"Ancient India" was in Pakistan region, not present-day India.

[Chinese-Dragon]

Yellow River was in Ancient Pakistan !

Is that why I love Lahore chicken so much?

Dude even in the past India was considered a Subcontinent of Countries not as a singular entity by a long shot. Just as Pakistanis broke or wanted to break all connections with Indic Civilizations were wrong likewise the Indians insisting that the modern day State of India is somehow the natural evolution of an Ancient Indie superimposed onto the paradigm of the notion of a modern day 'Nation-State' is equally wrong !

I guess it was a bit different in China. We had a system of "central authority" (with Tianzi at the center) and even a fully functioning bureacracy (civil servants were hired via anonymous imperial exams) over 2000 years ago.

So we can say that China is certainly the successor to the civilizations of Ancient China. And Taiwan is not.

Because the KMT are gross.

 

[Armstrong]

Is that why I love Lahore chicken so much?

I guess it was a bit different in China. We had a system of "central authority" (with Tianzi at the center) and even a fully functioning bureacracy (civil servants were hired via anonymous imperial exams) over 2000 years ago.

So we can say that China is certainly the successor to the civilizations of Ancient China. And Taiwan is not.

Because the KMT are gross.

But China isn't the successor to the whole of East-Asia...is she ? Thats the point I'm trying to make here !

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

But China isn't the successor to the whole of East-Asia...is she ? Thats the point I'm trying to make here !

Exactly sir, we are NOT the successor to all of East Asia.

Only the ones that existed in this land (China). Han, Tang, Ming, Song and all that great stuff.

 

[scorpionx]

@scorpionx - What are you saying ?

You were supposed to say 'Ancient India was in Buttistan' !

On a serious note - Don't you think that many of your compatriots too could be accused of hagiography ? A lie of omission is still a lie...is it not ? Their continued proclamations of a geographic and historic 'India' being the same as the modern day 'State of India' or that the latter being a modern day rendition of the former which was, in their opinion, a country, too is way off the mark...is it not ? That somehow the State of India as it exists today is the natural evolution of the Indian Subcontinent or that just because 'India' or 'Indian' is taken as the common denominator here, automatically to speak of one is to speak of the other.

That really isn't accurate....is it ? Their failure to appreciate that India of the Ancient times and also of much later on is spoken off in the same vein as one now speaks of East-Asia or Latin America and their continued attempts at painting an ornate and romanticized notion of a Greater India that existed in the past as a singular civilization from the outskirts of Kabul to the banks of Dhaka with a common denominator between them too is incorrect...is it not ?

Furthermore this continued infatuation with what the Greeks dubbed this land or that land means nothing; the Sumerians before them, to the best of what I know, didn't call this region India or by any other name as they were more localized in their outlook on this. They instead referred to the lands by the name of their tribes - Meluhha as in case of the civilization that cropped up near the Indus Valley. Likewise I, at least, don't know of anyone referring to the inhabitants of Mehergarh or Gandhara as Indians either. So what really does a tag prove if not merely something that was born out as a convenient way to dub something but later stuck on - What does that prove anything ?

Serious Mode Off

I bet in a past life I - a pure blooded Aryan Prince - would've kicked your Dravidian butt back to South India many times over !

You are absolutely right here. The word 'India' today expresses a political entity, a comparatively recent phenomenon where as India in Historical discussions refers to a geographical and cultural entity that was spread over from the Indus (though this statement is a subject to debate, as some ancient historians like Pliny places the Western boundary of historical India beyond it) from NW to the Bengal in SE, notwithstanding the political boundaries of the sixteen powerful Mahajanapadas. Historians use India in a civilizational context, not in a single political entity. But another thing to note here is, India as a single political nation did not exist then, but elements of cultural India certainly exist today.

If we were to take half the arguments thrown about here; whole swathes of Europe should look to Germany as the nucleus, evolution and the the modern day rendition of Ancient Europe west of the Roman Empire, as most of those lands were called Germania. But no one does that because history and more so archaeology is appreciated, over there, as a lot more complex than a study that etches lines on a map and can be used to draw endless PR and political mileage from !

The reason why whole Europe does not look to Germans as the nucleus is, Germans were a specific linguistic-cultural unit comprising several tribes just as the Finnish, Scandinavians, Celts, Gauls or Slavs who acted as carriers of the Roman civilizational elements, their laws, arts, classical literature and architecture. The Roman theme was the center authority here, just as the 'Indo' theme we are talking of. This is the same reason why Historians take India in a civilizational context; the Indus valley civilization, it's parallel and later continuation in further South East which we call Indo-Gangetic plain, the vedic and late vedic era, the Buddhist era, the Mayuras, Kushanas and Guptas, all are part of the same cultural evolution whose geographic boundaries varied from time to time, but carried the same elements of culture through out the land that was often termed as Aryavarta or Bharat.

