India belonged to the Dravidians(until the aryans came along)

HARAPPA - INDUS VALLEY, 2800- 2300 BC: This period is considered the peak of Indus valley civilization – one of the three greatest civilizations at that time, the other two being the Egyptian and Mesopotamian. The proud inhabitants of this civilization were the Dravidians who are now thought to be the original native inhabitants of the great land of India.

What caused the decline of the Indus Valley civilisation?

More than the enviornmental factors, it is now believed that the main cause that led to the decline of the Indus valley civilization was the violent arrival of the Indo- Aryans.
It is now believed that before these Indo Aryans invaded India, they had settled in the present Afghanistan for many centuries, since the religious scriptures of the Indo- Aryans (Vedas) mentions many names of the rivers in Afghanistan

for the complete link

www.tamilnation.org...

Here is more evidence to support the same, this goes to show that even Hinduism is alien to India before the Aryan hordes invaded the Induus valley civilization

www.geocities.com...

Originally posted by arc_mar
What caused the decline of the Indus Valley civilisation?

More than the enviornmental factors, it is now believed that the main cause that led to the decline of the Indus valley civilization was the violent arrival of the Indo- Aryans.

Not true I'm afraid. There are differences between the Aryans and Harappans which suggest that the Aryans were not the people of the Indus Valley Civilization. There is however little evidence of violent conquest. The leading theory is that a shift in climate and possibly the change of a river's course as a result of a siesmic event caused the Harappans to migrate out to the gangetic plain.

en.wikipedia.org...

The crucial factor may have been the disappearance of substantial portions of the Ghaggar-Hakra river system. A tectonic event may have diverted the system's sources toward the Ganges Plain, though there is some uncertainty about the date of this event. Such a statement may seem dubious if one does not realize that the transition between the Indus and Gangetic plains amounts to a matter of inches, and is all but imperceptible. The region in which the river's waters formerly arose is known to be geologically active, and there is evidence of major tectonic events at the time the Indus civilization collapsed

There is climate change and a failure of a river system- a proveable phenomenon with the capability to destroy a civilization. There is however no proof of a violent invasion. The Aryans did come in, but where are the ruins of besieged and burnt cities? Where are the records of military victories and defeats? The invasion theory is pure speculation- it emerged before the Indus Valley Civ was even known of, and ther discovery of the civilization and its fall was seen as independent confirmation without any actual evidence of a war.


By the way, in the near future you can expect a visit from a pretty vehement Hindu nationlist who shall remain nameless. I've already been up one side and down the other of this "Aryan master race" bunk so I'm not gonna be a party to it. I'm offering an ecycolpedia entry to preempt the fight over two equally fallacious versions of history, and you all can take it or leave it.

hello Vagbond ,

thanks for posting an alernate view, but we gotto acknowledge the fact that an advanced civilization just doesnt go to dust like that or worse shift down south during the course of history


It is true that there is no archaeological evidence of the

movement of Indo-Aryan speaking people into the subcontinent, but

that is not an argument against such a movement. Many major

migrations that are historically documented have left no

particular traces in the historical record, such as:

-- The migration of Goths and Huns into Western Europe, destroying

the Roman Empire

-- The migration of Turkish speakers from the region of the Altai

mountains in Asia all the way to present-day Turkey.


It is not impossible for small bands of

invaders to establish dominance over large populations. The

Roman legions are known to have done that in Western Europe,

permanently changing the linguistic map of France and Spain from

Celtic to Italic. The Conquistadors are known to have done that

in South America, again changing the linguistic map to Italic from

Mayan/Aztec etc. These are very weighty historical precedents.

They do not establish that any invasion happened, but they do give

the lie to any argument that says that it could never have

happened.


plus there is genetic evidence to prove this


www.rediff.com...

Originally posted by arc_mar
hello Vagbond ,

thanks for posting an alernate view, but we gotto acknowledge the fact that an advanced civilization just doesnt go to dust like that or worse shift down south during the course of history

Of course they do. It's not like the Harappans just vanished either. You've got the Cemetary H culture and other related ones taking their place, and the Dravidians did continue to exist further South and East. But it's not uncommon for a great civilization to fade as a consequence of natural disaster. Thera spelled the end of the Minoans- their neighbors became the big boys of Greece from then on out. The Egyptians had their lean times and found themselves under foreign rule now and then too.

It is true that there is no archaeological evidence of the
movement of Indo-Aryan speaking people into the subcontinent, but
that is not an argument against such a movement.

But that's just it, there is evidence of their immigration. Their language shows up suddenly, there are small differences between them and the Harappans, etc. There just isn't evidence of armed conflict. Also we can see that the cities were not conquered but starved slowly as the climate shifted. We know what did kill them so we also know what didn't- war with invaders didn't.

So here is what probably happened. The Indus Civilization had to migrate because their river had diverted and their climate was becoming hostile. Without their support, the Aryan neighbors farther North could not survive (the Indus seem to have had an extensive trading network according to Wikipedia.) So as the Indus were leaving their neighbors followed them, apparently with relatively little violence since there is no evidence of sieges or other warfare.

Many major
migrations that are historically documented have left no
particular traces in the historical record, such as:

-- The migration of Goths and Huns into Western Europe, destroying

the Roman Empire

Not true, there was plenty of evidence. The battles were recorded, cities were burned, etc etc.

