Why is China called the longest continual civilization?

[xixi]

Actually, India and Pakistan both were created in 1947. Prior to that, it was the history of the British India. And prior to that, it consist of empires that do not necessarily lay claim the the whole India. All these empires see themselves as a legitimate empire by and in themselves, not as the empire of "India". India is a British creation.

Please be objective.

India had been unified at least twice in history before brits.

In the 3rd century BCE, most of South Asia was united into the Maurya Empire by Chandragupta Maurya and flourished under Ashoka the Great.[32] From the 3rd century CE, the Gupta dynasty oversaw the period referred to as ancient "India's Golden Age".[33][34] Empires in southern India included those of the Chalukyas, the Cholas and the Vijayanagara Empire. Science, technology, engineering, art, logic, language, literature, mathematics, astronomy, religion and philosophy flourished under the patronage of these kings.

Following Islamic invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 12th centuries, much of northern India came under the rule of the Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire. Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony.[35][36] Mughal emperors gradually expanded their empires to cover large parts of the subcontinent.

China or India are what the westerners called them. They called themselves something like Empire of Ming, Maurya Empire etc.

 

[scuthan]

Although today's indian-european language speakers in india might have some connection with early people. but hindu civiliztion is not a continuity of indus valley civilization.

same applys to arabs and ancient Egypts

 

[Joe Shearer]

The thread got derailed when some Indian claimed that Harappa belonged to India. They should have said 'south Asia' since the word 'India' denotes only the modern state of India. Hopefully it was an innocent mistake.

I agree, i had the exact same reaction when masterchief said harappa in India, something like "oh no here we go again". Think it can be agreed on that the Indus civilization is shared between modern North West Indians and Pakistanis, neither did India nor Pakistan exist back then.

as for the topic, i think the answer has already been stated, that China has had one continuous culture throughout this period whilst other potential competitors like Mesopotamia and Egypt had their culture change drastically after the advent of Islam

This is the fairest and most balanced view expressed so far, and it is unnecessary and misleading to go beyond it. both aspects are correct: the Indus Civilisation is a culture which is claimed by both north-west Indians and by present-day Pakistanis, neither of which political entities existed then, although there is some possibility of the culture of this civilisation having percolated into subsequent south Asian culture in various forms, including religious.

So how much is the Aryans relate to the modern Indians?

An inaccurate question. there was no animal called an Aryan. There were tribes which spoke Indo-Aryan, a branch of Indo-Iranian, itself a branch of Indo-European, finally descended, it is thought, from a root language terms Proto-Indo-European by linguists.

The tribals who moved across the passes, who spoke Indo-Aryan, that is to say, Sanskrit, were genetically merged into the general population; the population of south Asia is remarkably homogenous and it is apparent that there has been no genetic addition to it which has affected it in a dramatic way, or made any big difference, from Palaeolithic times onwards.

Also, how is Sanskrit compare to the language of modern India.

Regarding the relationship of Sanskrit to what has been described as the language of modern India, there is no one single language of modern India. Instead, there are sixteen languages listed on any currency note, and these represent the 'official', the recognised languages. Of these, four - Tamizh, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam - are Dravidian. Most of the others are derived from Sanskrit; their oldest forms resemble Sanskrit or Prakrit so closely that a knowledge of Sanskrit was a necessity for producing good literature in these languages. In a sentence, the relationship between Sanskrit and the Aryan group of languages in modern India is direct and organic.

The South Asian land mass has various civilizations and eventually come together with the creation of the British empire.

Thirdly, it is remarkably clumsy to say that the south Asian land mass had various civilisations which came together with the British Empire. There was no such civilisational divide such as has been described; there were cultural variations within the same civilisation, of the kind that Europe consists of various cultural variations within the same civlisation.

The biggest part of the empire is the nation of India.

Accurately, the biggest part of the empire became the nation of India.

As you point out, the current Indian culture has minimal connection with the Indus Valley civilization.

This was surely never under doubt.

Also, its doubtful whether the Aryan invaders brought a civilization that is regarded as continuous to the civilization of modern day India.

I am truly amazed to read this. It defies all historical facts.

