Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If the culture shifted, may I ask what happened to the people? How did they go from large cities to no evidence of settled life?

I have mentioned this before was well, that a similar abandonment of cities occurred in the Mayan civilization that was also equally inexplicable.

The theories were that large cities acted as magnets for invasion and burgeoning populations in a small areas placed severe strains on easily available local resources, eventually resulting in a collapse of these cities as people migrated back into the surrounding countryside in smaller groups.

Not sure why similar arguments woudl not apply here - they are a lot less dramatic than these 'enormous natural calamity' explanations, though not as 'exciting'.

Cultural similarities are easily explained through natural human migratory behaviour.

Again, all of this is a sort of mundane and simple picture of a an evolving region, and not as fanciful and earth shattering as explanations of massive disasters, but it does not have to be the latter case - simple explanations work too.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The only reasonable explanation is that because of climate change, the large cities were no longer sustainable, so they evolved into smaller, less sophisticated communities which shifted progressively over several centuries into the Gangetic plain,

I realized later that in a way your argument is similar to mine - however, a 'massive climactic change/natural disaster' is not the only way to account for the shift,a s I mentioned. Nor does it indicate that the entire peoples, or even a majority shifted East.

The simpler explanation remains that the natural human migratory pattern continued and therefore there was a diffusion of people and culture to the East, and the original peoples of the land comprising Pakistan continued existing there.

 

[Flintlock]

I realized later that in a way your argument is similar to mine - however, a 'massive climactic change/natural disaster' is not the only way to account for the shift,a s I mentioned. Nor does it indicate that the entire peoples, or even a majority shifted East.

If you watch the video a bit further, the narrator clearly mentions that the people moved into the Gangetic plains.

The simpler explanation remains that the natural human migratory pattern continued and therefore there was a diffusion of people and culture to the East, and the original peoples of the land comprising Pakistan continued existing there.

Well, then where is the evidence of settlements? Why are all the settlements in the east?

 

[roadrunner]

UnitedPak is focussed on how the Professor is somehow biased, and RR here talks about Saraswati river (which the prof never mentioned), along with some strange reasoning about "you guys tend to copy Pakistan a lot". Ha ha?

First, I'm totally serious when I'm saying, you guys (Indians) have historically adopted every single culture that arose in Pakistan, and then claimed it as your own. Even the naming of your country, India, was originally a variant of the name for Pakistan. You've adopted Sanskrit, you've adopted as your researcher is quoting, the IVC, and you've adopted Rig Vedic cultures in the past. All these are established as arising in Pakistan.

The "Professor", which also is incorrect, for he is just an ordinary researcher, but do you know where Dr Sanjiv Gupta grew up? Do you know who is funding this project of his?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And I suppose after the abandonment of cities, they simply vanished without a trace? No villages, no small settlements?

No one quite knows is what I gathered (and this is all from memory from a introductory class in Latin American History, so I could be wrong) - the explanations are that an entire people vanishing does not make sense, so the likely explanation is that the current tribes in the region are descendants of the inhabitants of the cities, who settled in the surrounding countryside in smaller groups and villages.

What enormous natural calamiity? The explanation is one of gradual climate change.

Gradual climate change? You would need a complete desertification of the lands comprising Pakistan, a complete shift in the path of the Indus, or its complete drying up to make the region inhabitable, and make the majority of inhabitants migrate away.

That is a pretty major event/calamity with no evidence.

Why does the simpler theory of a natural diffusion of people and culture to the East not work for you?

 

[roadrunner]

If the culture shifted, may I ask what happened to the people? How did they go from large cities to no evidence of settled life? The only reasonable explanation is that because of climate change, the large cities were no longer sustainable, so they evolved into smaller, less sophisticated communities which shifted progressively over several centuries into the Gangetic plain, which is basically what the prof is saying. The regions of the older Harappan sites became uninhabitable, so people began to the region with a more favourable climate.

Climate change did not occur. There was simply no River there.

If there was massive climate change, why was it only Ghakkar-Hakra that was affected by it? Why not the River Indus, or the Sutlej, that are right next to it?

For such a large river to just disappear (larger than the Indus), you can't seriously be saying only one river in the huge river system would have been affected.

By bringing the current British-drawn border into the picture and asserting that "you guys copy us therefore", he's simply showing how immature his thinking is, and why nobody is going to take him seriously.

You are free to not take it seriously. I'm quite serious. The British have nothing to do with this.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If you watch the video a bit further, the narrator clearly mentions that the people moved into the Gangetic plains.