 

[SamantK]

You guys try your level best to hijack old heritage of our peoples, but world will never accept your claim. So keep trying and by the way IVC civilization was not even followers of Shaivism, Vaishnavism or Shaktism etc (i didn't called them hindu b/c there is no religion called Hindu in past 5000 years and it is just a new invention of past 70 to 80 years). They probably atheist or some other religion so even religion wise you can't claim that.

That's among the biggest load of BS I have heard.

 

[Armstrong]

You are absolutely right here. The word 'India' today expresses a political entity, a comparatively recent phenomenon where as India in Historical discussions refers to a geographical and cultural entity that was spread over from the Indus (though this statement is a subject to debate, as some ancient historians like Pliny places the Western boundary of historical India beyond it) from NW to the Bengal in SE, notwithstanding the political boundaries of the sixteen powerful Mahajanapadas. Historians use India in a civilizational context, not in a single political entity. But another thing to note here is, India as a single political nation did not exist then, but elements of cultural India certainly exist today.

The reason why whole Europe does not look to Germans as the nucleus is, Germans were a specific linguistic-cultural unit comprising several tribes just as the Finnish, Scandinavians, Celts, Gauls or Slavs who acted as carriers of the Roman civilizational elements, their laws, arts, classical literature and architecture. The Roman theme was the center authority here, just as the 'Indo' theme we are talking of. This is the same reason why Historians take India in a civilizational context; the Indus valley civilization, it's parallel and later continuation in further South East which we call Indo-Gangetic plain, the vedic and late vedic era, the Buddhist era, the Mayuras, Kushanas and Guptas, all are part of the same cultural evolution whose geographic boundaries varied from time to time, but carried the same elements of culture through out the land that was often termed as Aryavarta or Bharat.

I did not refer to the whole of Europe but Europe to the West of Rome; those areas were inhabited by Germanic tribes and the very term 'Germanic' refers to a common cultural elements running from them.

Therefore I don't think that 'culture' is a very good argument to define civilizations by; in fact I don't really know if the grouping together of civilizations is born out of something substantive or is it less a product of something substantive and more as a result of expediency when coining archaeological and anthropological nomenclatures.

Furthermore I still don't buy the 'culture' argument because what exactly were the common elements, in terms of culture, running throughout the land that was, as you said, called Aryavarta or Bharat ? Most of the things that I've read about the ancient civilizations in Pakistan (I don't know much about India) seem to lend credence to the belief that culture is an ever evolving organic thing and that to arbitrarily demarcate areas into A or B entities or anything of the sort may make sense from the point of view of ease but it does nothing so far as reflecting the ground realities of how things are. I'll give you an example; in the 3rd age/period at Mehrgarh the animal motifs found therein could have easily been depiction of those common elements that run throughout India that you're talking about and yet the same motifs have been found as far as Sialk and Hissar in Iran and Namazgah II in Turkmenistan. Likewise the most common elements that I can think of is paganism and the symbolism that comes with it that was practiced by the ancient people who inhabited these lands and yet we find that even when it comes to burials in graves found in Cemetry H at Harrappa the method is consistent with the form of burial practiced in Mesopotima in the Sargonid and Pre-Sargonid period. Even the Kushans borrowed heavily from the Scytho-Parthians that preceded them and had significant Central Asian influences in their Empires.

I do suggest you read the archaeologist Ahmed Hasan Dani's History of Pakistan - Pakistan through the Ages and The Historic City of Taxila !

 

[ghoul]

Hindu Shahis, Chachs of Sindh, Gandharans, King Porus and Alexander the great, Moenjodaro/Mehargarh civilization, Scythians, Kushans, White Huns, Ghaznavid/Ghurid wars etc etc are all part of the history of Pakistan, and have nothing to do with the modern day state of India. I don't get why Indians are getting ****hurt.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Yes, this is true, but before 1947 Pakistan region was part of India. Hence anything that happened there before is the legacy of India and not of Pakistan.

British India

Not Indian Republic

and for us ( Pakistan ) this only covers 1843 to 1947. As Punjab was part of Sikh Empire before 1849 and Sindh was independant upto 1843. Sindh, Punjab 103 and 98 years respectively.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Read Prof Ahmad Hasan Dani' and his many books on Ancient Pakistan History.