Actually, India and Pakistan both were created in 1947. Prior to that, it was the history of the British India. And prior to that, it consist of empires that do not necessarily lay claim the the whole India. All these empires see themselves as a legitimate empire by and in themselves, not as the empire of "India". India is a British creation.

India, the political entity was a British creation. India, the name by which south Asia has been known since approximately 300 BC or a little before by Europeans, was a Greek creation. The history of India did not exist. The history of south Asia certainly did. Even independent empires that saw themselves as distinct from others were clearly cognizant of the cultural integrity of south Asia.

Although today's indian-european language speakers in india might have some connection with early people. but hindu civiliztion is not a continuity of indus valley civilization.

same applys to arabs and ancient Egypts

This has been discussed above. In any case, instead of being so cut and dried about it, it is sounder to state that links between later Indian/ south Asian civilisation and the Indus Valley civilisation have not been established satisfactorily as yet.

 

[faithfulguy]

"India, the political entity was a British creation. India, the name by which south Asia has been known since approximately 300 BC or a little before by Europeans, was a Greek creation. The history of India did not exist. The history of south Asia certainly did. Even independent empires that saw themselves as distinct from others were clearly cognizant of the cultural integrity of south Asia.
"

Joe..This is exactly what I have been trying to convey in this forum. Thanks for your comment. You are clearly more articulate than me. Also, you are by far the most sensible Indian and one of the most sensible person in this forum. If everyone debate the topic like you do instead of making personal attacks, the quality of the forum will shoot over the roofs and even expert will tune into this forum.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Chinese people are the direct descendants of the original creator of HuaXia civilizaion.

Although today's Northern/Southern Chinese might look somewhat different because they may have different mt-DNA, but the Y-DNA between Northerners and Southerners are practically identical.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

So how much is the Aryans relate to the modern Indians? Also, how is Sanskrit compare to the language of modern India. The South Asian land mass has various civilizations and eventually come together with the creation of the British empire. The biggest part of the empire is the nation of India. As you point out, the current Indian culture has minimal connection with the Indus Valley civilization. Also, its doubtful whether the Aryan invaders brought a civilization that is regarded as continuous to the civilization of modern day India.

Indians still share more affinity to the original Aryans than any European nations, except Eastern Europeans.

English/French/German, none of them are Aryan because they do carry little R1a1a, unlike Indian who carries a seizable portion of R1a1a.

 

[indushek]

India, the political entity was a British creation. India, the name by which south Asia has been known since approximately 300 BC or a little before by Europeans, was a Greek creation. The history of India did not exist. The history of south Asia certainly did. Even independent empires that saw themselves as distinct from others were clearly cognizant of the cultural integrity of south Asia.

I want to talk more about this bolded part, According to my limited knowledge the oldest name for India of which i mean the prehistoric one was Bharata khanda , assumed to be named after the emperor bharata or chakravartin bharata who united the Bharata khanda from Balochistan to kanyakumari etc etc. The word Indiski or whatever seems to be some corrupt form of hindu or sindhu or some other word.

If the above explanation is to be accepted then is the South Asian history not Bharat's ?? The division of countries was recent but for ages haven't we by which i mean Bharata's descendents should be the one claiming this history. OR do u think that the Aryan invasion was true and i being from Andhra a south Indian am different from Northern Indians and was defeated and occupied by them Aryans which as far as i know is the corrupt form of Arya meaning respected one even today in telugu. Kindly explain ur view.

 

[cross1993]

Because the Han ethnic group has been there since.

4200 years of history recorded in the Han ethnic group.
It is the written records, not the myths and legends.

Babylon, Egypt, Greece, India, they all disappeared aboriginal. But the Han ethnic group did not disappear.

 

[scuthan]

Because the Han ethnic group has been there since.

4200 years of history recorded in the Han ethnic group.
It is the written records, not the myths and legends.

Babylon, Egypt, Greece, India, they all disappeared aboriginal. But the Han ethnic group did not disappear.

1st,the people who created Greek civilization didn't disappear and their civilization is continuous throughout.

