Archaeologists confirm Indian civilization is 2000 years older than previou

[curioususer]

"Baharat" is no more or less a civilization than "Europe" or "East Asia" is

You are right, but we are talking about Bharat Varsha.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Not at all. There is absolutely no doubt to anyone now that the river being spoken about was the Rg vedic Sarasvati. What JS pointed out is that in the view of some champions of the AIT, some references may be to a river in Afghanistan. However in most cases, the Rg veda is very clear in the location of the river & there is no real room for doubt.

Which also makes Rigveda indigenous and composed in India.

 

[Bang Galore]

Which also makes Rigveda indigenous and composed in India.

I would tend to support that assertion.

 

[timetravel]

"Some Indus valley seals show swastikas, which are found in other religions worldwide, especially in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. The earliest evidence for elements of Hinduism are alleged to have been present before and during the early Harappan period.[63] Phallic symbols interpreted as the much later Hindu Shiva lingam have been found in the Harappan remains. "

"Harappan people worshipped a Mother goddess symbolizing fertility, a common practice among rural Hindus even today."

"However, House - 1 in HR-A area in Mohenjadaro's Lower Town has been identified as a possible temple"

Indus Valley Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So those continuing the above traditions are continuing the IVC in today's world which is the Indians. I dont see any Pakistanis having any relation to any of above. Also holding a river does not make someone the owner of IVC. Similarly as Indian govt occupying the MECCA and MEDINA by doing a military offensive does not make Indian Hindus Arabs!

would be really funny to see Indian Hindus claiming that they belong to Arab civilisation because India now occupies Mecca and Medina and Saudis dont have anything to do with Arab Civilisation as Mecca and Medina is Indian land!!

So it is without doubt the Indians who represent the IVC today.

 

[Developereo]

Where did you get that from? no archeologist has ever argued that it was anything but a perennial river. If you have anything to suggest otherwise, please elaborate.

What I am saying is that, if it was fed exclusively by monsoon rains, then, in periods of extended droughts, it would dry up, maybe for years or decades. Hence, any drying up of the river bed is irrelevant to dating the Vedas, even if you assume that this is the river of the Vedas, since there were many such "drying ups" over the centuries.

There is absolutely no doubt to anyone now, that the river being spoken about was the Rg vedic Sarasvati.

How definite is that? I was reading a paper from 2001 that disputes this very much. Is there a recent source that dispels previous doubts about this claim?

http://www.breakthrough-india.org/archives/saraswati.pdf

 

[Varunastra]

Just because Mohenjodaro and Harrappa are in Pakistan all Pakistanis are claiming it to be their civilization......where has your claim of being Arabs gone to huh??? how can you claim a non muslim civilization if you guys are all pure muslims and not converts???...........well even if you guys are converts have you forgotten about the millions of Indians that you displaced from present day Pakistan(even our present PM was born in Lahore)???.....we have as much right over the IVC as you might have......just because you guys brove off and drove us out of the Indus region and made a new country doesn't make IVC pakistans civilization

 

[Bang Galore]

What I am saying is that, if it was fed exclusively by monsoon rains, then, in periods of extended droughts, it would dry up, maybe for years or decades. Hence, any drying up of the river bed is irrelevant to dating the Vedas, even if you assume that this is the river of the Vedas, since there were many such "drying ups" over the centuries.

Very relevant. The Rg Veda does not refer to a drying river but to a river in full flow and this continues throughout the Rg Veda which extends across generations. If any study suggests a date for the "final" drying up of the river (& I use "final" only to conform to your argument), the Rg Veda by logic would be earlier than that.

How definite is that? I was reading a paper from 2001 that disputes this very much. Is there a recent source that dispels previous doubts about this claim?

http://www.breakthrough-india.org/archives/saraswati.pdf

I did read your link &while it makes an argument, it (I'm specifically referring to the Sarasvati part, not the other points) is one that has largely been disowned by most of the current AIT supporters.Even Michael Witzel, the foremost of AIT supporters acknowledges that in certain places of the Rg Veda, the river mentioned is the one that flowed in India. While he does argue that some mentions of the Sarasvati are references to Haraxvaiti in Afghanistan, even he is compelled to agree that other mentions are to a river in India simply because the Rg Veda gives clear geographical directions & those point quite clearly to the Indian river.

Now with more & more archeological digs showing up more & more sites on the banks of the "Sarasvati", it becomes more & more difficult to sustain the old argument against the "Indian river".

 

[Developereo]

I did read your link &while it makes an argument, it (I'm specifically referring to the Sarasvati part, not the other points) is one that has largely been disowned by most of the current AIT supporters.

I haven't seen anything other than acknowledgement that one specific reference to Saravati in a later verse (Nadistuti 10.75.5), which is linguistically different enough to suspect being written centuries after the earlier ones, would refer to the Ghaggar in India.

The interpretation of the earlier references to Sarasvati is still debated, and the later references could simply be in homage to the ancestral memory of the original Sarasvati, wherever that might be.

Now with more & more archeological digs showing up more & more sites on the banks of the "Sarasvati", it becomes more & more difficult to sustain the old argument against the "Indian river".

AFAIK, the older settlements are tied to Harappan culture. Is there any archaeological evidence of ancient Vedic culture in these older sites?

