The Indus Valley civilisation may be even older than initially thought

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought they meant 8000bc at first, but actually it says 8000 years, or 6000 bc.

Yup and its still nonsense, here is what was happening in the real world at that time
en.wikipedia.org...

Mehrgarh is now seen as a precursor to the Indus Valley Civilization, displaying the whole sequence from earliest settlement and the start of agriculture, to the mature Harappan Civilisation.

Mehrgarh was aceramic (hadn't discovered pottery) and Neolithic (No metal at all)

If that's the qualifier, let me introduce you to some remains in England dating back to the ice age, so we can then claim England as the oldest civilisation... Same standard, same bs result

I get the argument you are making. And I'm not really invested in civilization being much older than thought, per this discussion. Outside of this particular thread, we should keep an open mind about that yet subject any claims to heavy analysis, which I'm sure most of you would agree with. I don't really have a strong education historically beyond maybe the Egyptian civ, with a passing understanding of Sumer and the Indus Valley civilizations. So it's difficult for me to evaluate such claims rapidly.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Ok then, my point here, if I have one at all, is that the precursor to the Harappan civilisation is very well understood and you have to ignore its entire existence to make a claim for older. Which isn't just bad science, its dishonest and in most cases we've seen from this region, a result of nationalism.

originally posted by: Marduk
errr, complete bs or hoax, the 8000 BCE date is laughable, ridiculously out of step with the archaeological facts

The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilisation (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) mainly in the northwestern regions of South Asia, extending from what today is northeast Afghanistan to Pakistan and northwest India

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, the claim for sunken cities was originally made by the Indian minister responsible for marine tourism, Murli Manohar Joshi, in the gulf of Cambray/Khambat and of course turned out to be completely spurious

Really, come on now, once again this has been hoaxed by Hindu nationalism, which always wants to be first, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, even considering this as factual is a complete farce
This is just another government sponsored nationalistic baloney sausage, delivered to you by a government, of which, Several ministers are accused of corruption and nearly a quarter of the 543 elected members of parliament had been charged with crimes, including murder,

Did you even bother to read the linked material? To discover that the actual source is a Nature published paper, and not some piece " hoaxed by Hindu nationalism".

The antiquity and decline of the Bronze Age Harappan civilization in the Indus-Ghaggar-Hakra river valleys is an enigma in archaeology. Weakening of the monsoon after ~5 ka BP (and droughts throughout the Asia) is a strong contender for the Harappan collapse, although controversy exists about the synchroneity of climate change and collapse of civilization. One reason for this controversy is lack of a continuous record of cultural levels and palaeomonsoon change in close proximity. We report a high resolution oxygen isotope (δ18O) record of animal teeth-bone phosphates from an archaeological trench itself at Bhirrana, NW India, preserving all cultural levels of this civilization. Bhirrana was part of a high concentration of settlements along the dried up mythical Vedic river valley ‘Saraswati’, an extension of Ghaggar river in the Thar desert. 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. The monsoon monotonically declined after 7 ka yet the settlements continued to survive from early to mature Harappan time. Our study suggests that other cause like change in subsistence strategy by shifting crop patterns rather than climate change was responsible for Harappan collapse.

Oxygen isotope in archaeological bioapatites from India: Implications to climate change and decline of Bronze Age Harappan civilization

Then there is this

Bhirrana or Birhana is a small village located in Fatehabad District, in the Indian state of Haryana.[1] According to a December 2014 report by the Archaeological Survey of India, Bhirrana is the oldest Indus Valley Civilization site, dating back to 7570-6200 BCE.

Birhana

a reply to: punkinworks10
Did I even bother ?
Why start with an insult, Did you want an angry response ?
You've linked me to a village that was pre Harappan, which became Harappan thousands of years later...

I linked to another village in my last post, did you read that, Neolithic and aceramic is not evidence of a civilisation,
I have no idea why you are time travelling back to an earlier post..

Also, your link also connects to the Archaeological Survey of India, which mentions the corruption I was talking about
thanks for proving my point...
Or aren't you aware that its the same organisation that claimed a sunken city in the gulf of Khambat, based on a piece of wood and some dredged up broken pottery. That'll be nationalism right there.

I also love that they are using the term pre harappan in one sentence and then go on about the antiquity of the Harappan culture in the next. Or didn't you notice that either, pre harappan, that's nothing to do with the Harappan culture then. Because as I said earlier, if that's the new standard for evidence then I'd like to announce the discovery of Cheddar Man proves that England had the oldest civilisation 9000 years ago.

