Some climatic change may have resulted in the exploitation of the alluvial flood planes like the Indus which led to an increase in agricultural production. It was definitely linked to a tradition which was there earlier. Some Indian archaeologists want to rename it the Saraswati civilisation, and those in Pakistan would prefer to call it Hakra civilisation. I like my Pakistani and Indian colleagues. I think the Hakra and the Saraswati are part of a large-scale process. We should avoid spotting a single place in order to say that it is more Indian than Pakistani because in 2500 BC there was no concept of nation.


Question: Who do you think were the authors of that civilisation?

First of all we have not been able to excavate the lower layer of Mohenjodaro, and many cities, so it is very difficult to know. But we know that by 2600 BC there is a dynamic change. Suddenly the same type of pottery spreading on a large area, and then we have the emergence of the Harappan civilisation. What were the exact reasons, why the whole thing started in 2500 BC we don't know exactly. But we are trying to understand in which context, which background these things occurred. It is very difficult to say such and such group. We know that many sites have been destroyed by floods and what is left today is only a small part.

Brahminism's new archeological evidence suggests that history of civilisation dates to Rig Vedic people

 

[UnitedPak]

Some Hindutva "experts" do publish propaganda from time to time, but none of those guys are archaeologists, nor do they publish academic papers.

Oh, I see, well why didnt you say that before.

Seriously though, you have no way of knowing that, and the current propaganda suggests otherwise.