Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Big Bad Voodoo

Out of India theory

85 posts in this topic

Harappan Civilization (because first city which was discovered was Harappa) or Indus Valley Civilization was a Bronze Age civilization from 3300 to 1700 BC (when most ofcities were abandoned) but we know that some sites can be pushed to ( Bhirrana ) 7380 BC and that some sites were populated till 1300 BC. It was one of the largest civilizations with Jiroft, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Peru, China. Now, we often hear how Aryan invasion is myth by sceptics. Now we know why. Its old theory from 1953 proposed by Mortimer Wheeler. Now this is crucial. As evidence he used 37 skeletons found in Mohenjo Daro. Imagine that. Some suggest that they have had over 5 million population. I always thought that beside thier script and language big mystery is why IVC fall. Was it because social turmoil? Drought? Can population decline be reason? Could it be that people just left IVC and inhabitat central asia and Anatolia then Europe. Floods perhaps? We know that circa 1900 BC number of sites in India increased from 218 to 853. So if they went east who say that they didnt left west and north too earlier?

Harappans built their cities from bricks, they have had multi storied houses, drainage systems. Their were great craftsman in metallurgy. They work with copper, bronze, lead and Tin. Tin mines can be only found in Balkan, south England and Afghanistan. They are famous because of seals and undeciphered Indus script. And their unknown language. People now often link it witj Dravidian and Elamo Dravidiaan language. They were alos famous because their urban planing,water system and sanitation system, standar ratio of brick size, cremation of their dead and burial urns with ashes of theor ancestors.

What I found interesting is that more than 500 Harappan sites have been discovered along the dried up river beds of the Ghaggar-Hakra River and its tributaries, in contrast to only about 100 along the Indus and its tributaries.

Rakhigarhi (150 km from New Delhi) is largest Harappan site known in India and second largest in the subcontinent, after Mohenjodaro (there we found cubes for games see picture) in Pakistan. Ofcourse there are Harappa, Lothal (On seal found there we can notice that they have had string instrument) , Dholavira, and Kalibangan.

So on one hand we have enormously big civilization with architecture and unknown language and on another hand enormosuly big civilization with language and without architecture.

They said that Harappans didnt have rulers and they all were equal. I doubt that but nevertheless. In Mohenjo Daro we can see big temple. So Im sure priests who were probably astronomers, doctors and so on have had better position in society.

I also wonder could we here on UM try to solve Indus script. It would be fun. Atleast that we try. We know that Egyptian hieroglyphs were peace of cake, literally. Obviously they have had wide range of symbols ,400-600 symbols, but typical Indus inscription have four or five symbols. Very short. Hard to find any context. Some seals wear swastika sign. There are similarities between the Proto-Elamite and the Indus script. But there are others similarites with Indus script such as script from Rapa Nui.

There are many artifacts found in IVC sites such as dancing girl. On many seals we dont know which animal that seal represent. Such as unicorns, half zebra half bull and so on.

I already post crossed legged sitting seal from Mohenjo Daro aka Pashupati. Some thinks that it represent Shiva. To me, I think that four faced gods in India, Slavic lands, Mesopotamia represent God which rules over animals. We know that people who work in wood in India wears mask behind their head because Tiger wont attack you from your front. We now know that Brahma and slavic Perun have four faces. So one more connection.

One more thing. Most sites around Ghaggar Hakra river are still not dated. Only few which say that they are 1200 BC. But who knows maybe they are older then that. Scientists found that isotopes of Ghagar Hakra dont come from Himalayan glaciers but from rain. So it seems that area was rainy. I wonder did they fall about as cultures in Green Sahara in 6th to 4th century?

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there archaeological evidence for the migration of the Harappans into the areas that later attested IE cultures?

The two most popular theories, the Kurgan and Anatolian, are largely established on finding archaeologically-evidenced migrations that coincide with IE areas. For example, the Kurgan hypothesis is based on expansions of culture evidenced through material remains like pottery types, weaponry, and of course the use of Kurgans for burial; the Anatolian hypothesis meanwhile is linked with the migration of farmers and associated agricultural objects and plants into Europe through the Balkans.

So is there anything like these migrations attested for Harappans? perhaps distinctive Harappan pottery types in Iran or Mesopotamia, or evidence for rice cultivation in Central Asia?

Kurgan is based on burial. Tulums.

I think there is. Four faced god.

