Pakistan, the IVC, and a Land of continuous migration and mixing

[Joe Shearer]

I’d rather not, better for members to bring up misconceptions and let them be disproven by the rest of us. If I see something egregious, I’ll report it. But thanks for the heads up and offer.

That door is always open.

Some combing of the earlier exchanges is overdue to eliminate personal attacks and off-topic posts. and I am sure nobody will object to that garbage disposal.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is good to get under your skin though.

You mistake things rather radically. Only inaccuracy gets under my skin, nothing else. Deliberate falsification, for the sake of creating a minor sensation, is something that is rather boring.

 

[Musings]

That doesn't work. No part of the IVC came down to posterity. To no section of the sub-continent. There was a clean break, and the only link that today's places and people have with that is the genetic link of the present inhabitants of the sub-continent in the form of the genetic profiles known to geneticists as the ANI and ASI profiles.

Pakistan has a legitimate role to play as custodians of the archaeological legacy of that part of the IVC that lies within the nation-state of Pakistan, including the two marquee sites of Mohenjodaro and Harappa, and many more.

It needs to be remembered that the IVC sprawled over a very large area, in terms of the locations of its urban centres. So it is not strictly accurate to say that the IVC belongs to the land and soil, because much of the land and soil are actually not in Pakistan.

A case of lets agree to differ.
My opinion may differ from yours. My opinion is IVC today has its heart in what today is known as Pakistan. It belongs to the soil - the soil today known as Pakistan. You have a right to your opinion and il respectfully disagree.

 

[FuturePAF]

That door is always open.

Some combing of the earlier exchanges is overdue to eliminate personal attacks and off-topic posts. and I am sure nobody will object to that garbage disposal.

Agreed. Ad Hominem add nothing useful. Having said that, I do feel we have to let people speak and say what they believe, because this thread is about perspective and narrative as well facts. Acceptance goes both ways; accepting our Hindu ancestors in a respectful way but also the choice of our ancestors that chose to convert, which doesn’t negate their ancestry.

 

[AjayGhatak]

My take is the civilization belongs to the land and soil. That soil is today known as Pakistan. The heart of the IVC is Pakistani - sad that Pakistan isnt looking after and treasuring part of our history - investing and protecting......shame.

Civilization is always about people and only about people.

 

[Snake]

PLEASE don't convert this into a religious discussion.

It was converted into a religious discussion all the way on page 1!

I mean you have not kept the religion that came out of that civilization and settled for something from Middle east.

My discussion on this topic is not a harmful one and it is slightly related. I will leave it be should it turn inflammatory.

So, you actually believe there’s a man in the sky managing things for different religions—or just one? I see religion more as a cultural expression, deeply tied to the land and its history, created to suit specific times and circumstances in a particular region. It’s inherently local, shaped by the needs and experiences of close-knit human communities. Personally, I don’t believe in God or a sky magician as a fact, but I do see value in religion as a way to preserve and pass down cultural experiences and collective wisdom to future generations.

The idea of a "man in the sky" is a fallacy that can arise from ideas such as idol worship or the western idea that God created man in his image. Notice none of the Abrahamic religions have a physical depiction of God. If you prefer to have a local religion that's fair but considering we are humans the idea for "religious supremacy" wouldn't be far behind. That's why I prefer a common God, or creator, for all humans - this way we can fight over the remaining things like who can claim to be descendants of IVC.

 

[AjayGhatak]

Something that needs to be emphasised. It is increasingly becoming clear that the migrants speaking Indo-Aryan encountered only the survivors of the IVC, living in debased urban and semi-urban surroundings.

Most of British drama presented as archaeology is laughable; the arrow of suspicion points to the Aryans indeed! Sir John has much to answer for.

The timelines do not fully match.

Indo-Aryans when they arrived --they arrived in small bunches over a long time unlike popular conception of massive invading army-- the IVC had been ruined for decades if not centuries.

Actually even before their arrival the inhabitants of the original sites were moving south east and north east from those sites. Those who went south mixed with local inhabitants (aka AASI) and formed ASI.

There is a reason why ASI had so less mixing of Indo-Aryans. Their ancestors left much earlier.

 

[AjayGhatak]

It was converted into a religious discussion all the way on page 1!

There is a difference in discussing nations, people and their religious choices AND outright discussing religion itself.

"Ireland had been Catholic and made Catholicism as its national identity and major religion of people." -- discussion is about ireland and its people.

"Scientology believes are basically a perversion of original teaching its founder, L Ron Hubbard. David Miscarige has squirrelled Scientology!" -- Religious discussion.

