Indus Valley Civilization

[sayak83]

Sayak you misunderstand the historical method. The historical method is not the same as the scientific method, because it depends less on empiricism and more on testimony and interpretation. A lot of history depends on testimony, because there are things you can know only through testimony e.g. An event that took place, such as a battle, you would only know from the reports of people e.g. The Greco-Persian wars, because they lack significantly in empirical evidence, we only know from Herodotus's account and based on Herodotus's information we can date the event. Similarly, the history we know of India we know through testimony, and it is testimony coming from multiple sources e.g. The historicity of Krishna, Rama, Mahabharata etc is not doubted even in the Jain and Buddhist puranas and chronicles, though they offer counter-perspectives on them, they do not doubt that they are real historical people. In much the same in Britain they do not doubt the historicity of King Richard.

AMT falsifies 10,000 years of Indian history, that is the records kept by the Indian people which speaks of continuous urban civilisation going back 10,000 years or more. The fact is we do have empirical evidence to back it up as well. So it is not just history based on testimony, but it is empirically validated too.

You are mistaken in this. The status of persons in Ramayana etc. are considered the same as status of persons in Beowulf and the Illiad or the Romance or the three Kingdoms, the Aenid, or the Genesis and Exodus of the OT. Historians do not consider these kinds of narratives historically reliable anywhere in the world. Herodotus's writing is in a completely different genre, equivalent to Rajatarangini of Kashmir or the Spring and Autumn annals of China. These are considered more reliable, though even they are very selectively used for historical reconstruction.
In general modern historians are highly highly skeptical of all ancient texts, even of Herodotus etc. and very little of modern history is based on such a narrative approach as was the case in the early 1960-1970 and from which many school texts are still based on.
The texts like Herodotus, Illiad, Ramayana etc. are not considered primarily for telling historians what actually happened, but what people of that culture believed, what myths around which people centered their life upon etc. The actual facts of war are not reliable, but it is reliable regarding what Greeks believed about how the war went and how it affected their self-identity, culture and way of looking at the world.
If you look at a modern war (like the Iraq war) you see the same thing. The actual facts of war are not really important historically but what various factions believe it is and how that arranges how they respond. Same goes for economy etc.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Please stop paraphrasing what I said inaccurately. The IVC traded with many surrounding lands, including the BMAC. The argument is that the PIE vocabulary attests horse domestication, and there is scant evidence of horse domestication in the IVC. Your handful of ambiguous artifacts are nothing like what we would expect if the IVC were ancestral to the Aryan civilization. Andronovo nomads mingled with the BMAC and adopted their religious and cultural practices, according to what I've read. The spread of horse-drawn war chariots with spoked wheels is archaeological evidence that supports the AMT. Your handful of ambiguous figurines may or may not represent horses. The IVC certainly did have bullock-drawn carts, but one would expect far more such artifacts if the IVC actually had such war chariots and lots of horses. The fact that the evidence is so scant actually contradicts what we would expect, but it is something that OIT enthusiasts are desperate to use as counterevidence.

Although it appears Kiran supports AMT, even Kiran says the horse evidence does does necessarily preclude OIT. So you are just flogging a dead horse here. You also seem to overestimate archaeology, negative evidence or lack of evidence in archaeology does not mean that something was not present, it can mean either it was not present or we have not found it yet. Archaeology depends on the luck of what you find e.g. If we had not found the Antikeythram mechanism on the ship wreck, we would not have known the extent of the mechanical engineering of the ancient Greeks. Archaeological finds are being made all the time, to a large extent, the excavations of the IVC are not over, new discoveries are being made all the time. So with that said, the fact that we do not find as much horse remains or spoked wheels as we like does not mean it was not present, in fact the fact that we do find spoked wheels and horse remains, with horses particularly at several IVC sites, neutralises that argument.