They do not establish that any invasion happened, but they do give the lie to any argument that says that it could never have happened. plus there is genetic evidence to prove this

Maybe your bedroom habits differ from mine, but where i come from genes are passed on by sex, not war.

I hate to be a jerk but there isn't that much archaelogical evidence I've been able to look up for a violent invasion. It looks like racially motivated revisionism between hindu nationalists and dravidians.

well Vagabond i hope this piece of "Archaeological Evidence " convinces you

clinching piece of evidence tilting in favour of an aryan invasion

www.geocities.com...

so Vagabond, you agree to my poins in my previous post and hence eh

Let me get back to you once I've independently confirmed the statements at the link you presented. No locations or bibliography seems to be given for the ash layers, etc, and some of the "evidence" isn't evidence of violent conquest at all- only evidence of a demographic shift.

Once I've done a little reading (may be friday afternoon) I can tell you if I agree or not. I'm no fan of Hinduism as represented by the few who I have spoken with, but I'm not going to accuse them of a genocide in Northern India until I've checked the facts.

Sure thing Vagabond. i am here waiting for your points

All the evidence that i have presented have locations and also
have the necessary bibliography


here you go

1. Archaeological Evidence
1.1 Thick Ash Layers
Thick ash layers occur in the upper strata of many Indus cities. At Nal the last phase of the Zhob-ware was burnt down so much so that the mound is known as the Sohr Damb, or the Red Mound, from the reddening due to fire. At Dabar Kot the upper 6 feet of the tell show 4 thick ash layers that indicate repeated destruction by conflagration and the RG V encrusted ware is associated with the last settlements of Harappa [ Piggott 215 ].
At the Rana Ghundai mound everywhere overlying the foundation level of the RG III c phase there are pockets of ash. Above the RG III c phase the pottery is markedly different from the preceding type, the RG IV phase pottery being painted with coarse bands. RG IV was again destroyed by fire, and the RG V phase is marked by another change in pottery. The RG V pottery is unpainted and contains patterns in relief [ Piggott p. 214 ].

1.2 Fractured Skulls
At Mohenjo-daro, Harappa and Chanhu-daro, skeletons/fragments of skeletons indicate violent massacres in the final stages of the cities' history. Huddled skeletons of persons murdered in the streets indicate that the mass dyings were not due to poisonings etc. but were violent.
-- [ Piggott p. 145 ]

1.3 Aryan Weaponry
Copper axe-adzes are intrusive ar Harappan sites ( Harappa, Shahi-tump and Chanhu-daro ) but are similar to those found at North Persian sites ( Hissar III, Shah Tepe, Turang Tepe ) and Akkadian sites ( Assur, Sialk B cemetary : here the specimens are probably as late as the 9th century BC ).
-- [ Piggott p.228 ]
Swords 1.5 foot long and strengthened at the mid-rib are non-Harappan and are found only in the later strata of the cities. These swords at Mohenjo-daro have a tang and rivet to hold the handle exactly as found in Palestine, where such implements are associated with the Hyksos 1800-1500 BC
-- [ Piggott p. 229 ]
Copper harpoons found in the indus Valley are similar to those found in Europe and elsewhere in Asia.
-- [ Piggott p. 237 ]

references

[ Piggott : Wheel ] = Piggott, S. `The Earliest Wheeled Transport', Ithaca 1983


[Piggott] = `Prehistoric India' by S. Piggott, Penguin Books Ltd. Middlesex UK, 1952 p.145

My mistake on the bibliography thing- I only gave the page an extremely passing glance at the time because I was not prepared to invest much time on an response the other day. (working 72 hours a week will do that to you).

At any rate I have to say that this is fairly interesting information, and that it would be very difficult endeavor for me to prove a negative in the face of evidence to the positive.
I have a bit of difficulty understanding the ambiguity over the fate of that area if that evidence is as presented in your source. Might you have any insight to offer as to how any serious scholarly debate has been perpetuated in the face of such finds?

I'll be doing a little reading on the subject for myself, but it is doubtful that I will have much rebuttal to post.
You get a WATS vote

en.wikipedia.org...

I've found a wealth of information on the debate in Wikipedia. Unfortunately I'm currently working 84 hours a week (and posting on ATS at the expense of sleep) so it may take me quite some time to go over all of really digest all of this and get back into the discussion.
In the mean time I'm posting the link so that you can entertain your curiousity and perhaps continue this discussion with me after I've had time to read and think.

There are certainly some interesting highlights to this wikipedia article if I've read it correctly.
Linguistics strongly suggests that Aryan language has European origins. Genetics however does not suggest a change of ethnic composition in the timeframe of the fall of the Indus Valley Civilization.
Furthermore, it can be argued on linguistic grounds that the Dravidian languages originated in Northen India (following the rule that the greatest diversity of branches in a language family will be found at the place of the family's origin)
Of course this isn't the whole picture, this is just a few bits and pieces I picked up from a quick perusing of the article in wikipedia.

So basically we have a new language group coming in and displacing an older one, but not a new race. (unless of course the Aryans were indigenous and originally Dravidian speakers who more or less spontaneously adopted the language of people they had been dealing with (Iranians) without being supplanted.

Anyway I'm just thinking out loud right now. I'm going to have to learn quite a bit before I really take a hard position on this. Once we really get this going and have something worth looking at, we ought to talk to Byrd about it. I never ceased to be amazed at how much she knows about stuff that doesn't exist- (anymore).