Mind blowing artifacts may change our perception of Indus Valley civilization

[padamchen]

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,

It was a long time ago.

And (in my untrained opinion) a lot of the confusion arises from the fact that there were actually two Porus's.

The Persian one who fought Alexander.

And a close rival, of an adjoining kingdom, an Indian one.

Also note that Chanakya (a contemporary) nor any of the Indian texts mention Porus at all. Most of what we know is from the Greeks. No Hindu references. Rare Jain references.

The Persian texts are understandably all lost now. The Shahnameh has references. Not much else post Islam has survived from the old days.

I maintain.

For a land and people with so little in the way of military success against foreign fighters, forget foreign lands, its important to appropriate a heroic figure, because he was on what is civilizationally close to being your land, and claim him to be yours in the 21st century.

The Persians with 5000 years of warring and empire building history across continents would not fight you on this or bother too greatly.

He was a satrap after all. To put things in the broader perspective across the tapestry of world history. A heroic figure. A nice story. A nice movie too maybe.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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?

It is nomenclature, and nothing sacred. Re-name it if you wish.

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.

Nobody except you, for the basest racist reasons, calls them IVC pillars. Let me make my point clear: please feel free to call it what you will, but it is up to the rest of the world to agree with you or to disagree.

This is not about misappropriation, this is about ugly, naked racism.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Raja Porus was a Punjabi. Greeks identified him and his people as such. They called this land's people as such, "every one was equal to Alexander."

If he had been Persian or Indian, he would have been identified as such. Greeks were very thorough.

The point about Asokan pillars is laughable, good catch @masterchief_mirza . PDF is the one place where Bharti revisionists should be called out for their nonsense. Outside this place, they are spread out all over the internet and in academia, promoting fictions and furthering the Indian agenda of historical theft of Pakistan's history.

 

[Naofumi]

For a land and people with so little in the way of military success against foreign fighters, forget foreign lands, its important to appropriate a heroic figure, because he was on what is civilizationally close to being your land, and claim him to be yours in the 21st century.

The Persians with 5000 years of warring and empire building history across continents would not fight you on this or bother too greatly.

You literally ran out of arguments

 

[padamchen]

You literally ran out of arguments

Yup.

I give up.

Its important for Indians and Pakistanis.

You should get Porus. After all, the fighting was done by your guys and elephants.

Like Maneckshaw was an Indian.

 

[Naofumi]

Raja Porus was a Punjabi.

Except that there was no Punjabi at that time, it emerged as a distinct region in 16th century, And cite your Greek sources please.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Sapta Sindhava (Seven Rivers) became Punjab (Five Rivers) and Sindh (word for river.)

Punjab region was consistent throughout history and it was also the focus of IVC.

 

[Naofumi]

It was a long time ago.

And (in my untrained opinion) a lot of the confusion arises from the fact that there were actually two Porus's.

The Persian one who fought Alexander.

And a close rival, of an adjoining kingdom, an Indian one.

I would be interested to know from where did you learn this?

Also note that Chanakya (a contemporary) nor any of the Indian texts mention Porus at all.

Not exactly a contemporary, there could a century difference between them.

Sapta Sindhava (Seven Rivers)

You are referring to Rigvedic period which predates Alexander/Porus by at least half a millennia.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

It is nomenclature, and nothing sacred. Re-name it if you wish.



Nobody except you, for the basest racist reasons, calls them IVC pillars. Let me make my point clear: please feel free to call it what you will, but it is up to the rest of the world to agree with you or to disagree.

This is not about misappropriation, this is about ugly, naked racism.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[padamchen]

I would be interested to know from where did you learn this?

Not exactly a contemporary, there could a century difference between them.

You are referring to Rigvedic period which predates Alexander/Porus by at least half a millennia.

This is common knowledge buddy.

The Indian Porus was actually superceded by Alexander when he put the Persian Porus in charge. I think the Indian guy was killed.

I think its the Indian guy who was the Paurava/Puru guy, and there is serious revisionism at play.

 

[Naofumi]

This is common knowledge buddy.

I suspect you pulled this one yourself or the source is a shoddy one.

 

[padamchen]

Not exactly a contemporary, there could a century difference between them.

So me knowing about and writing about Godse, who is from my own city.

Chanakya wrote about everything on earth man.

Not one mention of Porus.

I suspect you pulled this one yourself or the source is a shoddy one.

Suspect or research. Choice is yours.

You are the new one.

We've been around this tree a million times before.

"And yes. There WAS an Indian Puru. Who hated the Persian Porus. That is another story in itself. In terms of Alexander sidelining one for the other as his Satrap, and adding to his dominion post the famous battle."

From my previous post which you dug out.

@Naofumi

 

[Naofumi]

"And yes. There WAS an Indian Puru. Who hated the Persian Porus. That is another story in itself. In terms of Alexander sidelining one for the other as his Satrap, and adding to his dominion post the famous battle."

Yeah, the but the source remains YOU.

 

[padamchen]

Yeah, the but the source remains YOU.

So you are saying this brilliant piece of revisionist reverse appropriation simply came into my mind in a flash of inspiration.

Cool.

Youre going to make me work. And when I find a source you are going to wrinkle your nose and say, Ohhhh D Clare. I'm not convinced.

Thanks but I've got a team of my boys who need my help on something professional.