But I think bricks might be exported from IVC to Mesopotamia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Jay will answer this. Since he does not subscribe to fringe and currently all these theories are fringe. Lol....fringe lunacy is very systemic in the mainstream i guess.Or probably mainstream opinions before getting the mainstream badge were also fringe.

Actually, no I will answer this. Somewhat. If I fail to repeat myself at your leisure or explain to your personal level of saitsfaction, forgive me. If you're that interested in my response to these questions, which has been posted numerous times on this forum, you are more than welcome to use the Search function. If you are unclear how it works, I'm sure harte will be happy to tutor you.

I do believe in the Kurgan hypothesis. Or rather, I understand the arguments from which it is made and agree with the findings of those who postulate it. I don't necessarily /believe/ it, as belief requires faith and I don't think that's called for in a rational study.

I actually agree with you: there is precious little hard evidence to be found, and as that is the case, a great deal of theory in the matter is speculation. And the speculation has to be taken lighly in direct proportion to the evidence found for it. However, I suspect the historical speculation is a great deal more informed than you are aware. You may want to look into some texts on the PIE history, culture and language -- Fortson's Indo-European Langauge and Culture: An Introduction is (as it implies) a good introduction to the subject that discusses the evidence, the speculation and the process of theorization currently going on in the field. From what I have read in the field, the people doing serious work are the first to state how theoretical it is, and how subject to correction it is.

It is generally the internet "fringe lunacy" reported (to use a generous term) by people like the L that claim some manner of superiority or correctness.

And your insistence on one field -- history -- over another field shows a plutot jejeune insistence on the breakdown of individual studies that I think you'll find does not really occur in advanced studies. You may also want to take some time to learn about historiography, if you're that convinced history and historians are always correct. (This may well help you to learn the difference between an archeaologist and a historian, since no historian -- by definition -- would be speculating about pre-literate, prehistoric cultures like the PIE ones.)

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Burnt city dice-Jiroft-see next posts

2.Mohenjo daro dice

14wsu4l.jpg

23778060.jpg

Edited by the L
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

Cool story Jay. It would be correct you from that you answer on posts which you kindly ignored.

But you know how they say, ignorance is bliss.

By ignoring facts you will not preserve your utopia.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mittani came in Mesopotamia about same time when Kurgan hypothesis said Aryan came in India.

If they came in India, where are evidence?

I will quote wiki here: Thus while the linguistic community stands firm with the Kurgan hypothesis archaeological community tends to be more agnostic.

Edited by the L
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is streched but still...Maybe some members will help me here.

Sumerians:

It is a fabulously wealthy place full of gold, silver, lapis lazuli and other precious materials, as well as the artisans to craft them.

It is remote and difficult to reach.

It is home to the goddess Inana, who transfers her allegiance from Aratta to Uruk.

It is conquered by Enmerkar of Uruk.

Sumerians 3rd millenium BC spoke abot Aratti people from land called Aratta. Herodotus called Parthians Artaioi. Jirofta civilization was perfectly inter ancient geography.In the west, the road leads to future Elam and later Mesopotamia. In the east, the other path leads to Baluchistan and the Indus Valley in the east. North-east, we joined the road which goes into Sistan (Sokhteh Shahr-i), the Hindu Kush (Mundigak) and Bactria (Shortughaï), not forgetting the vicinity of the southern coast of the Persian Gulf. So Jiroft might have been Aratti. In Konar Sandal there are two citadels. They also used bricks. And have had inscriptions. Some say its proto elamite. And there are people who link Elamite and Indus script.

Sumerians also wrote:

Shulgi and Ninlil's barge: "Aratta, full-laden with treasures"

Temple Hymns: Aratta is "respected"

The Kesh Temple Hymn: Aratta is"important"

Mahabharata also mentioned Aratta.

http://ivmp.wordpres...t-civilization/

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47RK_wAaNvU

(Thanks cormac for intorducing Jiroft to me)

In my next post I will TOTALY debunk Aryan invasion/migration in India. And provide interesting explaination for Indus script which sadly dont have nothing with OIT but I found it AMAZING.

Edited by the L
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure what this point you're trying to make using Tocharian is. Maybe you would be kind enough to summarize or repeat this argument, as above it appears to be a statement confirming they existed.

If that's it, then, yeah. They existed. I do not disagree. But I don't see how the mere existence of one social group somehow justifies the Out of India theory.