 

[Maira La]

Indo-Aryans when they arrived --they arrived in small bunches over a long time unlike popular conception of massive invading army-- the IVC had been ruined for decades if not centuries.

This is all speculation. Is there veritable proof that they arrived in 'small bunches', other than the fact that you wish this narrative is true?

The Indo-Europeans were absolutely brutal in Europe. There was a recent paper about how they wiped out ALL Neolithic male lineages in Iberia.

The Sintashta, ancestors of Indo-Aryans, invented chariots for warfare, so for sure they weren't a very peaceful bunch.

 

[Snake]

There is a difference in discussing nations, people and their religious choices AND outright discussing religion itself.

"Ireland had been Catholic and made Catholicism as its national identity and major religion of people." -- discussion is about ireland and its people.

"Scientology believes are basically a perversion of original teaching its founder, L Ron Hubbard. David Miscarige has squirrelled Scientology!" -- Religious discussion.

That's an arbitrary line between the two. A religious choice could be influenced by religion - so we either discuss both or neither.

 

[AjayGhatak]

That's an arbitrary line between the two. A religious choice could be influenced by religion - so we either discuss both or neither.

I will leave up to the mods to decide which one they want to keep and which one they want to disallow.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It was converted into a religious discussion all the way on page 1!

Point taken. I only regret that due to the weather and my personal infirmities it was not possible to attend to this thread continuously and from the outset.

We have to handle all points leading to religion and to religious belief with understanding, broad-minded accommodation of different belief systems, and courtesy in dealing with the views of others. This is a general observation, and definitely not intended for you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

A case of lets agree to differ.
My opinion may differ from yours. My opinion is IVC today has its heart in what today is known as Pakistan. It belongs to the soil - the soil today known as Pakistan. You have a right to your opinion and il respectfully disagree.

Fair, and I understand the strong emotions attached to this issue.

For myself, I have always sought, and will continue to pursue, the single-minded objective of reflecting the consensus in academic circles, OR, on a separate line of thought, trying to define and distinguish between the guardianship of archaeological and historical remains, structures and monuments. and their roots and legacy.

If I deviate from these two, that is immediately subject to correction from any member spotting the deviation.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The timelines do not fully match.

I thought that is what I said. To be very clear, yes, I agree, the timelines do not match. There is a possible overlap, considering that all these dates/time periods are hypothetical, of two centuries.

The possible earliest date of the incursion of steppe immigrants is commonly accepted to be 1500 BC. The IVC, on the other hand, flourished between 3300 BC and 1300 BC, or rather, its period of greatest development, judging by the condition of archaeological remains that have been studied, was between 2600 BC and 1700 BC.

So we have to consider the possibility that the period from 3300 BC to 2600 BC was a period of growth, that from 2600 BC to 1700 BC was the period of greatest and fullest development of civic architecture, and from 1700 BC to 1300 BC, it was a period of decline, and abandonment of the large urban masses for increasingly smaller and less organised, more haphazard civic existence, and even internal migration to apparently less organised surroundings.

There is little scope for the interaction of the IVC and the steppe migrants, although the possibility of violent encounters between wandering savages who had gone through a traumatic separation from their original group and city dwellers who do not seem to have had a system of waging wars of attrition internally within their civilisation or externally.

The violent references in the Rg Veda are difficult to locate; they might have referred to clashes and skirmishes down the entire passage of the two major river systems that they encountered, the Ganga-Yamuna Doab, and the Indus Valley, as well as their initial encounters, if any, from their point of entry near present-day Swat and thereafter within the flood plains of the Punjab.

We do know, genetically, that the male component of the mixed population that constitutes the ANI profile was largely marked by steppe migrant characters, while the female component seems to have been native and autochthonous. That may reflect the taking of brides and mates as war-booty by the more aggressive migrants; nothing is known for certain, and all we have are the references to violence within the Rg Veda and genetic clues.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is a reason why ASI had so less mixing of Indo-Aryans. Their ancestors left much earlier.

The other possible reason, without dismissing this out of hand, is that the Indo-Aryan speaking steppe migrants moved along the Ganga-Yamuna Doab, and began to explore their southern boundaries - the boundaries of Aryavarta, as they defined it - much later.

There is evidence (Gurakkal : Social Formations of Early South India) that the process of conversion from a tribal chieftain-dominated culture to a kingship supported by priests and accompanied by a new theogony took a long time, and in the deep South, Tamilakam, may have extended to the early centuries of the present millennium. This is a challenge to the earlier historiography, dominated by Nilakanta Sastri, that had a structured, almost stylised account of the development of the south in political terms, including references to the mysterious Kalburgis and to the Sangam Era.