You failed to acknowledge, a point that was made in the article I linked and also now made by George, that we do not find extensive horse remains even after 1500BCE. Horse fossils are notoriously difficult to find, even in Native America, we find very little horse remains. So we are lucky whatever we can find. The reason why in the BMAC we find more extensive remains of spoked war chariots etc, is because they had a tradition of burying their dead with the war chariot, a tradition that is not shared by the Indo-Aryan

As for other evidence, archaeologists cite matters such as artifacts from funeral practices. The BMAC and Andronovo practices and religious figures were very similar to those of the Aryans, not the IVC. In the passage I quoted above, which you did not attempt to refute, it was noted that their gods were depicted as riding in chariots with spoked wheels, just as Hindu gods were. The similarities are too numerous for open-minded scholars to ignore.

The word for chariot which you are taking to be a war warrior is "ratha" which actually means vehicle, and it is used repeatedly in the Rig Veda to refer to the vehicle of the Gods, the vehicle of the sun, the vehicle of the rains etc, in the Mahabharata it is often translated as "car". In fact the fact that the Indo-Aryans do not share the same funeral practices as the BMAC shows that it is not the same culture and is evidence against a migration from there. Why do the Indo-Aryans not have the same funeral practices as the BMAC of burying their dead warriors with their horses and chariots. The Indo-Aryan practices are completely different:

In Sanskrit the term antyesti refers to the final sacrifice, the last of the 16 samskaras or life sacraments that mark important events in an individual’s life. The antyesti ceremony is the funeral ceremony. This samskara is performed to dispose of the dead body, to give peace to the departed soul, and to enable it to enter the world of the ancestors (pitrs). From the earliest Vedic times cremation was the most common means of disposing of a body. There is, however, written evidence that burial and post burial ceremonies also occurred during the Vedic period. The Rg and Atharva Vedas mention both burial and cremation as legitimate methods for the disposal of the dead. We find evidence in the Aranyakas that the burial of incinerated bones and ashes was an important and elaborate ceremony. By the Grhya and Puranic periods, however, burial and post cremation burial are hardly mentioned. Cremation had become the only orthodox method for the disposal of the dead.​

Here is a summary of what we know about cremation from the Rg-veda:​

1. The fire deity, Agni, was invoked to carry the departing soul to the realm of Yama, the god of death.
2. In the case of a priest his sacrificial implements were burned along with his body.
3. Prayers were recited to various deities in order to transfer the departing soul to the world of the pitrs.
4. A cow or goat, known as an anustarani, was burned along with the body of the deceased.
5. In the case of a deceased husband, the wife would lay on the funeral pyre along side the body of her husband. Before the fire was lighted, she would be asked to rise from the side of her husband’s body and rejoin the living.[/i]

Hindu Funeral Rites | The Final Journey​

Textual references are notoriously unreliable as historical evidence, but lack of reference to iron in the Rig Veda does not mean much. This is not impressive evidence, given the overwhelming evidence from language and archaeology for AMT.

Well, then there are double standards, because textual evidence is used across history for every other culture, otherwise we wouldn't know details of events. However, you don't just have textual evidence, you have textual evidence with empirical data as well

1. Rig Veda for the entire duration of the book does not mention iron at all, the first mention is very late Vedic books Yajurveda and Atharveda, which are dated to 1200BCE to 1000BCE. Are you saying the Aryans who had been in India for 3 centuries now, did not care to mention even once that there was iron? To add The Rig Veda describes a pastoral society, but by 1500BCE IVC urban settlements still existed, and there is no mention of them for 3 centuries?
2. The Rig Veda describes the Saraswati river as thriving. The details are unambiguous, it describes its course from the mountains into the sea, it describes all its settlements are alongside it, and it describes from West to East all the rivers of India. In post-Vedic texts the river is described as starting to dry up. Until latest discoveries, scholars could not locate this river anywhere so the river was deemed mythical, now we know as a matter of fact this river existed.

3. The astronomical positions are unambiguous, the exact configuration of the planet and their degrees are given for the sun, moon, mars, venus etc, and they did indeed compute to 3012BCE.

OIT can consistently explain all this data: The fact that iron is not mentioned in Rig Veda, but in late Vedic texts is because Rig Veda was composed in the bronze age or even earlier. The fact that it mentions the Saraswati river as thriving cannot be true until before 4000BCE. The fact later Vedic texts mention naked eye positions of planets in 3102BCE indicates they were composed then, which means Rig Veda must be far before 3012BCE. In fact the Rig Veda matches the description of the early IVC pastoral phase(Megarh period)

You just conveniently ignore all evidence that is contrary to your position.