Actually, the L, before we go on, can you tell me where you're from? This is beginning to have the stink of "my people secretly invented everything useful, ever" trope that regularly crops up on this forum. Or at least, used to. As in "the Irish invented ham", "medicine was discovered by the Belgians", or "basset hounds created writing, fiction and paper*". And India has more than its fair share of this**. If it's going to be some exercise in national chauvanism rather than an actual discussion where logic is a system and truth is a goal, than I'm going to beg off. If this is what this is/is devolving into, I can recommend all the linguistic texts in the world, and it won't change your mind, so I won't bother. (And I'm not saying that if you are Indian, then you can't have a rational discussion, but like I said, I've been down this road once too often to really feel the need to do so again.)

--Jaylemurph

*This is true, though.

**Which is not to say India is not diverse, fascinating place with a rich (actual) history. But I want to skip over the "Hindu gods had nukes 85,000 years ago" fol-de-rol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure what this point you're trying to make using Tocharian is. Maybe you would be kind enough to summarize or repeat this argument, as above it appears to be a statement confirming they existed.

If that's it, then, yeah. They existed. I do not disagree. But I don't see how the mere existence of one social group somehow justifies the Out of India theory.

Actually, the L, before we go on, can you tell me where you're from? This is beginning to have the stink of "my people secretly invented everything useful, ever" trope that regularly crops up on this forum. Or at least, used to. As in "the Irish invented ham", "medicine was discovered by the Belgians", or "basset hounds created writing, fiction and paper*". And India has more than its fair share of this**. If it's going to be some exercise in national chauvanism rather than an actual discussion where logic is a system and truth is a goal, than I'm going to beg off. If this is what this is/is devolving into, I can recommend all the linguistic texts in the world, and it won't change your mind, so I won't bother. (And I'm not saying that if you are Indian, then you can't have a rational discussion, but like I said, I've been down this road once too often to really feel the need to do so again.)

--Jaylemurph

*This is true, though.

**Which is not to say India is not diverse, fascinating place with a rich (actual) history. But I want to skip over the "Hindu gods had nukes 85,000 years ago" fol-de-rol.

Thisonly indicate that you didnt read what I wrote in this thread. In post 3 I said where I from. In post 9 (among others) I presented why Tocharians are important.

Also if you want to know more about me here it is

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=241515

Now before we go on, can you please tell me where are you orginally from? Your origins? Parents, Granddads...

Perhaps, Ukraine or Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone knows why IVC fall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thisonly indicate that you didnt read what I wrote in this thread. In post 3 I said where I from. In post 9 (among others) I presented why Tocharians are important.

To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure what your point was with the Tocharians.

Were you focusing on the fact that they were spread so far East, or that they're the only Eastern Centum branch?

Neither of these ideas seem to favor a particular urheimat. The Eastward spread isn't particularly special--Iranic tribes managed to get all the way to Mongolia, for example (ignoring here the Indic branch as it's the basis of the argument). For the Centum, I think Swede earlier quoted a fine explanation. Under the usual assumption of an early West-East split, It simply requires that the Tocharians branched off Westward with the larger Centum group, then split off and headed East while the rest continued West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the usual assumption of an early West-East split, It simply requires that the Tocharians branched off Westward with the larger Centum group, then split off and headed East while the rest continued West.

Centum explaination provided by Swede is Kurgan theory explaination.

Can you explain upper statement, please develop what you think. I dont understand probably because language barrier (mine).

Tocharians proove us that linguistic center of gravity isnt in Central Asia and Europe. It switched foward east.

You must add to that Prakrit language as syster IE language .

Also as map in post 9 indicates could it be that from Central Asia they spread west and east and that way they evolve similar as those in europe, while core of IE language (satem) is maintained in Iran and India.(Thats my suggestions)

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what wiki said:

Only one branch of Indo-European, Indo-Aryan, is found in India, whereas the Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian, and Greek branches of Indo-European are all found in Central-Eastern Europe.However, the existence of the Tocharian language family in Western China would shift the center of gravity eastward. Some scholars argue that the various language families in Central and Eastern Europe evolved fairly recently, which implies that there was less diversity in the western side of the Indo-European language family during the 2nd millennium BCE at a time contemporaneous with Vedic Sanskrit...

Furthermore,

If Shrikant Talageri,Thomas Oberlies and Kenneth Roy Norman are right then it realy change picture of all.

And people who support kurgan theory invented new explaination.

Multiple migration/invasion in India from South Russia. :blink:

And we very well know that there is NONE evidence that we have had ONE migration into India, before Persians and Greeks.

On another hand there are evidence of out of India theory. Historical records.

We have genetic proof. we have "recent" example of gypsies.

