What's new

Archaeologists confirm Indian civilization is 2000 years older than previou

The river which the Rigveda is talking about is dried up and changed course due to tectonic plate shift.

This is an article which was written in 2001.

The recent discoveries of civilization along the banks of Saraswathi river(as described in vedas) throw some new light.

Below are the links of latest news after the excavation and finding of the civilization.

Recent Research on the Sarasvati River

The link doesn't change the debate in any way. No one is disputing that the Ghaggar once flowed profusely; the issue is whether it is the Sarasvati river of the Vedas.
 
Are these earlier references to Ganga the same ones which are considered unreliable since they don't refer to it specifically as a river but, quite possibly, as a woman or deity?

Unrelaible? Most probably inconvenient though to be fair, the great Griffith did translate it like that(“Jahnu’s children” (I.116.19) and “the house of Jahnu” (III.58.6).) However one of the references (I.116.19) associates Jahnavi with Simsumara - the Gangetic dolphin thus making that particular translation suspect.

I think most people accept that the Vedic peoples were settled in, or at least very familiar with, the Indus-Gangetic plains by the time the later mandala (10) was written. The controversy is about the earlier verses, especially since the Avestas refer to the Helmand river as Sarasvati, implying that the word was sometimes used as an adjective and was, thus, transferable to different rivers over time.

True, where would we all be without the controversies? The Avesta does refer to the Helmand as the Haraxvaiti, which is the Avestan form cognate to the Sanskrit Sarasvati, there is no real way to definitively prove which came first. However the river spoken of in the Rg veda is mentioned as a great river flowing into the sea(though AIT proponents have made a connection to a lake which can sometimes have the same word) and very few would argue that Helmand is mightier than other rivers including the Indus. Secondly, geographic locations within Afghanistan in the Rg veda are almost non existent with just a reference to Gandhari(I.126.7 - a later mandala) though there are references to the divine beings, the gandharvas though even all those references are in later mandalas with the one exception of III.38.6 which is actually one of the verses specifically named as an later interpolation by the Aitareya Brahmana (VI.18). With no references to places in Afghanistan in the early mandalas and with a direct reference of the Ganga in VI.45.31(early if not the earliest) as also mentions of the Yamuna in the oldest mandalas, the idea of the Sarasvati being a river in Afghanistan is difficult to believe especially when even the Indus goes unmentioned in three of the oldest(VI, III and VII) mandalas which incidentally have references to either the Ganga or the Yamuna.



The question is when the Ghaggar stopped being a mighty river. If the drying occurred too early, it becomes problematic for the indigenous theory. The link I posted claims the major rivers have not changed course for 30,000 years, which would be a certain death knell for the indigenous theory. If the drying of the Ghaggar gets pushed back before the Iron Age then, again, we have a problem since the Rig Veda mentions iron implements.

The studies being discussed suggest the river drying up at the earliest by around 3900 BCE and at the latest by 1800 BCE. I'm not concerned specifically about either of the theories, merely pointing out a major discrepancy in the one more widely propounded.
 
What ever things we have read in the ancient scriptures we need to back them with solid evidences mate. Hope we will find the link between the lost civilization and current civilization. :cheers:

If you do, the world will be more than happy to hear about it.
until then, this is all just mythology.
 
If you do, the world will be more than happy to hear about it.
until then, this is all just mythology.

Vedas are not mythology where are the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata are considered mythology since no current scientific phenomena can explain the events correctly.

Only thing that can explain those epics is Extra terrestrial or Alien contact. Of which the people of ancient India thought and worshiped them as gods.
 
Vedas are not mythology where are the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata are considered mythology since no current scientific phenomena can explain the events correctly.

Only thing that can explain those epics is Extra terrestrial or Alien contact. Of which the people of ancient India thought and worshiped them as gods.

.....so mythology.....
The Greeks thought Gods lived on mount Olympus, they got so bored of waiting for the scientific evidence that they changed religion.
 
Before Mohd. Bin Qasim's invasion to Sindh.

Who were the people dwelling in Indus plateau & current day Pakistan??

Wasnt it was Hindus & Buddhists??

IVC was not just a mortal piece of buildings made of sand & limestone but it was a CULTURE & SOMETHING RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY which worshipped COW & Pashupati ( Lord Shiva's form).

How come a idol-worship-hater, religiously beef eating MUSLIM PAKISTANI think he inherits IVC???

Just because accidently BRITISH drew some maps based on muslim density & awarded those lands to form Pakistan??

Or just because they DOUBT that their ancestor who existed atleast 1000 years later then I.V.C period converted to Islam might be descendants of I.V.C civilizations.

I find no other reason how can islam & muslims connect to I.V.C culture in any way???
 
Linguistic, Sanskrit is part of the Indo-European family of languages.

That proves nothing by itself. A connection is not proof of invasion.


Archaeological, Chariots were only mentioned in India after the Aryans, and there have been chariots found in central asia that match the description of chariots in India after the Aryans.

There are simply no proof of an Aryan invasion & the word itself has no meaning outside the sub-continent & Iran. No major archeologist agrees with the Aryan invasion theory anymore, in fact most are dismissive of it. That is why the proponents rely on that "silly" book and try & look for evidence there.

And what is the point of reading them in modern language?
If you want to use the science of linguistics, you need to use the source language and need to know that language to read it.