In any case you still have not given me definitive proof that Aryans arrived in India in 1500BCE and then composed the Rig Veda by 1200BCE. Your horse "evidence" is not definitive. What else have you got?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You are mistaken in this.

My dear friend, we agree on many things, but here I have to say you are definitely mistaken. Historical research does not rely on the same epistemology as the scientific method, because the scientific method is based on empirical research of currently available empirical data and inferences drawn from that, this can sometimes be used for history, for example the history of the Earth though dating of fossils etc, but it does not give us details. The details are given by textual records. History is based on events that have already happened for which we do not have current empirical data, but from testimonial/textual records recorded in literature we can form a historical narrative. In order to check for the reliability of those records we look for inter-textual corroboration, consistency and authority of the source.

See: Wiki(historical method)

Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:[3]

1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

Core principles for determining reliability[edit]
The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[4]

• Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
• Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
• The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
• An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
• If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
• The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
• If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

In the scientific method there is no place for testimonial evidence. Even in our own schools of thought, in the Vaiseshika which is the closest to the epistemology of the scientific method, only perception and inference are accepted means of knowledge. Thus, the point I am making the historical method depends strongly on testimony and textual evidence. Thus, we should expect the historical method to even applied fairly and equally to the history of Indian history as well, as it is applied to Greek, Egyptian, Roman etc history. What we are looking for is inter-textual corroboration e.g. If one text says x event happened in 500BCE, and another says 500CE, then there is inconsistency and the event becomes dubious.

In general modern historians are highly highly skeptical of all ancient texts, even of Herodotus etc. and very little of modern history is based on such a narrative approach as was the case in the early 1960-1970 and from which many school texts are still based on.

They are not though, this is what you don't seem to understand. We only have one source for the Greco-Persians wars and that is Herodotus:

The Histories were occasionally criticized in antiquity, but modern historians and philosophers generally take a positive view.[42] Despite the controversy,[43][c] Herodotus still serves as the primary, and often only, source for events in the Greek world, Persian Empire, and the region generally in the two centuries leading up until his own day.[16][45] Herodotus, like many ancient historians, preferred an element of show[d] to purely analytic history, aiming to give pleasure with "exciting events, great dramas, bizarre exotica." [47] As such, certain passages[48][49] have been the subject of controversy and even some doubt, both in antiquity and today.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][e]

Almost all the primary sources for the Greco-Persian Wars are Greek; there are no surviving historical accounts from the Persian side. By some distance, the main source for the Greco-Persian Wars is the Greek historian Herodotus. Herodotus, who has been called the "Father of History",[5] was born in 484 BC in Halicarnassus, Asia Minor (then part of the Persian empire). He wrote his 'Enquiries' (Greek Historia, English (The) Histories) around 440–430 BC, trying to trace the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars, which would still have been recent history.[6] Herodotus's approach was novel and, at least in Western society, he invented 'history' as a discipline.[6] As Holland has it: "For the first time, a chronicler set himself to trace the origins of a conflict not to a past so remote so as to be utterly fabulous, nor to the whims and wishes of some god, nor to a people's claim to manifest destiny, but rather explanations he could verify personally.

Wiki: Herodotus​

The date at which the Greek-Persian wars is fixed is based on astronomical dating of a vague reference to an eclipse by Thales as reported in Herodotus's account: Eclipse of Thales - Wikipedia

Now, you will note the double standards used by Western historians and scholars. The same methods which are haram when used for Indian history, are kosher when used for dating Western history. They will use archeao-astronomy to fix dates in Western history based on a vague reference, but in Indian history when have exact naked eye observations of the plants in their exact positions, even descriptions of eclipses during the war of the Mahabharata, it is no longer valid, just because the dates are outside of the AMT reconstructed Indian history, according to which there is no Vedic history before 1500BCE. This arbitrary date is used to erase all of Indian history before that period.

Now, what I want you to understand and appreciate, Indian history is far more internally consistent than the Greek history and is based on many times the size of literature and a far better standard of scholarship, and yet Western historians pour scorn on it just because it does not match up with AMT.