We have archaeological records of their homes...Proto IVC...So...

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay btw many things originate from India. Such as zero, chess, and plastic surgery. Sushruta and Charak medical books from 6 th century BC is testemony to that. Their work was translated trough Arabs all the way to Europe. So Branca family of Sicily and Gaspare Tagliacozzi from Bologna were familiar with Plastic surgery from India (Sushruta book). People like Joseph Constantine Carpue study surgery for 20 years in Indiaand he finally in 1815 done his surgery. Ayurveda doctors have their own college in India. There is college in London too.

This is what wiki say about Sushruta

The Sushruta Samhita contains 184 chapters and description of 1120 illnesses, 700 medicinal plants, 64 preparations from mineral sources and 57 preparations based on animal sources.[1] The text discusses surgical techniques of making incisions, probing, extraction of foreign bodies, alkali and thermal cauterization, tooth extraction, excisions, and trocars for draining abscess draining hydrocele and ascitic fluid, the removal of the prostate gland, urethral stricture dilatation, vesiculolithotomy, hernia surgery, caesarian section, management of haemorrhoids, fistulae, laparotomy and management of intestinal obstruction, perforated intestines, and accidental perforation of the abdomen with protrusion of omentum and the principles of fracture management, viz., traction, manipulation, appositions and stabilization including some measures of rehabilitation and fitting of prosthetics. It enumerates six types of dislocations, twelve varieties of fractures, and classification of the bones and their reaction to the injuries, and gives a classification of eye diseases including cataract surgery.

I think that few examples what I presented here are more then enough to conclude that they were highly sophisticated civilization before USA and UK or England existed. Or Russia.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone who know about Zoroastrianism knows that fire play key role in their beliefs . Also read what wiki said about it:

Zoroastrianism was founded by the Prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) in ancient Iran. Exactly when he lived is debated,[by whom?] as estimates range from 1700 BCE[34] to 500 BCE.[35] The precise date of the founding of Zoroastrianism is uncertain. An approximate date of 1500–1200 BCE has been established through archaeological evidence and linguistic comparisons with the Hindu text, the Rig Veda. However there is no way of knowing exactly when Zoroaster lived, as he lived in what, to his people, were prehistoric times.[36]

Zoroaster was born in either Northeast Iran or Southwest Afghanistan. He was born into a Bronze Age culture with a polytheistic religion, which included animal sacrifice[37] and the ritual use of intoxicants. This religion was quite similar to the early forms of Hinduism in India. The name Zoroaster is a Greek rendering of the name Zarathustra. He is known as Zarathusti in Persian and Zaratosht in Gujarati. Zoroaster's birth and early life are little documented. What is known is recorded in the Gathas—the core of the Avesta, which contains hymns thought to be composed by Zoroaster himself. Born into the Spitama clan, he worked as a priest. He had a wife, three sons, and three daughters. Zoroaster rejected the religion of the Bronze Age Iranians, with their many gods and oppressive class structure, in which the Karvis and Karapans (princes and priests) controlled the ordinary people. He also opposed animal sacrifices and the use of the hallucinogenic Haoma plant (possibly a species of ephedra) in rituals, but held the rooster as a "symbol of light"[38] and associated the c*** with "good against evil"[39] because of his heraldic actions.

Did Zarathustra originate from India? Everyone who wants I can upload Rooster Bronze age statues from Afghanistan. Vedic script mention „yajnas“ fire sacrifices and „vedish“ –fire altars. Same as in Zoroastrianism. Braj Basi Lal, archaeologists found Vedish at Kalibangan which dates from 3rd millenium BC. We also find fire altars in many cities in IVC such as Harappa.

There is none evidence of Aryan invasion/migration yet we used it explaination of Indo Aryan language in India. Aryan came with horses and iron. Iron was not find in Indus Valley yet some Kurgan theorist proposed idea that Aryans came on horses and iron weapon. And they link word „ayas“ from Vedic script to iron. But Ayas means bronze and copper as many scholars proposed. Yajur and Atharva Vedas spoke about diifferent colors of ayas. Also at Surkotada we found horse remains dated to cca 2000 BC.

Did Aryans caused colapse of IVC? No. Probably now shadow river Saraswati. There are over 70 % of IVC sites around dried up river. It was Max Mueller s 1853 invention ( word Arya ) as part of Aryan race theory. On Sanskirt it means righteous.