Google

Ahmad Hassan Dani Interview Contents

Ancient Pakistan - An Archaeological History: Volume I: The Stone Age (Volume 1) Paperback – May 29, 2014
by Mukhtar Ahmed (Author)

Amazon.com: Ancient Pakistan - An Archaeological History: Volume I: The Stone Age (Volume 1) (9781495490477): Mukhtar Ahmed: Books


* HEALTH WARNING: Could all Indian members have a Defibralltion Unit handy in case on seeing the word "Ancient" as a prefix to name "Pakistan" causes shock and leads to cardiac arrest. A trained paramedic would be needed to perform life saving resuscitation. Tick this warning box and please proceed below.

We do not discriminate history on basis of religion. History is history of Indus Basin/Pakistan.

* To the Pakistani's: Start using the term 'Ancient Pakistani' if you don't it will never gain currency and even in thousand years our people will talk of as if we are premature baby. So any history of Indus Basin prior to 1st century BC is 'Ancient Pakistan'.

 

[3.14159]

At one point, the title post may have been correct, but it is clearly established for at least several hundreds years BC, that the subcontinent extends from the Indus to the Irrawaddy river basins, west to east, and then IndoChina lies beyond. The terms South Asia and East Asia are to be preferred over old terminologies for discussions today and here specially.

 

[scorpionx]

I did not refer to the whole of Europe but Europe to the West of Rome; those areas were inhabited by Germanic tribes and the very term 'Germanic' refers to a common cultural elements running from them.


Therefore I don't think that 'culture' is a very good argument to define civilizations by; in fact I don't really know if the grouping together of civilizations is born out of something substantive or is it less a product of something substantive and more as a result of expediency when coining archaeological and anthropological nomenclatures.


Furthermore I still don't buy the 'culture' argument because what exactly were the common elements, in terms of culture, running throughout the land that was, as you said, called Aryavarta or Bharat? Most of the things that I've read about the ancient civilizations in Pakistan (I don't know much about India) seem to lend credence to the belief that culture is an ever evolving organic thing and that to arbitrarily demarcate areas into A or B entities or anything of the sort may make sense from the point of view of ease but it does nothing so far as reflecting the ground realities of how things are. I'll give you an example; in the 3rd age/period at Mehrgarh the animal motifs found therein could have easily been depiction of those common elements that run throughout India that you're talking about and yet the same motifs have been found as far as Sialk and Hissar in Iran and Namazgah II in Turkmenistan. Likewise the most common elements that I can think of is paganism and the symbolism that comes with it that was practiced by the ancient people who inhabited these lands and yet we find that even when it comes to burials in graves found in Cemetry H at Harrappa the method is consistent with the form of burial practiced in Mesopotima in the Sargonid and Pre-Sargonid period. Even the Kushans borrowed heavily from the Scytho-Parthians that preceded them and had significant Central Asian influences in their Empires.


I do suggest you read the archaeologist Ahmed Hasan Dani's History of Pakistan - Pakistan through the Ages and The Historic City of Taxila !

Culture, as you rightly said by its organic nature evolve and that is why we tend to see different phases within a single culture/tradition. For example, the early Neolithic settlements of Mehrgarh show how architecture, habitation structures, plant and animal domestication, food and ceramic industry evolved within a single tradition. But different cultures/traditions can be distinguished from each other for their own uniqueness based upon the geographical and climatic influences on it. For example, Mesolithic, proto-Neolithic and Neolithic traditions in Baluchistan, Kashmir and those in India have distinct dissimilarities. Craft activities, burial practices, ceramic industry and habitant structures of the settlement west of river Indus show strong affiliations to those of Southern Turkmenistan and Northern Iran, those in Kashmir shows similar affection to East Asian traditions and those in the Gangetic plains evolved their own traditions (like cattle pens that are quite distinct by its own character in the sub-continent). So, not denying the fact that common cultural elements travel from one region to another, each region represent exclusive specialities that makes the foundation of future traditions distinctly recognizable from each other.

Now coming to culture as a common binding factor; Indians knew the art of clay-wood architecture and sculpture much before they came heavily in contact with Persians and Greeks. The Bull and elephant in Sarnath abacus was a complete Indian concept of art (Vincent Smith). From Gandhara in the North West to Anga in the East, the artistic themes of cave architecture, stupas, pillars and stone inscriptions, not withstanding their regional variations was quite common throughout the subcontinent. Sanskrit and Prakrit classical Buddhist and Jain literature flourished, Socio-economic and religious systems in this vast swath of land remained unaffected by the political rivalries of the sixteen political republics. This is the reason, the Greeks, Chinese or Arab travellers consistently recognized the region as a cultural/civilization unit quite unique of its own from what they saw dominant West of Indus.