Also the claim that Shifting crop patterns rather than climate change is utter utter bs. Its well known that the Harappan culture dried up shortly after the Sarasvati river did.
Also, for your information, the same organisation has faked evidence before, so you claiming they have some evidence that only they have looked at is meaningless...The nature article you linked to is the same report from the OP. No outside corroboration

You apparently know next to nothing about the politics of Indias archaeological claims the last 20 years, you might want to look into it..
Start here badarchaeology.blogspot.co.uk...
It mirrors this new claim in pretty much all the details
or in their own words
Hindu Magazine


If you actually bothered to read the report you linked to
you would have seen the constant reference to Gregory Possehls work, which they use as a justification to make the older claim. But Possehl never said that, he actually was talking about rock formations and sediments which were actually the same age or not the same age. He didn't have enough evidence to make a determination but Sarkars group seem to be deliberately misreading that as "Sediments prove an older date"

a reply to: Marduk
Marduk,
Sometimes you make no sense what so ever, for being an well educated person.
Here in Cal. we have a saying for when you're talking smack and it makes no sense, "You're talking out your neck",

If you actually bothered to read the report you linked to
you would have seen the constant reference to Gregory Possehls work, which they use as a justification to make the older claim. But Possehl never said that, he actually was talking about rock formations and sediments which were actually the same age or not the same age.

You're talking out your neck,



Possehl, G. L. The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective (Altamira Press Lanham: MD,, 2002).

Page 29 see table 2.2



Possehl clearly advocates for an older chronology, and that Mehrgarh does not represent the beginnings of the Indus valley Civ.

You apparently know next to nothing about the politics of Indias archaeological claims the last 20 years, you might want to look into it..
Start here badarchaeology.blogspot.co.uk...
It mirrors this new claim in pretty much all the details
or in their own words
Hindu Magazine

Again, you're talking out your neck,

No where in the paper in question is Hancock mentioned, nor is the Gulf of Cambay?? your links are irrelevant to this dicussion of Bhirrana.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Its not irrelevant, its the same organisation making the claim, the only thing you claiming irrelevancy means is that you are not going to look at the facts, like you do in so many of your other posts here. Your book link actually states the opposite of what you are claiming, he actually says of the table you think is relevant in the text that you clearly didn't read "This is not an archaeological reality". Oh did you miss that bit when you were cherry picking evidence to match a world view you arrived at before you'd even heard his name or seen that table. Pretty poor. And this has nothing to do with the actual dating which is based on sediments.

yup, you are totally clueless and in denial, this is like your claim that Santorini was Atlantis, made without evidence and a total lack of any understanding of the facts

But thanks again for yet another insult,

This is once again, a claim made that an ancient village is part of something that didn't exist for a few more thousand years, anyone in any country can make that claim, all countries have ancient villages, notably though, its only in India, where they are claiming its part of a civilisation which didn't even exist at that time. And if you can't see that, I pity you

Possehl clearly advocates for an older chronology, and that Mehrgarh does not represent the beginnings of the Indus valley Civ.

and why is that disqualified, because its in the same area
Its the same date
its the same people
its the same culture
I'll tell you why that is, its because it doesn't match the claims enough to be relevant to this latest bull, because it was excavated before they got a chance to make up bs for it too.

As for Hancock, I have made no claims about him in this at all, though if you like, I can link you to his claims for the area, which are laughable

Now I must bid you adieu, I'm off on holiday somewhere hot for a month and I can't operate a lap top in the Jacuzzi, so knock yourself out with a reply, I'll see if I can find it in mid November, but I want to leave you with this,
Do we date a civilisation from the existence of villages which weren't civilised, or do we date them to the actual first city which was.

a reply to: Marduk

I would like to interject some info here :

There were 2 large melt-water pules that occurred around the time of the Younger Dryas.

**One such event was between 14,600 years ago and 14,300 years- Were sea levels raised by 13.5m over 290 years.

**Then another event between 11,400 years ago and 11,100 years- Were sea levels again raised by 7.5m over 160 years.

^^ Those increases in such a short amount of time would be devastating to anyone living on coastal regions.


Food for thought.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Marduk
^^ Those increases in such a short amount of time would be devastating to anyone living on coastal regions.