I am contesting the argument that a majority of the inhabitants moved East, rather than a natural migration as populations expanded.

Well, then where is the evidence of settlements? Why are all the settlements in the east?

I am not sure I understand your question - if the migration occurred during the decline of the IVC cities, then you would not have large cities in the East, since the trend would be going from City to small settlement, and the migrants would have been absorbed into whatever peoples were already inhabiting the East.

 

[roadrunner]

There's cranial measurements anyway that show that Gandhara and the IVC fairly similar. You can't be suggesting Gandharans moved into South and East India?

"Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.�102 "K.A.R. Kennedy: �Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?�, in George Erdosy, ed.: The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p.49.

 

[Flintlock]

I am contesting the argument that a majority of the inhabitants moved East, rather than a natural migration as populations expanded.
I am not sure I understand your question - if the migration occurred during the decline of the IVC cities, then you would not have large cities in the East, since the trend would be going from City to small settlement, and the migrants would have been absorbed into whatever peoples were already inhabiting the East.

The thing is that there were no settlements in the Ganges plain before the eastward migration - it was a "forested world" as the narrator tells us.

The sites in the east are not large cities, but they are infact smaller settlements, which would be expected. On the other hand, there are not settlements in the areas of the older Harappan settlements, which indicate that these areas were deserted/abandoned.

 

[Flintlock]

Gradual climate change? You would need a complete desertification of the lands comprising Pakistan, a complete shift in the path of the Indus, or its complete drying up to make the region inhabitable, and make the majority of inhabitants migrate away.

That is a pretty major event/calamity with no evidence.

Why does the simpler theory of a natural diffusion of people and culture to the East not work for you?

Look at the direct evidence - why are the post-harappan settlements all in the Gangetic plains?
If you have no settlements, how can you claim human habitation?

 

[Flintlock]

Wow - that's the most myopic worldview I have ever encountered. Marvellous, keep your blinkers on. The better for us Indians.

First, I'm totally serious when I'm saying, you guys (Indians) have historically adopted every single culture that arose in Pakistan, and then claimed it as your own. Even the naming of your country, India, was originally a variant of the name for Pakistan. You've adopted Sanskrit, you've adopted as your researcher is quoting, the IVC, and you've adopted Rig Vedic cultures in the past. All these are established as arising in Pakistan.

The "Professor", which also is incorrect, for he is just an ordinary researcher, but do you know where Dr Sanjiv Gupta grew up? Do you know who is funding this project of his?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The thing is that there were no settlements in the Ganges plain - it was a "forested world" as the narrator tells us.

The sites in the east are not large cities, but they are infact smaller settlements, which would be expected. On the other hand, there are not settlements in the areas of the older Harappan settlements, which indicate that these areas were deserted/abandoned.

People likely evolved and changed lifestyles as they moved into a different climate and terrain and interacted with people already existing there.

Smaller settlements in the Indus region could have been constructed over, land used for grazing crops, or just decayed away, or destroyed by later populations.

And even then, given the dismal attention archeology gets in Pakistan, who knows what hasn't been discovered, and likely never will be given the population explosion and expansion in settlements in modern times.

 

[roadrunner]

Wow - that's the most myopic worldview I have ever encountered. Marvellous, keep your blinkers on. The better for us Indians.

Why's it myopic?

I just saw the rest of the clip.

Guess what it says. Sanskrit did not originate in India. Thanks God for that. It's not ignoring obvious evidence.

He goes to Peshwar for that. The Rig Veda did not originate in India either.

So your own video clip says what I'm saying. These are adoptions of Pak/Afghan cultures.

 

[Flintlock]

Friend, settlements are always constructed over older ones, which is why archaeological digs are done in "levels". If the Harappan sites have been excavated, they would have to uncover the most recent settlements first and the older settlements later. Obviously, that would mean that the post-harappan settlements (if any) would have been discovered.

You could possibly argue that there are some undiscovered settlements which are waiting to be uncovered, but that's mere speculation for now, and highly unlikely IMO.

People likely evolved and changed lifestyles as they moved into a different climate and terrain and interacted with people already existing there.

Smaller settlements in the Indus region could have been constructed over, land used for grazing crops, or just decayed away, or destroyed by later populations.

And even then, given the dismal attention archeology gets in Pakistan, who knows what hasn't been discovered, and likely never will be given the population explosion and expansion in settlements in modern times.

 

[roadrunner]

RR here talks about Saraswati river

Which river is he talking about then?

Aren't you guys trying to claim it as the Saraswati civilization instead of the Indus Civilization?