2nd, Chinese civilization is primarily a continuity of culture than genes.
4500 years ago, two ancient Sino-Tibetan language speaking tribes Huang and Yan created huaxia civilization, which is the direct origin of Chinese civilization. it doesn't necessarily means all chinese people are descendents of the two tribes.

 

[cross1993]

1st,the people who created Greek civilization didn't disappear and their civilization is continuous throughout.

2nd, Chinese civilization is primarily a continuity of culture than genes.
4500 years ago, two ancient Sino-Tibetan language speaking tribes Huang and Yan created huaxia civilization, which is the direct origin of Chinese civilization. it doesn't necessarily means all chinese people are descendents of the two tribes.

1st---Aboriginal disappeared in Greece. If you do not reference gene, Babylon is the longest continual civilization, not China.

2nd---Artifacts and written records can only prove the existence of the Xia Dynasty. It only proves that 4,200 years of history.
-----------------------------------

4500 years ago, two ancient Sino-Tibetan language speaking tribes Huang and Yan created huaxia civilization, which is the direct origin of Chinese civilization.-----------It does not prove artifacts. It can only be considered myths and legends, not history.
History is a serious issue. If the legend that has not been found artifacts, and it is only a myth, not history.

 

[Joe Shearer]

"India, the political entity was a British creation. India, the name by which south Asia has been known since approximately 300 BC or a little before by Europeans, was a Greek creation. The history of India did not exist. The history of south Asia certainly did. Even independent empires that saw themselves as distinct from others were clearly cognizant of the cultural integrity of south Asia.
"

Joe..This is exactly what I have been trying to convey in this forum. Thanks for your comment. You are clearly more articulate than me. Also, you are by far the most sensible Indian and one of the most sensible person in this forum. If everyone debate the topic like you do instead of making personal attacks, the quality of the forum will shoot over the roofs and even expert will tune into this forum.

Dear Sir,

I was deeply troubled, even pained to read about the personal attacks made on you. This is very sad to read, and I wish to apologise for such occurrences. Respect for others is inherent in Indian culture, and it is perhaps the anonymising effect of the Internet that can cause such discourtesy to others, particularly to fellow guests in a Pakistani-hosted forum; it simultaneously offends both the guests and the hosts. Once again, please accept sincere and humble apologies.

With sincere regards,

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am really glad that you asked me this question, for two reasons - three, in fact.

First, just a few minutes before, I read a painful and humiliating mail from an apparently Chinese contributor complaining about the bad manners of Indian contributors. It was very painful to read, and upset me considerably. So, having this to answer will have, I sincerely hope, a calming effect on me and my lacerated nerves.

Second, the question has great intrinsic interest. It is so rich with content.

Third, you were apparently on holiday and enjoying a drink when you wrote one of your recent posts. If the situation continues, we must be very happy that this forum distracts you from the charms of your holiday and from the charms of the vine and of the demi-god Bacchus ;-)

India, the political entity was a British creation. India, the name by which south Asia has been known since approximately 300 BC or a little before by Europeans, was a Greek creation. The history of India did not exist. The history of south Asia certainly did. Even independent empires that saw themselves as distinct from others were clearly cognizant of the cultural integrity of south Asia.

I want to talk more about this bolded part, According to my limited knowledge the oldest name for India of which i mean the prehistoric one was Bharata khanda , assumed to be named after the emperor bharata or chakravartin bharata who united the Bharata khanda from Balochistan to kanyakumari etc etc. The word Indiski or whatever seems to be some corrupt form of hindu or sindhu or some other word.

If the above explanation is to be accepted then is the South Asian history not Bharat's ?? The division of countries was recent but for ages haven't we by which i mean Bharata's descendents should be the one claiming this history. OR do u think that the Aryan invasion was true and i being from Andhra a south Indian am different from Northern Indians and was defeated and occupied by them Aryans which as far as i know is the corrupt form of Arya meaning respected one even today in telugu. Kindly explain ur view.

There are several parts to your question, itself a deep and involved one.

First, the easiest: the name by which we are known. A Chinese contributor has written with perfect accuracy and insight that our empires were not known as Chinese Empires or Indian Empires. Those were the terms used by others of us. For us, we thought of ourselves as the Ming or as the Maurya empire.