Food for thought.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "devastating," if you consider 4.6 cm per year devastating.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Marduk
^^ Those increases in such a short amount of time would be devastating to anyone living on coastal regions.


Food for thought.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "devastating," if you consider 4.6 cm per year devastating.

Harte

20 years would equal a rise of 3ft.

That's huge. A 20ft rise today would wipe Manhattan off the map.

That's a lot of land in just that one location to disappear in a single lifetime. Not taking into account the rest of the world that would be lost to the sea.

Sea level rise if a big deal these days. We have scientist flipping out over a couple inches, and you are scoffing at feet in a single century like its no big deal! LOL

Wait, I thought the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

originally posted by: AshFan
Wait, I thought the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

Wrong forum.. Click Me its fun!

hehe

Let's have a look at the facts as posted by marduk

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: punkinworks10


As for Hancock, I have made no claims about him in this at all, though if you like, I can link you to his claims for the area, which are laughable

Oh but wait,

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: punkinworks10

Start here badarchaeology.blogspot.co.uk...
It mirrors this new claim in pretty much all the details
or in their own words
Hindu Magazine

So from the first page of YOUR link, Hindu Magazine

Then the article quotes Graham Hancock by name -- a well-known pseudoarchaeologist who claims that the Giza pyramids were patterned after the stars in Orion's belt and are many thousands of years older than currently believed. The link between him and this article immediately calls into question the whole story.

Your link and your reference.

And again what does the gulf of cambay have to do with a site in the uplands of the indus river?

and why is that disqualified, because its in the same area

Bhirrana is 500 miles from Khambat

Its the same date

9000 years ago is 9000 years ago, so anything 9000 years old in India is suspect then? Humans have been in this part of the subcontinent for more than a million years, and the microblade lithic tradition found in the area goes back 33k, again see Possehl 2002, so what is your point.
And 9000 years ago the same thing was happeneing in various place around the world, people were settling into sedentary agricultural lives, it was happening all through the old world, and in new world as well, so again whats your point, the site we are talking about has human occupations going back 9000 years.

its the same people

Who are the same people? the people involved in the research? The people who lived at the site? and they are the same as?

its the same culture

And what is the same culture? Bhirrana? same cultaure as what, Mehrghar? Well yes it is, and that has never been in question, nor disputed.
What is disputed is that Mehrgarh was the earliest, which it likely isn't, because when people show up there, they show up with a full suite of domesticated plants and animals.

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Marduk
^^ Those increases in such a short amount of time would be devastating to anyone living on coastal regions.


Food for thought.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "devastating," if you consider 4.6 cm per year devastating.

Harte

20 years would equal a rise of 3ft.

That's huge. A 20ft rise today would wipe Manhattan off the map.

That's a lot of land in just that one location to disappear in a single lifetime. Not taking into account the rest of the world that would be lost to the sea.

Sea level rise if a big deal these days. We have scientist flipping out over a couple inches, and you are scoffing at feet in a single century like its no big deal! LOL

Was New York City in existence during the Younger Dryas?

Was there an economy built on seaports during the Younger Dryas?

"Devastating" to some beach dwelling creatures perhaps. Not to any humans.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Marduk
^^ Those increases in such a short amount of time would be devastating to anyone living on coastal regions.


Food for thought.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "devastating," if you consider 4.6 cm per year devastating.

Harte

20 years would equal a rise of 3ft.

That's huge. A 20ft rise today would wipe Manhattan off the map.

That's a lot of land in just that one location to disappear in a single lifetime. Not taking into account the rest of the world that would be lost to the sea.

Sea level rise if a big deal these days. We have scientist flipping out over a couple inches, and you are scoffing at feet in a single century like its no big deal! LOL

Was New York City in existence during the Younger Dryas?

Was there an economy built on seaports during the Younger Dryas?

"Devastating" to some beach dwelling creatures perhaps. Not to any humans.

Harte

I really feel like your arguing for the sake of arguing.

I supplied factual data, yet you continue to debate it? Why?

Are you debating my data I supplied? Or the fact I used the word devastating?

That is my opinion, something you have NO control over. Rather then picking apart the words people choose to use, how about you supply factual data pertaining to the conversation. Because right now, it only appears that you are choosing to slander me and my choice of words. If that's the case, Ill follow with up with the moderators.

I really try to like you. But you make it very hard.

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Marduk
^^ Those increases in such a short amount of time would be devastating to anyone living on coastal regions.


