Mind blowing artifacts may change our perception of Indus Valley civilization

[W.11]

Indus valley civilization ivory objects which are in the shape of pillar models, actual pillars might have existed in the indus civilization, with inscriptions on them, these resemble Ashokan pillar traditions and post ashokan pillar traditions well into medieval periods. One object on the top right has a finial which were usually depcted as pillars of worship in buddhist carvings and paintings and they were erected inside temples or outside temples as dvaja.

here is the description of the objects

4. John Marshall wrote: "Seals of this group [cylinder seals, although Mackay above is not sure they are true cylinder seals]], if indeed they are seals, are very rarely found at Mohenjo-daro, only five specimen being obtained in all. They are all made of ivory and differ from the cylinder seals of other countries in being very long and thing; nor are they perforated for suspension on a cord. It is possible that these so-called seals are not true seals at all. They incised characters upon them might conceivably be identification marks for a game or something similar. On the other hand, they are certainly suitable for use a seals and in this account they are included in this chapter For the sake of clearness the actual seal is shown side by side with each impression.

probably a triangular flag fixed on a square/rectangular plint with a pot base depicted below rhino on a seal from Kalibangan resembles Shahdad standard from bronze age iran

 

[masterchief_mirza]

with inscriptions on them, these resemble Ashokan pillar traditions and post ashokan pillar traditions well into medieval periods. One object on the top right has a finial which were usually depcted as pillars of worship in buddhist carvings and paintings and they were erected inside temples or outside temples as dvaja.

This idle conjecture of yours requires explaining and evidence. Otherwise it is idle conjecture, which I will assume you have elucidated to serve your now well known agenda of malevolently blending IVC traditions with later gangetic traditions.

Please explain why you have chosen to declare the precursor pillar style as "ashokan" style when the IVC pillars are - even if I assume your conjecture that these pillars are somehow linked with one another - predating the ashokan ones.

Surely, the ashokan pillars are the copy and they should as such be termed as "IVC style pillars"?

 

[W.11]

This idle conjecture of yours requires explaining and evidence. Otherwise it is idle conjecture, which I will assume you have elucidated to serve your now well known agenda of malevolently blending IVC traditions with later gangetic traditions.

Please explain why you have chosen to declare the precursor pillar style as "ashokan" style when the IVC pillars are - even if I assume your conjecture that these pillars are somehow linked with one another - predating the ashokan ones.

Surely, the ashokan pillars are the copy and they should as such be termed as "IVC style pillars"?

thats not an idle conjecture, thats based on sound evidences

regards

 

[El Sidd]

Translation: Treasure, East, 3 days travel

thats not an idle conjecture, thats based on sound evidences

regards

care to explain how you broke the code?

in egypt, they come from 12000kms away to tell something written by villagers 12km away.

 

[W.11]

Translation: Treasure, East, 3 days travel



care to explain how you broke the code?

in egypt, they come from 12000kms away to tell something written by villagers 12km away.

kindly read my post on dvaja or dhvaja

regards

Please explain why you have chosen to declare the precursor pillar style as "ashokan" style when the IVC pillars are - even if I assume your conjecture that these pillars are somehow linked with one another - predating the ashokan ones.

Surely, the ashokan pillars are the copy and they should as such be termed as "IVC style pillars"?

Pillars were not unique to IVC, there are found through out the ancient world, the obelisk of ancient egypt, the greeks had their own pillars, the mesopotamians also had their pillars, even the native americans have totems.

regards

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Pillars were not unique to IVC, there are found through out the ancient world, the obelisk of ancient egypt, the greeks had their own pillars, the mesopotamians also had their pillars, even the native americans have totems.

Indeed. I'm no archaeologist yet I had made a similar assumption. Hence, my criticism of your original post seeking to dilute the relevance of the magnificent IVC pillars by flippantly mentioning their "link" to mauryan pillars. You may as well have arbitrarily compared them to Egyptian, Mesoamerican or Celtic pillars.

If anything should be concluded here, it's plausible that ashokan pillars copied the idea from IVC pillars. That is all that needs to be said if one is mentioning the mauryans or any later empires that pervaded this territory.

I would have simply stated the findings pertaining to the IVC pillars themselves and not blurred the lines between east and west so needlessly. At best, such a policy creates confusion. At worst, it facilitates the expropriation of Pakistani and IVC heritage in an eastward direction.

 

[W.11]

At worst, it facilitates the expropriation of Pakistani and IVC heritage in an eastward direction.

I think you are trying to misinterprete my posts, no where im claiming ''eastward direction of any migration'' at all you are trying to bring this notion time and time again in every thread regarding IVC, that would be oxymoronic since IVC purportedly died after 1900 BC, but the continuum of the traditions in the region from egypt to south asia. IVC does represent the many ideals/values will are visible in later historic traditions in south asia, but as i have already discussed before there were parallel cultures which existed along with IVC, so it shouldn't be seen in isolation alone

regards

 

[crankthatskunk]

thats not an idle conjecture, thats based on sound evidences

regards

If not conjecture, definitely twist. Twisted to fulfil certain purpose or agenda is even worse than conjecture.
A valid objection was raised. Why would it be compared to Ashoka period, when it was in fact a far later period than Indus Valley Civilisation!!

