Archaeologists confirm Indian civilization is 2000 years older than previou

[Hellraiser007]

It's all answered in that article. It's worth reading.

There are some historical references of a mighty river in Mahabharata which they used for navigation in the same area.

Kurukshetra is the area situated between the Indus and Yamuna where the Saraswathi river is mentioned.

The area in which the Saraswathi flowed is prone for earth quakes and tectonic plate shift.

There is an evidence of more than 1000 sites which are on the banks of Gaggar which should not have been possible with out a big river.

 

[Hellraiser007]

This is an supporting the claim of drying up of sarsawthi

Controversies in History: Saraswathi River Myth and Reality

The flow of the river is mentioned exactly in Vedas and later texts Mahabharata.

 

[Developereo]

The flow of the river is mentioned exactly in Vedas and later texts Mahabharata.

There is no dispute that the Sarasvati mentioned in the later RigVeda mandala (10) and later texts is the Ghaggar. The only dispute is about the earlier references in the RigVeda. Linguists believe the language structure is sufficiently different between the earlier and later mandalas to suspect a long time span, maybe centuries.

The RigVeda finished in India but whether it originated in India or came from North West (Afghanistan?) is the debate.

 

[Hellraiser007]

There is no dispute that the Sarasvati mentioned in the later RigVeda mandala (10) and later texts is the Ghaggar. The only dispute is about the earlier references in the RigVeda.

I haven't full read the article you have mentioned mate, I will go through it and discuss

 

[Bang Galore]

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

I have read this before & it would be reasonable to conclude that I disagree with that extraordinary stretch.

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.

I disagree again. This is an big claim to make considering the Gangetic river dolphin is not found in Afghanistan. I suppose if you suspend common sense & operate only at a higher level, then maybe all this supposed place-name & river-name transfers may happen. Still an extraordinary stretch since there are no river-names in India which carry any earlier non-Sanskrit(&derivative) names. I have no idea what you meant by the line "if you looked at descriptions & relationships...." since I tend to read the opposite, i.e. that there is no real possibility of the location being anywhere but India. The rivers certainly show no eastward progression unless you start believing that there were original Ganga & an original Yamuna in Afghanistan. As I have said the Ganga & Yamuna are mentioned along with the Sarasvati in the three oldest books while the Indus is not. The Indus actually acquires significance in the later mandalas more specifically Mandala 10 - the Nadistuti sukta that you mentioned earlier

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

They don't but as I have said before that is pretty much impossible to prove or disprove.

 

[isro2222]

For people who dont believe in God of Earth and also God of universe....
40 Proofs of God's Existence - YouTube
Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God
Einstein Proves God Exists - Urban Legends

 

[Rusty]

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???

yeah, Arbic religion is sooo strict that they don't even allow us to believe in flying monkey solders and doesn't allow me to worship nude
I can be just as snarky as you.

so far all I hear is Internet Hindus say "LOOK THERE IS A RIVER THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE VEDAS THEREFOR MODERN SCIENCE IS NULL AND VOID HERPA DERPA"

 

[Developereo]

Gangetic river dolphin

That interpretation is speculative.

I suppose if you suspend common sense & operate only at a higher level, then maybe all this supposed place-name & river-name transfers may happen.

Name transfers happen all the time. Just because there is a town called Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, and it has churches in it, doesn't mean that it's the birthplace of Jesus.

I have no idea what you meant by the line "if you looked at descriptions & relationships...." since I tend to read the opposite, i.e. that there is no real possibility of the location being anywhere but India.

That link argues that the descriptions and relationships in the early Rig Veda do not match the Yamuna and Ganga in India. If you disagree, that's fine, since the descriptions are vague enough to allow doubt. I also feel that the Afghanistan interpretation is not fully convincing. Perhaps the early Vedics came from further inland in central Asia. Hard to tell.

The rivers certainly show no eastward progression unless you start believing that there were original Ganga & an original Yamuna in Afghanistan. As I have said the Ganga & Yamuna are mentioned along with the Sarasvati in the three oldest books while the Indus is not. The Indus actually acquires significance in the later mandalas more specifically Mandala 10 - the Nadistuti sukta that you mentioned earlier

That is precisely the claim: that names, by themselves, mean nothing since they are transferable and people have a tendency to name new places in memory of ancestral lands. No Vedics have survived in their ancestral lands (the migration was total), so all we have left are the transferred names for some of the original rivers.

I agree that neither the AIT nor indigenous claims are fully convincing, and the descriptions are open to interpretation, which is why linguistic and other clues need to be factored in. The absence of tigers, rice, etc also casts doubt on the early Vedics being Indian.

 

[Yogi]

That interpretation is speculative.



Name transfers happen all the time. Just because there is a town called Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, and it has churches in it, doesn't mean that it's the birthplace of Jesus.