Food for thought.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "devastating," if you consider 4.6 cm per year devastating.

Harte

20 years would equal a rise of 3ft.

That's huge. A 20ft rise today would wipe Manhattan off the map.

That's a lot of land in just that one location to disappear in a single lifetime. Not taking into account the rest of the world that would be lost to the sea.

Sea level rise if a big deal these days. We have scientist flipping out over a couple inches, and you are scoffing at feet in a single century like its no big deal! LOL

Was New York City in existence during the Younger Dryas?

Was there an economy built on seaports during the Younger Dryas?

"Devastating" to some beach dwelling creatures perhaps. Not to any humans.

Harte

I really feel like your arguing for the sake of arguing.

I supplied factual data, yet you continue to debate it? Why?

Are you debating my data I supplied? Or the fact I used the word devastating?

That is my opinion, something you have NO control over. Rather then picking apart the words people choose to use, how about you supply factual data pertaining to the conversation. Because right now, it only appears that you are choosing to slander me and my choice of words. If that's the case, Ill follow with up with the moderators.

I really try to like you. But you make it very hard.

You are the one arguing for the sake of arguing here.
I believe I stated that it depends on what you mean by "devastating."
Did I say it depends on what you mean by "sea level rise?"

Harte

I find it most curious that the Indian government has not dna tested all those bodies found laying around...I wonder why???

OK I'm joking, I know why....because there not Indian hahaha!

Analysis of these data demonstrated that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes. Collectively, all five datasets show a trend toward upper castes being more similar to Europeans, whereas lower castes are more similar to Asians.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: zinc12

I find it most curious that the Indian government has not dna tested all those bodies found laying around...I wonder why???

OK I'm joking, I know why....because there not Indian hahaha!

DNA does not preserve well in the indian climate, and samples for testing need to be collected in a very carefull fashion to avoid contamination.

Analysis of these data demonstrated that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes. Collectively, all five datasets show a trend toward upper castes being more similar to Europeans, whereas lower castes are more similar to Asians.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Thanks for posting that study it's interesting,but it's 15 years old, as fast as things are moving in genetics, it might as well be 100 years old.
Here is a newer paper and a discussion on it, that delve into this questions,its still three years old but lays it out very well,

A new paper on the topic of Indian population history has just appeared in the American Journal of Human Genetics. In previous work it was determined that Indians trace their ancestry to two major groups, Ancestral North Indians (ANI) (= West Eurasians of some kind), and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) (= distant relatives of Andaman Islanders, existing today only in admixed form). The new paper demonstrates that admixture between these two groups took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago.

So beginning about 4.2k years ago, that 4.2kya time window is very meaningful,

Ancestral North Indians (ANI) (= West Eurasians of some kind)

, and

Ancestral South Indians (ASI) (= distant relatives of Andaman Islanders, existing today only in admixed form)

started to mix it up a little.

But then the paper goes on;

The authors caution about this evidence of admixture:

It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.15, 16, 44 and 45

Dienekies' Blog;Major admixture in India took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago (Moorjani et al. 2013)

The rest of the discussion is very good, and when you think of it in terms of the archeology, then it raises a whole new set of questions.

Dienekes say a little more,

A second interesting finding of the paper is that admixture dates in Indo-European groups are later than in Dravidian groups. This is demonstrated quite clearly in the rolloff figure on the left. Moreover, it does not seem that the admixture times for Indo-Europeans coincide with the appearance of the Indo-Aryans, presumably during the 2nd millennium BC: they are much later. I believe that this is fairly convincing evidence that north India has been affected by subsequent population movements from central Asia of "Indo-Scythian"-related populations, for which there is ample historical evidence. So, the difference in dates might be explained by secondary (later) admixture with other West Eurasians after the arrival of Indo-Aryans.

It just dawned on me that this discussion fits exactly into the frame work of this thread, who were the early people who started on the path to eventually become Indus valley civilization.
The west eurasian ancestry of the indo-aryans the people who likely brought wheat to india, is older and different from the west eurasian ancestry of the indo-europeans(scythians) who thousands of years later brought the horse to india.
This raises another question, the cultural phases of the indus civ. found at the site in question are pretty continous from the Were those early farmers and herdsman , who settled this site 9000kya, the first indo-aryans?
If so, it gets complicated; A) there is a lithic tradtion that goes back 35k in the region, and parts of a cultural tradition that have links to the north asian neolithic, but a people that are west eurasian, but west eurasian that left before the domestication of the horse, but not before they learned how to domesticate cattle, sheep and goats, they already seem to have had that knowledge when they start out.

