The Indus Valley civilisation may be even older than initially thought

a reply to: SLAYER69

Check your source again.

The article's author very clearly misreads the paper they're citing.

Here is the original paper

Quoting from the paper:

The rise of the post-Neolithic Bronze Age Harappan civilization 5.7–3.3 ka BP (ca. 2500 to 1900 year BC; all ages henceforth mentioned are in cal year BP) spread along the Indus Valley of Pakistan through the plains of NW India, including into the state of Gujarat and up to the Arabian Sea and its decline has remained an enigma in archaeological investigation

(in other words, the Harappan civilization comes AFTER the Stone Age ends)

...and...

Isotope and archaeological data suggest that the pre-Harappans started inhabiting this area along the mighty Ghaggar-Hakra rivers fed by intensified monsoon from 9 to 7 ka BP

No civilization, but earlier cultural groups during the Stone Age, 7,000 BC to 5,000 BC.

I think the writer just looked at the title and the first date and didn't actually read it. I usually go to first sources because of mistakes like this.

What I like about this civilization is that for thousands of years there were no signs/artifacts of war, or kings.

They managed stay out of conflicts and occupations for millennia unlike their contemporaries.


The symbol of the Swastika which stands for well-being originates from there -

originally posted by: nOraKat
What I like about this civilization is that for thousands of years there were no signs/artifacts of war, or kings.

There were literally no enemies to fight, the Mesopotamians were too far away and the few small groups who were closer had more to gain by trade than war

originally posted by: nOraKat
The symbol of the Swastika which stands for well-being originates from there -

Nope, there are examples of swastikas dating from 10000bce in caves in Turkey iirc, the symbol was pretty universal and it originally represented the sun...

a reply to: SLAYER69

This is very, very dubious. I am not a professional archaeologist, or I would state outright that it is a lie.

You, I notice, have no equivalent reservations, despite the fact that you know no more about archaeology than I do.

All archaeological claims emanating from India (or any South Asian country) and suggesting a prior Indian (or South Asian) claim for the emergence of civilization, the origin of ancient technological advances, the roots of language, new species of animals, etc., must be scrutinized with extreme care and caution. The ‘science’ emanating from these countries is untrustworthy because it is contaminated with politics.

Nationalist academics in these countries have been making false claims about Indian/South Asian primacy for this and that ever since the eighteenth century. At times they have been helped along by ambitious European Indologists like the infamous Anton Alois Führer.

These people are not scientists. They are nationalists, and many of them are fellow-travellers of Hindu hate groups.

I am South Asian. I have seen at first hand the damage Western gullibility does in parts of the world where the scientific establishment is weak or has been suborned by political elements. Shame on you, that you burst on to the internet with claims like this without first doing the proper homework. You are an imposter pretending to the eminence of a genuine archaeologist.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Yes it would and it is interesting to see how some here are attacking the very possibility (And evidence) that they are real with gusto that show's they have some kind of vested interest

Yes, I have a vested interest.

I am, as I said, South Asian. So I have a vested interest in not allowing South Asian racists, religious extremists and nationalist bigots — the type who persecute their ethnic and relgious rivals, burn down places of worship and chop the worshippers to pieces, suborn politicians in ostensibly democratic societies and ensure that outdated laws enshrining bigotry and discrimination remain on the statute-books in our countries — gain spurious academic support for their platforms. I don’t wish to see more people killed and persecuted, more lies spread, and civilization recede further from my country and its neighbours.

I am also a historian of these cultures and countries, so I have a vested interest in the truth. And this thread is propagating a huge lie.

And you, with your purblind Western ignorance, your antiestablishment prejudice and your infinite gullibility, are giving aid and comfort to villains and monsters on the opposite side of the world.

Sadly, the terms and conditions of this site forbid me to tell you exactly what I think of you.

a reply to: Astyanax

A pretty spot on assessment of the situation. I'm not as familiar with the archaeology of where you call home but this redating of IVC reminds me a lot of when similar fallacious claims were made regarding Dwarka back in '01 or '02. I'll have to check and see if any of the same Indian officials have their names associated with the recent IVC and older Dwarka claims.

a reply to: peter vlar

This guy
en.wikipedia.org...

Was responsible for the announcement of a lost city found in the gulf of Cambray, which later turned out to be a piece of wood and a jaw-bone and corrupt wishful thinking.
He was minister in charge of marine tourism at the time, can we say "cha ching"

Here is a news article, from an Indian newspaper, pay attention to the highlighted dates. This is an unbiased source...
source

Prominent members of the archaeological community have since debunked the Ministry's claim. While not disputing the possible existence of underwater structures in the Gulf of Khambat, they argue that the evidence found so far is far too flimsy to support the grand claims that are being made. Their contention is that the government should hand over the excavation work to qualified marine archaeologists. It is a well established that civilisation began around 3500 B.C. in the Sumer valley (now in southern Iraq), and around 2500 B.C. in the Indian subcontinent with the Indus Valley civilisation. In archaeological methodology, the records generated from fieldwork have primacy in establishing the value of an excavation and the conclusions that are drawn. "It is highly unorthodox to go public so soon after a discovery and without first presenting the findings to one's peers," Jaya Menon, a lecturer in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University, Baroda, told Frontline. "I don't see how claims were made without the involvement of marine archaeologists."