The dates for Indian history is precise, we have exact dates for when events happened e.g. 3012BCE, but we don't just have a date for the event, we also recorded by naked eye the positions of the planets at that date, and modern computation advanced does actually show the date and the positions of the planets given are correct. Playfair and Bailey were the first astronomers to confirm this. The Indians had a far superior method of recording dates than the Greeks, because they were using a sidereal system(as opposed to the zodiac of the Greeks) which takes into account the precision of the equinox, the naked eye observations given in the Mahabharata, Kaliyuga calendar, Ramayana of the planets check out with modern computation. We still have the tradition today when we record the birth of new borns by position of planets, we have similar records of Rama, Krishna, Buddha etc that how we know what day to celebrate their birthdays.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Internal consistency

The Puranas are not a monolithic work, they have been composed by several authors over several centuries and there are several dozens of puranas, 18 major puranas, 18 minor puranas and in addition Jain puranas. Yet, despite this, there is a strong level of consistency in the events and genealogies described in the Puranas. If suppose the genealogies were wrong or fabricated, we would expect to see massive variance, but we don't, which indicates it must be right. The fact is the genealogies are given precisely, every dynasty that ruled in India, the number of kings in that dynasty and the number of years they ruled. See:

I WILL now relate to you the descendants of Vrihadratha, who will be the kings of Magadhá. There have been several powerful princes of this dynasty, of whom the most celebrated was Jarásandha; his son was Sahadeva; his son is Somápi 1; his son will be Śrutavat 2; his son will be Ayutáyus 3; his son will be Niramitra 4; his son will be Sukshatra 5; his son will be Vrihatkarman 6; his son will be Senajit 7; his son will be Śrutanjaya 8; his son will be Vipra 9; his son will be Śuchi 10; his son will be Kshemya 11; his son will be Suvrata 12; his son will be Dharma 13; his son will be Suśuma 14; his son will be Drid́hasena 15; his son will be Sumati 16; his son will be Suvala 17; his son will be Suníta 18; his son will be Satyajit 19; his son will be Viśwajit 20; his son will be Ripunjaya 21. These are the Várhadrathas, who will reign for a thousand years​

THE last of the Vríhadratha dynasty, Ripunjaya, will have a minister named Sunika 1, who having killed his sovereign, will place his son Pradyota upon the throne 2: his son will be Pálaka 3; his son will be Viśákhayúpa 4; his son will be Janaka 5; and his son will be Nandivarddhana 6. These five kings of the house of Pradyota will reign over the earth for a hundred and thirty-eight years

7. The next prince will be Śiśunaga 8; his son will be Kákavarńa 9; his son will be Kshemadharman 10; his son will be Kshatraujas 11; his son will be Vidmisára 12; his son will be Ájátaśatru 13; his son will be his son will be Kshatraujas 11; his son will be Vidmisára 12; his son will be Ájátaśatru 13; his son will be 14; his son will be Udayáśwa 15; his son will also be Nandivarddhana; and his son will be Mahánandi 16. These ten Śaiśunágas will be kings of the earth for three hundred and sixty-two years 17.

The son of Mahánanda will be born of a woman of the Śúdra or servile class; his name will be Nanda, called Mahápadma, for he will be exceedingly avaricious 18. Like another Paraśuráma, he will be the annihilator of the Kshatriya race; for after him the kings of the earth will be Śúdras. He will bring the whole earth under one umbrella: he 19 will govern for a hundred years. The Brahman Kaut́ilya will root out the nine Nandas 20

Upon the cessation of the race of Nanda, the Mauryas will possess the earth, for Kant́ilya will place Chandragupta 21 on the throne: his son 22; his son will be Aśokavarddhana 23; his son will be 24; his son will be Daśaratha; his son will be Sangata; his son will be Śáliśúka; his son will be Somaśarmman; his son will be Saśadharman 25; and his successor will be Vrihadratha. These are the ten Mauryas, who will reign over the earth for a hundred and thirty-seven years 26.