It is a fascinating subject

oops dbl post

a reply to: punkinworks10

Indian nationalism and particularly Tamil nationalism is the only reason why dna analysis of the Indus valley remains have not been published, you can be certain they conducted these tests but were disappointed with the results. DNA taken from the interior of the teeth would not show any contamination.

I am quite confident that they had the ability to competently extract dna and map it in 2001 so there is no reason to discredit the findings because they are not what we would like to see.

The study you show is not comparing high cast to lower caste and therefore is not comparable, also any study conducted by Indian university's we can be sure that they will twist data to support said nationalism.

Same reason why even though all of the royal Egyptian mummies have been successfully dna tested the government refuses to release the data publicly...Egyptian nationalism.

originally posted by: zinc12
a reply to: punkinworks10

Indian nationalism and particularly Tamil nationalism is the only reason why dna analysis of the Indus valley remains have not been published,

I find it highly ironic that you make a claim about Indian Nationalism being the reason for a lack of genetic data from remains found at IVC sites and even used a cute photo to illustrate your point. Except for the fact that the most extensively studied IVC sites are Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, the latter of which is the site where your photograph originates btw, and both of those sites are in Pakistan. Not India. So how exactly is Indian Nationalism getting in the way of the release of data from a site where Indian Archaeologists have zero access to either the sites or materials from those sites? I know that the above facts don't fit well with the narrative thriving inside your mind, but facts they are. Conversely a site from India, found in the mid 1960's called Rakhigarhi has done genetic testing and the testing was undertaken by members of a South Korean team and conducted in Seoul S. Korea. The Indian government, Indian archaeologists, Indian Nationalists... none of them had anything to do with any of the testing. The paper will be relearsed at a conference in the beginning of 2017. The hold up on publication was that in addition to the first 4 skeletons tested, 15 additional remains were located and additional testing was done.

you can be certain they conducted these tests but were disappointed with the results.

How can I be certain? DO you have evidence? Or is this nothing more than confirmation bias winking at us and pretending to be a fact? If you can't support the statement with facts then no, people can't be certain.

DNA taken from the interior of the teeth would not show any contamination.

I'm assuming from this statement that you've never been a party to an attempt to extract viable genetic material from human remains before. Please correct me if I am wrong. While the enamel on teeth makes them even more durable than bone, and yes, they are often one of the better places to extract material from, it is entirely false to imply or assert that there would be no possibility of contamination. It is seen all the time. Even people like Svante Paabo have to deal with contamination issues on a regular basis and his team will always try to extract material from dental pulp.

I am quite confident that they had the ability to competently extract dna and map it in 2001 so there is no reason to discredit the findings because they are not what we would like to see.

Likewise, I am quite confident that people making assertions of this nature should be able to support their positions. If not, then they should at least include qualifying statements because they are only spitting out opinions with zero evidence to support it aside from a gut feeling.

The study you show is not comparing high cast to lower caste and therefore is not comparable,

The comparison you demand isn't pertinent to the study in question. If you knew as much about the subject matter as you want others to believe you do, you would know that the lower end/cut off date of the study, I.E. 1900 BP, is when the Caste System began. A study that runs from 1900 BP to 4200 BP, entirely predating the caste system would consequently have nothing to do with it. What DOES make the study pertinent is that it demonstrates the levels of admixture between ANI and ASI as well as the preexisting genetics of each group and cross comparisons amongst a large number of individuals. It describes this process up to an in culmination of, the Caste System. So again, why exactly would a study predating the existence of the Caste System make any sort of comparison when the study was on a period of time that did not yet contain a Caste System?

also any study conducted by Indian university's we can be sure that they will twist data to support said nationalism.

Do you just assume that Indian Nationalism is at the heart of everything? Because if you looked at who authored papers you would find that a lot of these studies are funded by the National Geographic Society (not Indian) as well as run and staffed by distinguished professionals from Harvard and MIT. But lets not let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy right?

Same reason why even though all of the royal Egyptian mummies have been successfully dna tested the government refuses to release the data publicly...Egyptian nationalism.

Except that there are multiple papers published regarding Ancient Egyptian genetics that are available for public consumption. A 5 second google search brings up several.