Very nicely put. Perfect, in fact. India itself is a name applied to south Asia by Europeans. It has as much value as Columbus thinking that the people he was interacting with were Indians from south Asia, when he went ashore in the west Indies (was it Hispaniola? I forget). India has misled all of us and caused a serious rumpus on another thread, when an otherwise very learned person named roadrunner kept painting himself into a corner with the use of the word India. If he had rephrased his argument without the use of the word India, he would prevailed logically and historically and with complete conviction.

So our first conclusion, which may be put away and not allowed to interfere with our further deliberations, is that India is merely the term for south Asia used by Europeans following the Greeks, and it indicated a political entity only twice, in the form of the British Empire and in the form of the successor state of democratic, republican India that is Bharat.

Which gives us an apt entry into consideration of what we called ourselves. There is no contradiction in fact between the story of the Aryans coming into India, and the universality of the term Bharata Varsha. You are an heir of the legacy of Bharata Varsha, just as much as a resident of Swat in northern Pakistan is, or my fellow-countrymen of Bangladesh are.

The people who came into the passes of the north-west were a mixed people, united only in their speaking that Indo-Aryan tongue which today we know as Rg Vedic Sanskrit. They found that there were others before them, the Rg Veda being full of their victories over the walled cities of these autocthones, whom they called Dasa and Dasyu, Pani and various other names. But they themselves passed on only the language that they spoke, Sanskrit, and left no trace of themselves genetically. The reason was that they were too few in number. The original inhabitants of the land were probably Dravidians speaking (strictly, Dravidian-Kol speaking), but genetically, even they were submerged in a sea of inhabitants whose genetic make-up had not changed since the Palaeolithic age. Neither the Aryan speakers nor their predecessors the Dravidian speakers made much impression on the masses who inhabited Bharata Varsha.

On the subject of subjugation of the country, as far as I can make out, this was a phenomenon confined to the Indus Plain, the Gangetic Plain and the Narmada Plain. The other cultural coparceners, the Brahmaputra Plain, the Godavari Plain and the Kaveri Plain, were not affected by this process of conquest. So there was not much question of the conquest of the Telugu people by the Indo-Aryan speaking tribes; it is in the highest degree unlikely that they got that far. It was later, under the Mauryas and the Guptas (to some extent) that the lands of the Telugus, counting the Kannadigas with them, were affected by northern conquest, and after that, honours were even.

This is my answer in brief. Please let me know if any point remains requiring further clarification, and I will be happy to oblige.

 

[indushek]

I am really glad that you asked me this question, for two reasons - three, in fact.

First, just a few minutes before, I read a painful and humiliating mail from an apparently Chinese contributor complaining about the bad manners of Indian contributors. It was very painful to read, and upset me considerably. So, having this to answer will have, I sincerely hope, a calming effect on me and my lacerated nerves.

Second, the question has great intrinsic interest. It is so rich with content.

Third, you were apparently on holiday and enjoying a drink when you wrote one of your recent posts. If the situation continues, we must be very happy that this forum distracts you from the charms of your holiday and from the charms of the vine and of the demi-god Bacchus ;-)




There are several parts to your question, itself a deep and involved one.

First, the easiest: the name by which we are known. A Chinese contributor has written with perfect accuracy and insight that our empires were not known as Chinese Empires or Indian Empires. Those were the terms used by others of us. For us, we thought of ourselves as the Ming or as the Maurya empire.

Very nicely put. Perfect, in fact. India itself is a name applied to south Asia by Europeans. It has as much value as Columbus thinking that the people he was interacting with were Indians from south Asia, when he went ashore in the west Indies (was it Hispaniola? I forget). India has misled all of us and caused a serious rumpus on another thread, when an otherwise very learned person named roadrunner kept painting himself into a corner with the use of the word India. If he had rephrased his argument without the use of the word India, he would prevailed logically and historically and with complete conviction.

So our first conclusion, which may be put away and not allowed to interfere with our further deliberations, is that India is merely the term for south Asia used by Europeans following the Greeks, and it indicated a political entity only twice, in the form of the British Empire and in the form of the successor state of democratic, republican India that is Bharat.