Buddhist India is a must read to understand what ancient India was all about. You will definitely find it fascinating.

Buddhist India : Rhys Davids T.W. : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Armstrong]

Culture, as you rightly said by its organic nature evolve and that is why we tend to see different phases within a single culture/tradition. For example, the early Neolithic settlements of Mehrgarh show how architecture, habitation structures, plant and animal domestication, food and ceramic industry evolved within a single tradition. But different cultures/traditions can be distinguished from each other for their own uniqueness based upon the geographical and climatic influences on it. For example, Mesolithic, proto-Neolithic and Neolithic traditions in Baluchistan, Kashmir and those in India have distinct dissimilarities. Craft activities, burial practices, ceramic industry and habitant structures of the settlement west of river Indus show strong affiliations to those of Southern Turkmenistan and Northern Iran, those in Kashmir shows similar affection to East Asian traditions and those in the Gangetic plains evolved their own traditions (like cattle pens that are quite distinct by its own character in the sub-continent). So, not denying the fact that common cultural elements travel from one region to another, each region represent exclusive specialities that makes the foundation of future traditions distinctly recognizable from each other.

Now coming to culture as a common binding factor; Indians knew the art of clay-wood architecture and sculpture much before they came heavily in contact with Persians and Greeks. The Bull and elephant in Sarnath abacus was a complete Indian concept of art (Vincent Smith). From Gandhara in the North West to Anga in the East, the artistic themes of cave architecture, stupas, pillars and stone inscriptions, not withstanding their regional variations was quite common throughout the subcontinent. Sanskrit and Prakrit classical Buddhist and Jain literature flourished, Socio-economic and religious systems in this vast swath of land remained unaffected by the political rivalries of the sixteen political republics. This is the reason, the Greeks, Chinese or Arab travellers consistently recognized the region as a cultural/civilization unit quite unique of its own from what they saw dominant West of Indus.

Buddhist India is a must read to understand what ancient India was all about. You will definitely find it fascinating.

Buddhist India : Rhys Davids T.W. : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Dunno mate I'm still not too sure about that; when I read Ahmed Hasan Dani - He disputes the findings of Sir John Marshall in their suggestion that the Englishmen found a common vein between the Indus Valley Civilization and potentially Hinduism (historically and evolutionary contextualized of course). Dani instead maintains that Marshall was extrapolating more meaning from the archaeological findings at Mohenjo Daro than he should've including erroneously translating the meaning of the word to the Mound of the Dead instead of it being the Mound of Meluhha - the ancient people that inhabited these lands that the Sumerian tablets spoke of. IN Dani's opinion he found more evidence to suggest that these Indus Valley Civilizations had almost as much contact and cross-cultural imprints with the civilizations or settlements in the middle of the Gangetic plain as much as they did with Central Asia and more so, true to that time, Mesopotima. Including religious symbolism, trade, migrations and even political contacts.

Now I personally have no problems if the ancient lands that form today's Pakistan were part of the Indic Civilization but I do take very strong exception to the suggestion that the modern day states of India and Pakistan are packaged together as part of some ancient Greater India of ages past. This view ignores the fact that Pakistan is a country that exists on the peripheries of greater Middle Eastern, Indic and Central Asian Civilizations and has imprints from all of them in addition to providing the crucible whereby local cultures or civilizations that evolved along the banks of Indus came into contact with either of those 3 directions and created something unique.

Briefly we have an 'ancient' history entwined but also independent of India !

Aur bhai key eik bhi post ko thank nahin kiyaaa ?

 

[My-Analogous]

That's among the biggest load of BS I have heard.

Proof it wrong. Your comments are not proving me wrong.

 

[scorpionx]

Dunno mate I'm still not too sure about that; when I read Ahmed Hasan Dani - He disputes the findings of Sir John Marshall in their suggestion that the Englishmen found a common vein between the Indus Valley Civilization and potentially Hinduism (historically and evolutionary contextualized of course). Dani instead maintains that Marshall was extrapolating more meaning from the archaeological findings at Mohenjo Daro than he should've including erroneously translating the meaning of the word to the Mound of the Dead instead of it being the Mound of Meluhha - the ancient people that inhabited these lands that the Sumerian tablets spoke of. IN Dani's opinion he found more evidence to suggest that these Indus Valley Civilizations had almost as much contact and cross-cultural imprints with the civilizations or settlements in the middle of the Gangetic plain as much as they did with Central Asia and more so, true to that time, Mesopotima. Including religious symbolism, trade, migrations and even political contacts.