 

[Yogi]

Very relevant. The Rg Veda does not refer to a drying river but to a river in full flow and this continues throughout the Rg Veda which extends across generations. If any study suggests a date for the "final" drying up of the river (& I use "final" only to conform to your argument), the Rg Veda by logic would be earlier than that.





http://www.breakthrough-india.org/archives/saraswati.pdf

I did read your link &while it makes an argument, it (I'm specifically referring to the Sarasvati part, not the other points) is one that has largely been disowned by most of the current AIT supporters.Even Michael Witzel, the foremost of AIT supporters acknowledges that in certain places of the Rg Veda, the river mentioned is the one that flowed in India. While he does argue that some mentions of the Sarasvati are references to Haraxvaiti in Afghanistan, even he is compelled to agree that other mentions are to a river in India simply because the Rg Veda gives clear geographical directions & those point quite clearly to the Indian river.

Now with more & more archeological digs showing up more & more sites on the banks of the "Sarasvati", it becomes more & more difficult to sustain the old argument against the "Indian river".

I agree with u 100% throughout the Rig Vedas Saraswati has been referred as a mighty river but correct me if i m wrong but its only in the Mahabharta that the drying up of Saraswati is referred with reference to Bhim???

 

[Bang Galore]

I haven't seen anything other than acknowledgement that one specific reference to Saravati in a later verse (Nadistuti 10.75.5), which is linguistically different enough to suspect being written centuries after the earlier ones, would refer to the Ghaggar in India.

Yeah but that reference in Mandala 10 also suggests that the Indus is the main river. Acknowledged generally as the last mandala, it does refer to the rivers in order from east to west, regardless of whether that is important or not, it quite clearly refers to the Ganga. However as is known, the Ganga (Jahnavi) is also mentioned in mandala 6(45.31.), certainly among the oldest of the Rg veda, if not the oldest and in mandala 3(58.6.) another old mandala which also has reference to Sarasvati (23.4). Since Ganga is placed nowhere else, it follows that the Sarasvati mentioned in the same mandalas cannot be of a different location.

The interpretation of the earlier references to Sarasvati is still debated, and the later references could simply be in homage to the ancestral memory of the original Sarasvati, wherever that might be.

Whether it was a homage or not is purely speculation, where reasons are being attributed without evidence since the Rg veda itself makes no distinction between the Sarasvati(s) mentioned.

AFAIK, the older settlements are tied to Harappan culture. Is there any archaeological evidence of ancient Vedic culture in these older sites?

No but since we are talking if the Rg veda & the studies are referring to the Sarasvati supposedly drying up, it is pertinent to bring into the picture the references of the Sarasvati in the Rg veda. If the Sarasvati in question is the same (there is no reason why it is not because earlier theoies of the Sarasvati being outside were also based on the fact that Ghaggar was thought to be too small to be the Sarasvati). If as the evidence now seems to suggest, it was indeed a mighty river previously, the argument for the Sarasvati being any other river becomes extremely difficult to sustain. If that is the case, then the dates for the Rg vedic Aryans themselves is put in doubt and makes the case for a gap/seperation between the "Harappan" culture & the "Aryan" culture very tenuous.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Yeah but that reference in Mandala 10 also suggests that the Indus is the main river. Acknowledged generally as the last mandala, it does refer to the rivers in order from east to west, regardless of whether that is important or not, it quite clearly refers to the Ganga. However as is known, the Ganga (Jahnavi) is also mentioned in mandala 6(45.31.), certainly among the oldest of the Rg veda, if not the oldest and in mandala 3(58.6.) another old mandala which also has reference to Sarasvati (23.4). Since Ganga is placed nowhere else, it follows that the Sarasvati mentioned in the same mandalas cannot be of a different location.



Whether it was a homage or not is purely speculation, where reasons are being attributed without evidence since the Rg veda itself makes no distinction between the Sarasvati(s) mentioned.





No but since we are talking if the Rg veda & the studies are referring to the Sarasvati supposedly drying up, it is pertinent to bring into the picture the references of the Sarasvati in the Rg veda. If the Sarasvati in question is the same (there is no reason why it is not because earlier theoies of the Sarasvati being outside were also based on the fact that Ghaggar was thought to be too small to be the Sarasvati). If as the evidence now seems to suggest, it was indeed a mighty river previously, the argument for the Sarasvati being any other river becomes extremely difficult to sustain. If that is the case, then the dates for the Rg vedic Aryans themselves is put in doubt and makes the case for a gap/seperation between the "Harappan" culture & the "Aryan" culture very tenuous.

Vedas and Aryans are two different things mate , Need some study of the relation between them.

 

[Lyrical Mockery]

Bricks and stones might have been left in the Pakistani side, but the culture of that once great civilization is alive in India. Don't pakistanis pride themselves for their islamic heritage? and wasn't it advent of islam that erased any signs of IVC culture in Pakistan?

 

[My-Analogous]

Bcoz Idiots like u don't know about Ancient Saraswati River which used to run parallel to Indus. First go n educate urself a bit before u start ranting again...

And Idiots like your self didn't research and pass their comments. Indus civilization is not only near to Indus or saraswati river but also far from it and it was prove much before that civilization is much older then previously said. please check below link.

Mehrgarh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[My-Analogous]

Indian history is more then 30,000 to 10,000 BC old. please do some research or i will post link later on.

 

[BJP*]

No one claims they are Arab descendant here. Pakistan has three regions interjoining together. That is Central Asia, South Asia and the Middle East. So obvioulsy there will be races from all those regions present in Pakistan. But we are all united on one basis and that is religion, and soon we will all be united on the basis that we are successors of the IVC.

world doesn't seem to agree with you on bold part. IVC is considered Indian civilization because it still flourishes in Indo-gangtic plains of India