The dynasty of the Śungas will next become possessed of the sovereignty; for Pushpamitra, the general of the last Maurya prince, will 27: his son will be Agnimitra 28; his son will be Sujyesht́ha 29; his son will be Vasumitra 30; his son will be Árdraka 31; his son will be Pulindaka 32; his son will be Ghoshavasu 33; his son will be Vajramitra 34; his son will be Bhágavata 35; his son will be Devabhúti 36. These are the ten Śungas, who will govern the kingdom for a hundred and twelve years 37.

Devabhúti, the last Śunga prince, being addicted to, immoral indulgences, his minister, the Kańwa named Vasudeva will murder him, and usurp the kingdom: his son will be Bhúmimitra; his son will be Náráyańa; his son will be Suśarman. These four Káńwas will be kings of the earth for forty-five years 38. 39: he will be succeeded by his brother Krishńa 40; his son will be Śrí Śátakarńi 41; his son will be Púrnotsanga 42; his son will be Śátakarńi (2nd) 43; his son will be Lambodara 44; his son will be Ivílaka 45; his son will be Meghaswáti 46; his son will be Patumat 47; his son will be Arisht́akarman 48; his son will be Hála 49; his son will be Tálaka 50; his son will be Pravilasena 51; his son will be Sundara, named Śátakarńi 52; his son will be Chakora Śátakarńi 53; his son will be Śivaswáti 54; his son will be Gomatiputra 55; his son will be Pulimat 56; his son will be Śivaśrí Śátakarńi 57; his son will be Śivaskandha 58; his son will be Yajnaśrí 59; his son will be Vijaya 60; his son will be Chandraśrí 61; his son will be Pulomárchish 62. These thirty Andhrabhritya kings will reign four hundred and fifty-six years 63.

After these, various races will reign, as seven Ábhíras, ten Garddhabas, sixteen Śakas, eight Yavanas, fourteen Tusháras, thirteen Muńd́as, . eleven Maunas, altogether seventy-nine princes 64, who will be sovereigns of the earth for one thousand three hundred and ninety years​

Vishnu Purana XX-III-IV

​

See this is not mythology, this an exact list of the number of kings that have ruled in India, and we know these records were kept as early as 300BCE from foreign accounts too:

Pliny the Elder, Natural History 6. 59 :
"From the time of Father Liber's [Dionysos] to Alexandrus the Great's [conquest of India] 153 kings of India are counted in a period of 6451 years and three months."​

cont.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

As I keep telling you we do not not just rely on the Puranas, but even text like you mention Rajatrangaini composed far later, also corroborates exactly the same history giving a history of kings ruling the Kashmir region for 2268 years from the Mahabharata age.

Hence, you can see the strong level of consistency in the records of history kept by Indians. Whether it was in 300BCE or up to the late medieval times. Indians have recorded a continuous unbroken going back to 10,000 years.

What you need to understand there is ONE and only ONE reason why India's history has been discarded with a wave of the hand, simply because it does not conform with AMT. As I told you earlier even the puranas have been used selectively by Western scholars. For example it uses the Puranas to date and describe Indian history of dynasties from Sheshnaga and after, but it does not consider the dynasties before described in great detail Pradyota and Briharatha as real, just because it would go past the 1500BCE date. See:

If we date Chandragupta Mauraya 300BCE as Western scholars claim this date to be, we would get:

Chandragupta Mauraya: 300BCE
Mahapadmananda: 400BCE
Seshunaga: 700BCE
Pradyota: 800-900BCE
Brihadratha: 1800-2000BCE

This violates the 1500BCE arrival of Aryans into India. At that time, as I have already mentioned, Indian history was not believed to go before 1500BCE. So they concluded the last two dynasties were mythical, definitely the last one which is the largest recorded. They also arbitrarily reduced the number of years of the reign of the Seshnaga dynasty. They reduced Seshnaga's date to 413BC. So you can see they have selectively used the Puranas to force it to fit the AMT model.

But is a proven fact now, which was not known at the time of AMT, that the history of urban settlements in India does indeed go back as far as 7000BCE. We know there has been continuous urban civilisation in India to as late as 1500BCE, there is no discontinuity. This matches exactly what have from the textual record from the Puranas, from the Rajatrangini, the Buddhist and Jain sources that there is a continuous documentation of Indian history going back almost 10,000 years history.