Now I personally have no problems if the ancient lands that form today's Pakistan were part of the Indic Civilization but I do take very strong exception to the suggestion that the modern day states of India and Pakistan are packaged together as part of some ancient Greater India of ages past. This view ignores the fact that Pakistan is a country that exists on the peripheries of greater Middle Eastern, Indic and Central Asian Civilizations and has imprints from all of them in addition to providing the crucible whereby local cultures or civilizations that evolved along the banks of Indus came into contact with either of those 3 directions and created something unique.

Briefly we have an 'ancient' history entwined but also independent of India !

Aur bhai key eik bhi post ko thank nahin kiyaaa ?

There is an obvious unbridgeable difference between IVC and early vedic civilization and except few Hindutva historians almost all agree that the evidence 'Hindu' religious elements in IVC are much less compelling than those are found in the Gangetic plain. And it will be too early to connect IVC with the early vedic civilizational elements as there are certain limitations for the mystery of IVC script. So, Dani is absolutely correct in his assertion.India and Pakistan definitely were not part of a greater ancient India together if we strictly define India in a political context. It is just that Greeks recognized anything beyond east of Indus as India in a broader context just as they expressed Asia as anything beyond Aegean coast in a general sense.

What I am only in disagreement with is the author's dishonesty to stick to Herodotus' version of India only and not others who were fairly way more accurate in describing the region that was called India. I have no reservation in saying that the cradle of civilization IS in modern Pakistan nation state and NOT in modern Indian nation state. But it is ridiculous to me that ancient India never existed in present modern Indian state for the author's own intellectual failure to comprehend what 'ancient India' actually meant.

So, can we sign a treaty of truce here?

 

[Armstrong]

There is an obvious unbridgeable difference between IVC and early vedic civilization and except few Hindutva historians almost all agree that the evidence 'Hindu' religious elements in IVC are much less compelling than those are found in the Gangetic plain. And it will be too early to connect IVC with the early vedic civilizational elements as there are certain limitations for the mystery of IVC script. So, Dani is absolutely correct in his assertion.India and Pakistan definitely were not part of a greater ancient India together if we strictly define India in a political context. It is just that Greeks recognized anything beyond east of Indus as India in a broader context just as they expressed Asia as anything beyond Aegean coast in a general sense.

What I am only in disagreement with is the author's dishonesty to stick to Herodotus' version of India only and not others who were fairly way more accurate in describing the region that was called India. I have no reservation in saying that the cradle of civilization IS in modern Pakistan nation state and NOT in modern Indian nation state. But it is ridiculous to me that ancient India never existed in present modern Indian state for the author's own intellectual failure to comprehend what 'ancient India' actually meant.

So, can we sign a treaty of truce here?

Okay - We have truce !

As long as you tell @levina Apaa that I - a pure blooded Aryan - and she a - chubby Dravidian - can never be the siblings !

Tell her that just because we both have east-asian eyes, love food more than life itself and would want cricket to be banned in South Asia doesn't mean that we're related !

 

[KingMamba]

And how exactly this conclusion has been achieved?The Persian boundary ended at Hydaspes (Jhelum) enough west to the eastern border of present modern Pakistan and further east there were a number of powerful kingdoms. It is difficult to assume that Persian historians did not know about these regions.If you have read Herodotus (I am sure you have) you can clearly see he had a fair idea about the ethno-cultural diversity of the region which matches all the description of North and North western part of India today. Only problem was he could see only things the Persian historians had let him see in Egypt and Babylon.


Alexander did not have any idea about the region 'Asia' either. Plutarch in the very beginning of his work tells us about how curious Alexander was about the unseen land he would once conquer. Does that mean Asia never existed before Greek army set foot on it? The Greeks had of course limited idea about the geographical limit of the land called 'India' in the East but the more they proceeded they did not identify with individual names of kingdoms but in a generalized cultural and geographic expression which had nothing to do with the present 'political India'. This had been the case at the time of Darius, it happened during Arrian and Plutarch and continued for the next thousand years.

The conclusion comes from the fact that Darius claimed he had conquered India and made it a province. Also as shown in the post 21 both the Greeks and the Persians thought that there was emptiness beyond the India they knew. What Herodotus was referring to was the cultural diversity in the parts of India they knew about.

Of course he did not see it but what he knew about, was from what he learned from the exchange between Persians and Greeks. That is not an argument at all, and yes as invaders proceeded eastward and discovered more lands they expanded the idea of India. This I have neither disputed and in fact mentioned myself.