Which gives us an apt entry into consideration of what we called ourselves. There is no contradiction in fact between the story of the Aryans coming into India, and the universality of the term Bharata Varsha. You are an heir of the legacy of Bharata Varsha, just as much as a resident of Swat in northern Pakistan is, or my fellow-countrymen of Bangladesh are.

The people who came into the passes of the north-west were a mixed people, united only in their speaking that Indo-Aryan tongue which today we know as Rg Vedic Sanskrit. They found that there were others before them, the Rg Veda being full of their victories over the walled cities of these autocthones, whom they called Dasa and Dasyu, Pani and various other names. But they themselves passed on only the language that they spoke, Sanskrit, and left no trace of themselves genetically. The reason was that they were too few in number. The original inhabitants of the land were probably Dravidians speaking (strictly, Dravidian-Kol speaking), but genetically, even they were submerged in a sea of inhabitants whose genetic make-up had not changed since the Palaeolithic age. Neither the Aryan speakers nor their predecessors the Dravidian speakers made much impression on the masses who inhabited Bharata Varsha.

On the subject of subjugation of the country, as far as I can make out, this was a phenomenon confined to the Indus Plain, the Gangetic Plain and the Narmada Plain. The other cultural coparceners, the Brahmaputra Plain, the Godavari Plain and the Kaveri Plain, were not affected by this process of conquest. So there was not much question of the conquest of the Telugu people by the Indo-Aryan speaking tribes; it is in the highest degree unlikely that they got that far. It was later, under the Mauryas and the Guptas (to some extent) that the lands of the Telugus, counting the Kannadigas with them, were affected by northern conquest, and after that, honours were even.

This is my answer in brief. Please let me know if any point remains requiring further clarification, and I will be happy to oblige.

Damn why did u have to bring up the holiday part man that was yesterday and i posted this question today and i am still at work. I was enjoying myself from two days at a stretch for Sankranti I didn't even go to my hometown

So it means u do believe in the Aryan invasion theory then? i mean there are other views that there was no such movement of people from outside etc. I will not talk of Koenraad Elst as he seems to believe too much in Ancient Indian superiority , perhaps he read too much in to the Epics also what do u think on his theory, i think it is him right who talks of reverse of Aryan invasion as truth??

The bolded part i am unclear are u saying in addition to the Dravidian and Aryan races there were other inhabitants?? explain please. I thought Dravidian were from South only!!!

 

[最爱高古陶]

chinese civilization is latest amony those famous ancient civilizations. far later than egypt, and still much later than india. we call chinese civilization 5000years, actually it's 3500years,other 1500years are legend. while egypt civilization is6000- 7000 years,and that's not legend.
but most continiously? yes!

 

[Roybot]

Is this some new PSYOP started by Pakistan and Pakistanis? Trying to claim everything from Sanskrit to the oldest book in the world the Vedas? I mean i understand Pakistan has a bad brand image in the world these days and for sure Pakistanis should strive to improve that image, but it shouldn't be done by trying to steal India's image. Surely Islamic Republic of Pakistan has a lot of positive things to advertise and market itself

I am not even going to bother getting into the debate of whether contemporary India or Pakistan should have inherited the legacy of the erstwhile"Indian Sub Continent". Fact of the matter is, when in any media(all over the world) you see the picture/video of temple, or someone doing the yoga, or the word "om" written no one goes, "OMG what a fascinating country Pakistan is" instead they relate those images with India. However if they show a picture/video of a Mullah with henna dyed neck beard calling for the death of infidels the whole world will instantly relate it to Pakistan. Am not trying to rub it in guys, but thats how things are.

Its too little too late to claim the legacy of erstwhile India. If this was done in 60's or even 70's it might have worked, cause information or misinformation as some of you think it of as wasn't as wide spread. And as far as sharing the legacy is concerned, its upto Pakistanis to decide if they want to be seen as Middle-eastern, Afghan, Turkic invaders or the indigenous sons of soil. I and every other Indian i hope would be more than happy to share our legacy


Apologies for being off-topic fellas