That is known as intellectual dishonesty my friend.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I think you are trying to misinterprete my posts, no where im claiming ''eastward direction of any migration'' at all you are trying to bring this notion time and time again in every thread regarding IVC, that would be oxymoronic since IVC purportedly died after 1900 BC, but the continuum of the traditions in the region from egypt to south asia. IVC does represent the many ideals/values will are visible in later historic traditions in south asia, but as i have already discussed before there were parallel cultures which existed along with IVC, so it shouldn't be seen in isolation alone

regards

That wasn't my criticism at all. Now you're putting words into my mouth.

I did not say that you said there was an eastward migration of people or ideas. In fact, if you read carefully, I spoke of an eastward misappropriation of IVC heritage. This criticism arises because of your original decision to blur a post regarding IVC artefacts with arbitrary mention of Ashokan artefacts.

My criticism is that you are blurring the ownership of the IVC treasures by suggesting some artistic continuity between Ashoka and IVC. Now if you feel that is the case, by all means, present your evidence. My point is that - if such contiguity exists, it is probable that the IVC influenced the mauryans, and THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD MAKE CLEAR if you are truly neutral on the subject.

It seems to me though that you prefer to regard the IVC as a linearly progressing direct precursor to everything gangetic that came after it. You are rewriting DNA, cultural and archaeological evidence to imply that the modern nation of India arose from the IVC. This is a falsehood. The IVC was distinct genetically and culturally. Mauryans may well have appropriated IVC culture, but that is what it should be termed as - an appropriation (or an influence by the IVC on the gangetics) and NOT some "natural evolution of IVC into the gangatic tribes".

 

[W.11]

If not conjecture, definitely twist. Twisted to fulfil certain purpose or agenda is even worse than conjecture.
A valid objection was raised. Why would it be compared to Ashoka period, when it was in fact a far later period than Indus Valley Civilisation!!

That is known as intellectual dishonesty my friend.

you dont know what are you talking about, ashokan pillar are compared not ashoka or his time period, the ashokan pillars are probably much older tradition than ashoka himself as stated in his very own edicts which claims that pillars existed before his reign.

regards

 

[Naofumi]

The IVC was distinct genetically and culturally.

IVC was made up of ASI (Ancestral South Indian) and AASI (Ancient Ancestral South Indian) migrations with AASI being estimated to be 2-50%. I think AASI was more restricted as today it's true proxies are found only in Andaman.

Subcontinent had three major migrations :-
1st wave : From Africa (70000 - 50000 years ago) - This is called AASI.
2nd wave: From Iran (12000 - 6000 years ago) - This is called ASI.
3rd wave : From Central Asia (4000 -3500 years ago) - This is called ANI.

 

[W.11]

IVC was made up of ASI (Ancestral South Indian) and AASI (Ancient Ancestral South Indian) migrations with AASI being estimated to be 2-50%. I think AASI was more restricted as today it's true proxies are found only in Andaman.
View attachment 638965
Subcontinent had three major migrations :-
1st wave : From Africa (70000 - 50000 years ago) - This is called AASI.
2nd wave: From Iran (12000 - 6000 years ago) - This is called ASI.
3rd wave : From Central Asia (4000 -3500 years ago) - This is called ANI.

please dont bing genetics into history section.

the notion of ASI and AASI has been debunked since J haplogroup (so called iranian farmer genes) has been found absent as well. comparing andamanese genes with indians is laughable, since andaman gene has no corellation with indian genes for instance R group or H group, the andamanese also speak austroasiatic languages completely unrelated to indian subcontinent.

regards

 

[masterchief_mirza]

IVC was made up of ASI (Ancestral South Indian) and AASI (Ancient Ancestral South Indian) migrations with AASI being estimated to be 2-50%. I think AASI was more restricted as today it's true proxies are found only in Andaman.
View attachment 638965
Subcontinent had three major migrations :-
1st wave : From Africa (70000 - 50000 years ago) - This is called AASI.
2nd wave: From Iran (12000 - 6000 years ago) - This is called ASI.
3rd wave : From Central Asia (4000 -3500 years ago) - This is called ANI.

Regardless of the proportion of AASI, the IVC was distinct from the tribes in coterminous Hindustan during the historical epoch in question. The cultures were different. AASI may also have been introduced to the IVC by westward migration of people from Indian tribes into the IVC.

I am of the opinion that the IVC was the centre of subcontinental civilisation and probably influenced tribes to the east.

The Aryan invasion complicated the timeline.

 

[Naofumi]

please dont bing genetics into history section.

the notion of ASI and AASI has been debunked since J haplogroup (so called iranian farmer genes) has been found absent as well. comparing andamanese genes with indians is laughable, since andaman gene has no corellation with indian genes for instance R group or H group, the andamanese also speak austroasiatic languages completely unrelated to indian subcontinent.

regards

Dude, you come with so many revisionist theories, why don't you publish actual papers and turn the tables in the academia?

I am of the opinion that the IVC was the centre of subcontinental civilisation and probably influenced tribes to the east.

Given the evidence, it seems true.

 

[W.11]

The IVC was distinct genetically and culturally. Mauryans may well have appropriated IVC culture, but that is what it should be termed as - an appropriation (or an influence by the IVC on the gangetics) and NOT some "natural evolution of IVC into the gangatic tribes".

how was IVC distinct genetically and culturally? secondly why do you think that ''mauryans appropriated IVC'' when there is infact a 1000+ years gap between the two.

regards

Dude, you come with so many revisionist theories, why don't you publish actual papers and turn the tables in the academia?

thats not my theory thats rakhigarhi DNA findings. try to get educated about the area you are trying to be expert in.

regards