We have three calendars: Kalyuga calander which starts from 3102BCE which marks the end of the Kali yuga age at the Mahabharata. We have the Sapta rishi calander which is even more ancient which begins in 7000BCE and we have the Samvat Calendar which begins from the time Vikramaditya vanquished all the Mlecchas from India in 57BCE. Even the last calendar is now inconsistent because because of the forced AMT dates, according to which the Vikram era begins when the Muslims invade, but Albiru ni records that it ends when they invade. We know from history of Greeks, that the Greeks were driven out of India by 0BCE. There were no Persian or Greek invasions after CE. Varahmihra and Kalidasa date are also an inconsistency produced by AMT, they were said to be 9 jewels in the court of Vikramaditya --- which would place them before CE, but the AMT revised dates are 500CE. However, Varamihra shows a strong influence from Greeks, and the Greeks were not in India by 500CE.

The other inconsistency it has produced is moving Shankarcharya who is a far more recent personality in Indian history ---- 500BCE to 700CE. This implies that even as late as 700CE Indian people would forget somebody who is in 700CE was born in 500BCE.

There is 1200 years between Chandragupta Mauraya, the Mleccha invasions and the start of Greek invasions: 137 years + 112 + 426 + foreign rulers The first wave of Mleccha invasions are 7 Abhiras, then 10 Gardabhas, 16 Sakas, and 8 Yavanas. There is absolutely no mention in any text that Chandragupta Mauraya ever met the Greeks or was contemporary with Greeks, but there is explicit mention of Chandragupta Gupta and his successors of constantly fighting with Greek kings and making alliances with them. We even know from evidence from coins issued during the Gupta age of the same tradition of having coins with the kings head at the back. Chandragupta II Vikramaditya is credited as being the one who destroyed all the Mlecchas then ruling India, including the Greeks:

4th century Sanskrit poet Kalidasa, credits Chandragupta Vikramaditya with having conquered about twenty one kingdoms, both in and outside India. After finishing his campaign in the East and West India, Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) proceeded northwards, subjugated the Parasikas, then the Hunas and the Kambojas tribes located in the west and east Oxus valleys respectively. Thereafter, the king proceeds across the Himalaya and reduced the Kinnaras, Kiratas etc. and lands into India proper.[5][non-primary source needed]

The Brihatkathamanjari of the Kashmiri writer Kshemendra states, King Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) had "unburdened the sacred earth of the Barbarians like the Sakas, Mlecchas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Tusharas, Parasikas, Hunas, etc. by annihilating these sinful Mlecchas completely".​

The Gupta art, architecture and literature shows considerable Greek influence even though Greeks had been long gone by then, but there is no Greek influence on the Mauryan art, literature and architecture even though at this point India was suppose to have been invaded by Greeks. This all shows consistently that the Chandragupta Maurya was not Sandrocrottus that was a contemporary of Alexander, but it was Chandragupta Gupta. This means Chandragupta Mauraya was 1500BCE not 300BCE, hence the Buddha was 1700BCE not 500BCE. This is supported by Chinese records which record the Buddha was being before 1000BCE. At the time when Jones made the link between Chandragupta and Sandrocrottus, he did not know there was not one, but three Chandraguptas in Indian history: Chandragupta Mauraya, Chandragupta Gupta, Chandragupta Gupta II Vikramaditya. Hence, in one move he was able to shorten Indian history by 1200 years.

If you do the math you will see just consistent Indian records are with foreign records. If Chandragupta Mauraya is 1500BCE, then first invasions of India by foreign tribes would begin some 600-700 years later, by 800-700BCE. This is more or less roughly when we hear the first foreign invasions of India by Persians, then it is followed by invasions of Greeks etc.

Thus, we have an entirely consistent Indian historical narrative and every date checks out against other evidence. We have recorded approx 10,000 years of Indian history which matches exactly what we find in the archaeological record of the IVC.