Guess it is pointless for you. Not so for me. There we must let it rest.
 
no one said you have to believe in anything, this is not India, you wont' be sent to jail for 7 years for doing something the majority doesn't like.

You can believe in what ever you want, but if you want to talk about it in public then be prepared to be put in your place.
You have the right to believe what you want, but I have the right to not believe it and confront you when you start talking about it in public


Its not some Arabic religion which is formed on Believe.. There are proof of everything.
1. Ancient City of Dwarka: It was in myth, unless Archeologists discovered it, I never claimed anything. The evidence are there, you are free to question ASI , trust me unlike Pakistani draconian law we don't kill some one just for questioning ...

O I forget, Arabic School restrict you from questioning. They teach to just believe in Him and His story.. :)

2. I have right to believe, but unless there is any proof, I can't claim it to be true. And more over unlike you , I am open for question and critics. You tell me how much your civilization (Cow eating,non questioning) allow you to question and criticize your faith/civilization???
 
only think i know , India given

a) Zero
b) Decimals
C) gravity
d) Star calculations

All are written n documented since long time... it happens long before , Christian / jews /islam came.



I object... Its not ONLY India which gave these things. It was old civilizations. India-china-egypt-Unan-greece. That time there was no Empiricist religions (who spread there religion by killing people). There were peace everywhere. The Nomads were weak, they use to loot travellers.

These civilization shared the knowledge, Yes India also contributed in this knowledge share. The Arabic system of math (0-9) is basically spread from India. Simillarly some of you mentioned gyan was invented in India, some were invented by knowledge sharing.
 
Unrelaible? Most probably inconvenient though to be fair, the great Griffith did translate it like that(“Jahnu’s children” (I.116.19) and “the house of Jahnu” (III.58.6).) However one of the references (I.116.19) associates Jahnavi with Simsumara - the Gangetic dolphin thus making that particular translation suspect.

True, where would we all be without the controversies? The Avesta does refer to the Helmand as the Haraxvaiti, which is the Avestan form cognate to the Sanskrit Sarasvati, there is no real way to definitively prove which came first. However the river spoken of in the Rg veda is mentioned as a great river flowing into the sea(though AIT proponents have made a connection to a lake which can sometimes have the same word) and very few would argue that Helmand is mightier than other rivers including the Indus. Secondly, geographic locations within Afghanistan in the Rg veda are almost non existent with just a reference to Gandhari(I.126.7 - a later mandala) though there are references to the divine beings, the gandharvas though even all those references are in later mandalas with the one exception of III.38.6 which is actually one of the verses specifically named as an later interpolation by the Aitareya Brahmana (VI.18). With no references to places in Afghanistan in the early mandalas and with a direct reference of the Ganga in VI.45.31(early if not the earliest) as also mentions of the Yamuna in the oldest mandalas, the idea of the Sarasvati being a river in Afghanistan is difficult to believe especially when even the Indus goes unmentioned in three of the oldest(VI, III and VII) mandalas which incidentally have references to either the Ganga or the Yamuna.

You guys obviously know the Rig Veda, while I only have glancing knowledge of it. However, all your points are addressed by this article:

On the Identity and Chronology of the Rigvedic River Sarasvati

Essentially, what this argument boils down to is that relying merely on names of rivers is misleading, since names are transferable. However, when you look at descriptions and relationships mentioned in the RigVeda, then the early references cannot possibly be to rivers in North India and the most likely candidates are in Afghanistan, followed by the Indus Valley. The progression of river mentions in the RigVeda mirrors an eastward migration of the authors. This is consistent with the archaeological record which also shows a climate-motivated eastward progression of the late Harappans who were arguably contemporary with the early Vedics.

The studies being discussed suggest the river drying up at the earliest by around 3900 BCE and at the latest by 1800 BCE. I'm not concerned specifically about either of the theories, merely pointing out a major discrepancy in the one more widely propounded.

How do those dates invalidate the ACIT (Aryan Cultural Invasion Theory)?
 
You guys obviously know the Rig Veda, while I only have glancing knowledge of it. However, all your points are addressed by this article:

On the Identity and Chronology of the Rigvedic River Sarasvati

Essentially, what this argument boils down to is that relying merely on names of rivers is misleading, since names are transferable. However, when you look at descriptions and relationships mentioned in the RigVeda, then the early references cannot possibly be to rivers in North India and the most likely candidates are in Afghanistan, followed by the Indus Valley. The progression of river mentions in the RigVeda mirrors an eastward migration of the authors. This is consistent with the archaeological record which also shows a climate-motivated eastward progression of the late Harappans who were arguably contemporary with the early Vedics.



How do those dates invalidate the ACIT (Aryan Cultural Invasion Theory)?

The east ward movement is towards Yamuna and Ganga where the remaining vedas were composed. Civilizations flourish in river banks of plains where people can live comfortable not on rocky terrains.
 
The east ward movement is towards Yamuna and Ganga where the remaining vedas were composed. Civilizations flourish in river banks of plains where people can live comfortable not on rocky terrains.

It's all answered in that article. It's worth reading.
 
If there was an Arayn invasion then there was also Dravidian invasion. Ask the Austro Asiatic tribes which speak Dravidian.
 
Back
Top Bottom