That link argues that the descriptions and relationships in the early Rig Veda do not match the Yamuna and Ganga in India. If you disagree, that's fine, since the descriptions are vague enough to allow doubt. I also feel that the Afghanistan interpretation is not fully convincing. Perhaps the early Vedics came from further inland in central Asia. Hard to tell.



That is precisely the claim: that names, by themselves, mean nothing since they are transferable and people have a tendency to name new places in memory of ancestral lands. No Vedics have survived in their ancestral lands (the migration was total), so all we have left are the transferred names for some of the original rivers.

I agree that neither the AIT nor indigenous claims are fully convincing, and the descriptions are open to interpretation, which is why linguistic and other clues need to be factored in. The absence of tigers, rice, etc also casts doubt on the early Vedics being Indian.

The difference in discription of Yamuna n Ganga might becoz as per Hindu believes Ganga originated very late in comparision to Saraswati, so intially Ganga wasn't as mighty as its today, its only after Saraswati lost its major tributories to Ganga it attained its might n Saraswati dried up.

Can u provide me a source for ur claim that Vedas didn't mention Tiger bcoz Tiger skin is the seat of Lord Shiva...@

 

[isro2222]

@Developereo all Gods exist.... Be it allah, christ, indian Gods and Elohim.... All were annunakis with special power and so much knowledge about universe and human Body.... Please do not Question any God existence.... Now you are Questioning indian places and river names.... am sure you will get angry if anyone questions allah.... Try to respect every religion as every God were one with just different name as they spread around globe..... Now how did knew so many Ancient names? Answer is Mahabharat and Ramayan.... Scientists use to call it Mythology. Do myth produces evidences? NO.... it dont. Than how come everything been proved whats written in Mahabharat and Ramayan? My request to u is spend bit time reading every evidence found by russian scientists, american scientists, europian scientists, indian scientists.... Btw the cast system came when our indian Gods left planet Earth. Its humans who brought caste system by saying its created by Gods.... Indian Gods (Enlil catagory india god like shiva one of 12 Elohim God) were the most powerful God who helped every human who asked him for help.... Even muslims were one but humans divided muslims in two catagory.... Its humans and NOT Gods who divided humans. Gods only war with evils like Atlantis empire backed by Reptilians like Enki....
Krishna, Ancient Weapons of Mass Destruction and The Mahabharata
A nuclear bomb in the ancient Hindu text, the Mahabharata? « Mathilda’s Weird World Weblog
Best Evidence?
New Proofs of Nuclear War in Ancient India - Worldwide Ashram Blog

 

[Developereo]

The difference in discription of Yamuna n Ganga might becoz as per Hindu believes Ganga originated very late in comparision to Saraswati, so intially Ganga wasn't as mighty as its today, its only after Saraswati lost its major tributories to Ganga it attained its might n Saraswati dried up.

I believe the link answers that question.

Can u provide me a source for ur claim that Vedas didn't mention Tiger bcoz Tiger skin is the seat of Lord Shiva...@

This discussion is only about the early Rig Veda, since by mandala 10, we are all agreed that the Vedics were referring to the Indian Ganga. Is there a reference to tigers or rice in the early Rig Veda?

 

[Developereo]

Now you are Questioning indian places and river names.... am sure you will get angry if anyone questions allah....

No one is questioning Hinduism. We are discussing where it originated.

Would Hinduism become any less valid (for you) if it turned out to have originated elsewhere?

Ramayan....

There is controversy around the Ramayana also, and some people believe it is a Sumerian text. But that's a different subject altogether.

 

[MilSpec]

@isro2222 please please please please tell me what do you smoke....

 

[isro2222]

@Developereo how much difference between Christianity and Islam? Just few.... Did we question that? Do you know all Gods were one? So do the story but with different names.... Anu was Bhrahma, enki was Vishnu, Enlil was shiva.... Gods around world were same but with different name. You are questioning ramayan while ramayan and mahabharat had mostly same text with same detail which produced evidence.... When evidence been produced than Questioning ramayan and mahabharat doesnt make sence.... Now u can keep Arguing on it but it wont make any sence as evidence already found by Scientists....
.
@sandy i dont smoke.... i dont drink.... i dont eat nonveg.... Thats why am different from u.... i only brings evidences and proof which were found by scientists.... u can make fun of me but that wont change the truth....

 

[Yogi]

I believe the link answers that question.



This discussion is only about the early Rig Veda, since by mandala 10, we are all agreed that the Vedics were referring to the Indian Ganga. Is there a reference to tigers or rice in the early Rig Veda?

Which link ur talking about here?

I told u according to Vedas Ganga originated very late n earlier there was only Saraswati n Yamuna thats why its not mentioned in early Vedas as there was no Ganga intially n Saraswati was the only mighty river...

The early Vedas may not have talked about rice but i doubt about tiger thats why i asked u...