People often say that Aryan bring IE language. Now if that was peaceful migration then how come that their language overwhelmed IVC language. If you came as refugee and seek for help,shelter, place to live and bread you dont act like conquerer. You cant have migration with results of conquering. And if Prakrit languages are not syster then that means we have had multiple migration/invasion in India. Yet we dont see any evidence for that. None Vedic text mention migration into India. Puranas said about migrations of people out of India.

Edited by the L
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I realy now feel like al Biruni. :rolleyes:

Thats a sign I must rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay here is something to cheer you up

Well I'm convinced. India is the origin of everything - , including Christianity, view from 10:00 minutes onwards.

[media=]

[/media]

Jericho...LOL

...Well, business is business.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Aryans didnt. And I concluded that Sarasvati dried out and 70% of IVC was without water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Centum explaination provided by Swede is Kurgan theory explaination.

Can you explain upper statement, please develop what you think. I dont understand probably because language barrier (mine).

Tocharians proove us that linguistic center of gravity isnt in Central Asia and Europe. It switched foward east.

You must add to that Prakrit language as syster IE language .

Also as map in post 9 indicates could it be that from Central Asia they spread west and east and that way they evolve similar as those in europe, while core of IE language (satem) is maintained in Iran and India.(Thats my suggestions)

The idea isn't specific to the Kurgan hypothesis--it fits with Anatolian and OIT as well. Basically the idea is that IE languages are the result of multiple waves of migration. So one wave is at a time when PIE is Centum. This group migrates out from the homeland and continues to develop and eventually splits into subgroups that later become Germanic, Celtic, Italic, and Tocharian. Meanwhile in the home region the language develops into a Satem form, and later groups migrate out.

Under the Kurgan or Anatolian ideas, the Centum migration is a westward one, but the Tocharians then double back and head Eastward down into China, while the other branches continue further into Europe, and then Satem branches migrate mainly Eastward. Under OIT, Centum migrates to the North/Northwest into Central Asia, where the Tocharians split off and head Eastward into China, while the rest of the Centum group migrates further West and eventually into Europe.

So basically the Tocharians' Centum affinity can easily be explained in either model, and thus they don't support one hypothesis over the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.Tocharians proove us that linguistic center of gravity isnt in Central Asia and Europe. It switched foward east.

You must add to that Prakrit language as syster IE language .

I'm not sure what a linguistic "centre of gravity" even is, or how it could be used to explain language change or the movement of a people who speak a language. It certainly is not a technique used by linguists. (Although I am a hair away from just giving up on this thread as one that has nothing to do with or learn from actual linguistics. Fantasists are only ever satisfied with fantasy.)

Most people who speak English don't live in England, but that doesn't mean it didn't develop in England and isn't related to Germanic languages. By your argument, then, English must be related to Native American languages. And I'm sure with a lengthy internet search you can find three or four Uto-Aztecan words that sound vaguely like English words, and then conveniently forget that words transfer to proximal languages.

Also as map in post 9 indicates could it be that from Central Asia they spread west and east and that way they evolve similar as those in europe, while core of IE language (satem) is maintained in Iran and India. (Thats my suggestions)

That you identify Satem languages as a "core" indicates -- as I have pointed out before -- you do not understand the fundamental relationships between languages posited in modern linguistics. I've pointed out at least one text you can get a hold of to learn more. Your grasp of English is well in advance of what you'd need to read it.

Let me ask you, frankly: do you post your material merely to have people tell you how brilliant you are for cutting and pasting interent articles here, or do you want to actually learn more about language? If it's the former, I have nothing to add. I value my time sufficiently not to talk to somone who won't listen. If it's the latter, I urge you to take some time to learn the basics of how languages are formed, and how languages change before you decide for yourself a theory has no merit.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you know, who you are actually talking about.

Koenraad Elst, may be a writer and orientalist, he is however also a right wing nationalist, very close to the Vlaams Belang (very right wing party in the Flanders, known for their xenophobia and ethnocentrism.) Seems he has a special hatred of Islam, as his views on Islam are markedly in line with the neoconservative think-tank "Middle East Forum", to which he has contributed.

Irrespective of his orientations to whatever ideology he follows, his views and contributions to the OIT vs AIT/AMT(Aryan Migration Theory) are very pertinent. If you ask Indians irrespective of nationalism the AMT is viewed as an attempt by the then prevalent western imperialist to enforce race based divides and alienate the Indian populus from their own country.The more recent Kurrugan hypothesis is also viewed as a biased theory.