Also, read the rest of the article, it makes it clear the problems with politics in Indian archaeology

originally posted by: MardukYou seem to have been researching from nonsense pseudo history websites
take a look at National Geographic
genographic.nationalgeographic.com...
It has the benefit of at least being based on facts rather than assumption

I feel that it may be appropriate to remind folks like you (who cite Wikipedia as infallible, absolute fact and always argue against new archaeological theories) that even though lying means not telling the truth, there is also lying through omission. Same goes for facts--you can assume that most things NatGeo puts out are facts, but are they putting out all of the facts and really providing the whole, accurate picture?

Oh, folks like me is it, who stand in the way of new archaeological theories, this is rich coming from you, who's posted in this forum about what, twice since you joined this website, I recall the glory you covered yourself in when you couldn't identify a fish trap for a decade
Listen up buttercup
I stand in the way of archaeological fraud and way out fringe theories based on little fact and loads of assumption. I stand in the way of authors who lie to the gullible for profit and governments that insert political needs into the past to glorify their own present. NatGeo is not lying to you, your brain is doing that, you think being anti establishment is cool, I get that, but when it comes to archaeology, you're just another fringer, twisting the truth to suit your own ends. Archaeology is always separate from the establishment in most countries, in India it isn't and that is why its corrupt. The fact that you know practically nothing about anything ever discussed in this forum, does not make you look clever, it just makes you look uninformed and gullible...

So before you go throwing slurs at "folks like me", make sure you know what folks like me are actually here for...
And before you go slagging off NatGeo, you should probably educate yourself a little as to exactly what it is that they are currently saying and check out the evidence its based on, the fact that you're actually questioning it clearly shows that you either don't understand it, don't know about it, or you just don't care. and that is a classic case of wilful Ignorance...



Btw, Wikipedia is a good source, because it links to its sources and is accessible to everyone. if you are incapable of following the links to its sources, then that's your research issue, not mine.

If, true and confirmed this would push our understanding of just how old the Indus Valley civilization truly is.

a reply to: SLAYER69
Ah Slayer has used the (If) word, this means that he is not assuming the article is right! Now we know and can deduce from his depth of work and dedication, that he may be open to theorize but rarely if at all have I seen him make claims. In my opinion, what slayer has to offer to ATS is much valued. So let us respect and value that, hold back your war horses everyone and lets enjoy the ride. Thanks for this information, I will take it with a pinch of salt and wait for more info to reveal itself. Time will tell they say!

Attention Please

The topic is "The Indus Valley civilisation may be even older than initially thought", not each other or opinions about each other. Please stay on topic and knock off the bickering.

Do not reply to this message.

Thanks

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: MardukYou seem to have been researching from nonsense pseudo history websites
take a look at National Geographic
genographic.nationalgeographic.com...
It has the benefit of at least being based on facts rather than assumption

I feel that it may be appropriate to remind folks like you (who cite Wikipedia as infallible, absolute fact and always argue against new archaeological theories) that even though lying means not telling the truth, there is also lying through omission. Same goes for facts--you can assume that most things NatGeo puts out are facts, but are they putting out all of the facts and really providing the whole, accurate picture?

The article, as I keep pointing out, links to a paper that supposedly shows this.

BUT when you read the paper (click the link for the original paper) it says the pre-Harappan cultural groups date 50 8000 BC - which is perfectly consistent with what we know.

The Harappans are a Bronze Age people, 6,000 years later.

Addendum:

The stone age groups are cultures. They are not civilizations.

(no cities, very low Stone Age technology (pottery, some herding))

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
If the existence of off-shore cities is confirmed, it would indicate a date for them back into the last ice age, would it not? I mean the ocean levels were much lower during the ice age.

I guess you've probably read Graham Hancock's "Underworld" which again was completely made up from whole cloth. The man lies for profit, you can't trust him. The BBC called him an intellectual fraudster and they had proof.

I have, but you will be happy to hear that I no longer read Hancock. I got a good look at his character in the last book of his that I read, the one concerning his quest for the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia. The local priests were right when they told him he was a bad man.

originally posted by: Byrd
Addendum:

The stone age groups are cultures. They are not civilizations.

(no cities, very low Stone Age technology (pottery, some herding))

Hey Byrd,

Was watching a BBC4 documentary on Pacific North West tribes the other day and they stated that one of the tribes (can't remember which but seemed near Vancouver) figured out that smoking fish meant they could keep food stores, which in turn meant they didn't have to spend all their time hunter gathering - in effect, they were saying this was beginning of their civilisation. Could not therefore the same argument be made about Stone Age groups that figured out pottery, etc?

It seemed to make sense at the time but i have to admit now i see it written down on the screen it seems a bit thin!

People who are so perfectly confident in their knowledge are what sours this forum. Very quick to dismiss other people with their infallible knowledge.