Mind blowing artifacts may change our perception of Indus Valley civilization

[W.11]

The Sogdians were Persian lands.

Zoroastrianism was well entrenched in what is now China.

Where do you think our emperor's family fled after the fall to the Arabs?

you have delusions of gigantic proportions, mate

regards

 

[Naofumi]

The Sogdians were Persian lands.

Persian occupied land. The population remained distinct both culturally and linguistically until hordes of Turks replaced the sea of Iranic by the sea of Turkics.

 

[padamchen]

you have delusions of gigantic proportions, mate

regards

Maybe. But I read.

I request you do the same. Your own delusions, if you do, would then be more credible.

Persian occupied land. The population remained distinct both culturally and linguistically until hordes of Turks replaced the seas of Iranic by the sea of Turkics.

Let me know when bhadralok replies.

I'd like to see if he remains consistent.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Stretched speculation, nothing else.

@Joe Shearer

Total rubbish.

There were many Persian satraps; they were not Persian, merely satraps under the Achaemenids. There are many subsequent examples of this type of governing system, especially during the Scythian incursion; during that entire period, Persian terms and appellations were used freely and widely, and were in no way connected to Persian ethnicity or genetic connections.

I am sorry to see that @W.11 and you cannot agree; on the whole, I agree with his position, and it is very, very clear what he is referring to. He is very simply saying that this style of pillar-writing predated Asoka, who said so himself in his own inscriptions, and that they may have in fact stretched back to the IVC period. Nothing particularly worrying about that, except for @Indus Pakistan 's confused followers who did not understand his essential point and have wandered off into a fantasy world of wicked cultural appropriations by a wicked monocultural civilisation with no connections with the sub-set that formed the post-IVC Indus culture. I blame him entirely for not being clear about what he was proposing, and in his effort to keep the bhakt out (think about Harry Potter and his friends suppressing gnomes), simplified his explanation to the level that confused some minds.

As far as the Rakhigarhi findings are concerned, in simple words, they found that people discovered in an obviously IVC stratum did not have the genetics of the steppe wanderers; that therefore it is unlikely that the IVC had anything to do with the Indo-European language system, or with the groups that entered India with that language system.

You are aware, of course, if I have interpreted the cryptic references that you have made, that the Iranian genetic stock that is said to have been one root of the IVC genetic breed has nothing to do with later Iranian genetic make-up, that the later make-up superimposed a layer of the steppe-wanderers on the original hunter-gatherers and thereafter the farmers to form subsequent Iranian genetic foundations.

@W.11 has raised a very interesting possibility about the 'Asokan' pillars. The Mauryas borrowed much from the west, and their realm, after the defeat of Seleucus, also stretched into a definite section of the Achaemenid domain. If these pillars actually got built during the IVC, and if they proliferated through the territory, even in small numbers, they become an obvious candidate for emulation by the Mauryas. They still remain, by nomenclature, 'Asokan' pillars.

 

[W.11]

what @padamchen is hinting at is the early colonial british scholars trying to connect mauryas with persians, to show that (according to them) the first great indian empire was actually a persian dynasty

there was an entire fiasco involving TATA funding excavation of Pataliputra and indians showing their concerns that this indian history will be attributed to persia.

The colonial british had an idea that india was just an extension of persian aryans, hence aryan theories came into play, its saddening that agenda couldn't be achieved since ashokan edicts were discovered as being written in magadhi prakrit and not in persian.

regards

 

[padamchen]

Persian occupied land. The population remained distinct both culturally and linguistically until hordes of Turks replaced the seas of Iranic by the sea of Turkics.

Let me know when bhadralok replies.

I'd like to see if he remains consistent.

Persian occupied land. The population remained distinct both culturally and linguistically until hordes of Turks replaced the sea of Iranic by the sea of Turkics.

Same way the land ruled and overseen by Porus was Persian land.

Satraps were almost always Persian.

It was part of how we controlled large geographies in the name of the emperor.

And extracted revenue.

And fighters.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Also, Alexander's wife Roxana and his her father Oxyartes are recorded as of Sogdian/Bactrian origin and he was too appointed Satrap, and he was CLEARLY serving under a Persian Satrap Bessus - bottomline, not every Satrap or Satrap related Person needs to be a Persian. There were always locals involved.

You beat me to it.

Cite him please.

what @padamchen is hinting at is the early colonial british scholars trying to connect mauryas with persians, to show that (according to them) the first great indian empire was actually a persian dynasty

there was an entire fiasco involving TATA funding excavation of Pataliputra and indians showing their concerns that this indian history will be attributed to persia.

The colonial british had an idea that india was just an extension of persian aryans, hence aryan theories came into play, its saddening that agenda couldn't be achieved since ashokan edicts were discovered as being written in magadhi prakrit and not in persian.

regards

Yes indeed, you do remember the efforts at proving that the wheel symbol on the pillar at Pataliputra was of Persian provenance. There were many such anachronistic efforts during British times, when they were trying to pull together the whole picture with insufficient information, and created distortions that lasted for decades.