Also his positions against Islam may be a trend which is now viewed in more favourable light in many western countries by many intellectuals who were previously catering to a more politically correct view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, no I will answer this. Somewhat. If I fail to repeat myself at your leisure or explain to your personal level of saitsfaction, forgive me. If you're that interested in my response to these questions, which has been posted numerous times on this forum, you are more than welcome to use the Search function. If you are unclear how it works, I'm sure harte will be happy to tutor you.

I do believe in the Kurgan hypothesis. Or rather, I understand the arguments from which it is made and agree with the findings of those who postulate it. I don't necessarily /believe/ it, as belief requires faith and I don't think that's called for in a rational study.

I actually agree with you: there is precious little hard evidence to be found, and as that is the case, a great deal of theory in the matter is speculation. And the speculation has to be taken lighly in direct proportion to the evidence found for it. However, I suspect the historical speculation is a great deal more informed than you are aware. You may want to look into some texts on the PIE history, culture and language -- Fortson's Indo-European Langauge and Culture: An Introduction is (as it implies) a good introduction to the subject that discusses the evidence, the speculation and the process of theorization currently going on in the field. From what I have read in the field, the people doing serious work are the first to state how theoretical it is, and how subject to correction it is.

It is generally the internet "fringe lunacy" reported (to use a generous term) by people like the L that claim some manner of superiority or correctness.

And your insistence on one field -- history -- over another field shows a plutot jejeune insistence on the breakdown of individual studies that I think you'll find does not really occur in advanced studies. You may also want to take some time to learn about historiography, if you're that convinced history and historians are always correct. (This may well help you to learn the difference between an archeaologist and a historian, since no historian -- by definition -- would be speculating about pre-literate, prehistoric cultures like the PIE ones.)

--Jaylemurph

I like your reply to my speculation on your response and i appreciate that it was made in a very mature manner. Though i will turn down your offer of being tutored by Harte, i am always open for a non-emotional discussion with anyone.

I understand your perspective on the mainstream approach to this subject and the amount of rationalization and deduction involved in the exercise before approving a proposed hypothesis for eg- Kurrugan Hypotheisis, but i would like to point out modestly that all the subsequent rationalisation and deduction and opinion building happens only once an initial platform or direction is decided.My major objection is the direction chosen for the hypothesis and subsequent blanketing and ridiculing of the alternatives which maybe more plausible and equally logical.

It is entirely possible that if the mainstream had spent equal amount of time and effort in gathering support for the OIT instead of the current alternative they would by now have a more robust Urheimat Theory then one being currently heralded by them.

Since a lot of personal opinions are involved in a subject like history (whether backed by physical evidence or based on academic opinion and consensus from limited dominant circles) hence it gets very difficult to accept any historical hypothesis as unbiased. Also fund and asset allocation towards a particular cause make all the difference in how much exposure and acceptance a Hypothesis can gather conversely ridicule and blanketing can often kill a hypothesis before it buds.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone knows why IVC fall?

Can look at Mahabharata for some explanations.

1.For starters the mahabharata was a great war fought between two warring sections the 'Pandus' and the 'Kurrus'. The Kurrus lost the battle ultimately and were banished from their lands. The name 'Kurru' does it strike a bell? ('Kurrugan' would literally mean 'the soldiers of Kurru' in Sanskrit)

2.Large scale banishment of a defeated faction can be a reasonable explanation of what we observe in the IVC ruins. The 'Pandus' though victorious couldn't sustain the damages of this war and ultimately the entire civilization collapsed as entire kingdoms were destroyed or it's people killed.

3.Mahabharata is a war that was fought under a strict code of conduct where the battlefield (kurukshetra) was pre-decided and the battles were only fought from Dawn to Dusk after which the dead were claimed by each side and the last rights/creamations were performed. This sort of warfare can explain why there are no sign of battle or war in the IVC ruins since the battles never entered the residences of the people fighting the war.

4.The fall from glory of the IVC and the approximate time of the Mahbharata according to archeoastronomy somewhat coincide.

5.Also an interesting fact is that in the War the king of Gandhar (modern day Afghanistan) was an ally of the Pandus and hence the defeated Kurrus might have been forced to take a northern path towards central asia or towards Russia during their migration/banishment.

6.The recent rediscovery of the Saraswati river delta and numerous archaeological finds on the extinct river banks holds a candle to the credibility of Indian Mythology.(Saraswati is often mentioned in the RigVeda as a mighty river and it was long thought to be a fairytale until recent satellite images confirmed that it did exist historically and started dying out around 4000 B.C.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.