 

[Naofumi]

You have still not solved this conundrum for me.

How many Hindu boys you know named Porus.

How many Zoroastrian boys named Porus.

Why would we name our boys after Hindu kings?

Not enough great Persian men in history to name them after?

Man, it's a moot point. You can twist names so that they sound "Porus" - which is actually a Greek form of the actual name, besides please enlighten me when was the "Porus" name in it's original form was a frequent name in Persia?

As far as the Rakhigarhi findings are concerned, in simple words, they found that people discovered in an obviously IVC stratum did not have the genetics of the steppe wanderers; that therefore it is unlikely that the IVC had anything to do with the Indo-European language system, or with the groups that entered India with that language system.

You are aware, of course, if I have interpreted the cryptic references that you have made, that the Iranian genetic stock that is said to have been one root of the IVC genetic breed has nothing to do with later Iranian genetic make-up, that the later make-up superimposed a layer of the steppe-wanderers on the original hunter-gatherers and thereafter the farmers to form subsequent Iranian genetic foundations.

It's slightly more than that - before that many hypothesised that farming in IVC was not indigenously developed but "imported" from Iranian or Anatolian farmers but IVC people have no trace of Iranian farmers at all, the IVC population branched out from Iranian hunters* some 8000 years before the foundation of IVC, hence both Iranian farmers and IVC farmers learned farming independently.

*emphasis on hunter because as farming was not developed in the Iranian plateau at that time.

Same way the land ruled and overseen by Porus was Persian land.

Satraps were almost always Persian.

It was part of how we controlled large geographies in the name of the emperor.

And extracted revenue.

And fighters.

Just that there's no evidence of him even being a Satrap.​

 

[Joe Shearer]

Man, it's a mute point. You can twist names so that they sound "Porus" - which is actually a Greek form of the actual name, besides please enlighten me when was the "Porus" name in it's original form was a frequent name in Persia?

It's slightly more than that - before that many hypothesised that farming in IVC was not indigenously developed but "imported" from Iranian or Anatolian farmers but IVC people have no trace of Iranian farmers at all, the IVC population branched out from Iranian farmers some 8000 years before the foundation of IVC, hence both Iranian farmers and IVC farmers learned farming independently.

Guilty, as charged; that happens with any attempt to over-simplify.

Just that there's no evidence of him even being a Satrap.

I was taking it in the argumentam ad absurdum sense: Let us agree for the sake of the argument that he was a Satrap. His territory was not even in the Gandhara area.

 

[padamchen]

Man, it's a mute point. You can twist names so that they sound "Porus" - which is actually a Greek form of the actual name, besides please enlighten me when was the "Porus" name in it's original form was a frequent name in Persia?


It's slightly more than that - before that many hypothesised that farming in IVC was not indigenously developed but "imported" from Iranian or Anatolian farmers but IVC people have no trace of Iranian farmers at all, the IVC population branched out from Iranian hunters - emphasis on hunter because as farming was not developed in the Iranian plateau at all -

some 8000 years before the foundation of IVC, hence both Iranian farmers and IVC farmers learned farming independently.


Just that there's no evidence of him even being a Satrap.​

Its moot. Not mute.

Porus is Greek for Porushaspa.

We have many Porushaspas too before you ask.

Just that there's no evidence of him even being a Satrap.

Seriously?

Do your research.

He was called upon to bolster forces of Darius in his battles with Alexander.

He refused.

Darius never called on Indian kings for military support.

This was classical satrapy.

 

[Naofumi]

Its moot. Not mute.

Porus is Greek for Porushaspa.

We have many Porushaspas too before you ask.

Some random searches

 

[padamchen]

Some random searches

Agarwal.

Mehta.

So Porus was a banya.

Got it ....

P.S. A 7 foot banya. I'd actually pay to see that.

 

[Naofumi]

Agarwal.

Mehta.

So Porus was a banya.

Got it ....

P.S. A 7 foot banya. I'd actually pay to see that.

Random searches, man. These were the ones that came to mind at that moment.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

They still remain, by nomenclature, 'Asokan' pillars.

So you feel that the whole issue about cultural appropriation is a false paradigm and misinterpretation of the original post, yet at the same time, your own conclusion is that ashokan pillars - if connected to similar IVC artefacts - should remain named as ashokan?

Sorry to disappoint you but I object.

Yes - indeed W11's original post created a confusing and misleading episode of subterfuge, which is the precise criticism that was levelled at him.

You've weighed in with a similar criticism but then immediately rejected the appropriate remedial action.

It is becoming clear that as this thread progresses, the ashokan pillars are potentially a misnomer, a fossilised error with regards to pillars stylistically modelled on earlier artefacts.

They're IVC pillars. That they're called "ashokan" is an error of documentation.

 

[Naofumi]

Seriously?

Do your research.

He was called upon to bolster forces of Darius in his battles with Alexander.

He refused.

Darius never called on Indian kings for military support.

This was classical satrapy.

The only source I could find is an 19th century book that too based upon mythologies/folklores as the introduction of the book itself says, and that too refer Porus as King of India,