 

[sayak83]

My dear friend, we agree on many things, but here I have to say you are definitely mistaken. Historical research does not rely on the same epistemology as the scientific method, because the scientific method is based on empirical research of currently available empirical data and inferences drawn from that, this can sometimes be used for history, for example the history of the Earth though dating of fossils etc, but it does not give us details. The details are given by textual records. History is based on events that have already happened for which we do not have current empirical data, but from testimonial/textual records recorded in literature we can form a historical narrative. In order to check for the reliability of those records we look for inter-textual corroboration, consistency and authority of the source.

See: Wiki(historical method)

Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:[3]

1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

Core principles for determining reliability[edit]
The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[4]

• Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
• Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
• The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
• An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
• If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
• The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
• If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

In the scientific method there is no place for testimonial evidence. Even in our own schools of thought, in the Vaiseshika which is the closest to the epistemology of the scientific method, only perception and inference are accepted means of knowledge. Thus, the point I am making the historical method depends strongly on testimony and textual evidence. Thus, we should expect the historical method to even applied fairly and equally to the history of Indian history as well, as it is applied to Greek, Egyptian, Roman etc history. What we are looking for is inter-textual corroboration e.g. If one text says x event happened in 500BCE, and another says 500CE, then there is inconsistency and the event becomes dubious.



They are not though, this is what you don't seem to understand. We only have one source for the Greco-Persians wars and that is Herodotus:

The Histories were occasionally criticized in antiquity, but modern historians and philosophers generally take a positive view.[42] Despite the controversy,[43][c] Herodotus still serves as the primary, and often only, source for events in the Greek world, Persian Empire, and the region generally in the two centuries leading up until his own day.[16][45] Herodotus, like many ancient historians, preferred an element of show[d] to purely analytic history, aiming to give pleasure with "exciting events, great dramas, bizarre exotica." [47] As such, certain passages[48][49] have been the subject of controversy and even some doubt, both in antiquity and today.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][e]

Almost all the primary sources for the Greco-Persian Wars are Greek; there are no surviving historical accounts from the Persian side. By some distance, the main source for the Greco-Persian Wars is the Greek historian Herodotus. Herodotus, who has been called the "Father of History",[5] was born in 484 BC in Halicarnassus, Asia Minor (then part of the Persian empire). He wrote his 'Enquiries' (Greek Historia, English (The) Histories) around 440–430 BC, trying to trace the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars, which would still have been recent history.[6] Herodotus's approach was novel and, at least in Western society, he invented 'history' as a discipline.[6] As Holland has it: "For the first time, a chronicler set himself to trace the origins of a conflict not to a past so remote so as to be utterly fabulous, nor to the whims and wishes of some god, nor to a people's claim to manifest destiny, but rather explanations he could verify personally.

Wiki: Herodotus​

The date at which the Greek-Persian wars is fixed is based on astronomical dating of a vague reference to an eclipse by Thales as reported in Herodotus's account: Eclipse of Thales - Wikipedia

Now, you will note the double standards used by Western historians and scholars. The same methods which are haram when used for Indian history, are kosher when used for dating Western history. They will use archeao-astronomy to fix dates in Western history based on a vague reference, but in Indian history when have exact naked eye observations of the plants in their exact positions, even descriptions of eclipses during the war of the Mahabharata, it is no longer valid, just because the dates are outside of the AMT reconstructed Indian history, according to which there is no Vedic history before 1500BCE. This arbitrary date is used to erase all of Indian history before that period.

Now, what I want you to understand and appreciate, Indian history is far more internally consistent than the Greek history and is based on many times the size of literature and a far better standard of scholarship, and yet Western historians pour scorn on it just because it does not match up with AMT.

The dates for Indian history is precise, we have exact dates for when events happened e.g. 3012BCE, but we don't just have a date for the event, we also recorded by naked eye the positions of the planets at that date, and modern computation advanced does actually show the date and the positions of the planets given are correct. Playfair and Bailey were the first astronomers to confirm this. The Indians had a far superior method of recording dates than the Greeks, because they were using a sidereal system(as opposed to the zodiac of the Greeks) which takes into account the precision of the equinox, the naked eye observations given in the Mahabharata, Kaliyuga calendar, Ramayana of the planets check out with modern computation. We still have the tradition today when we record the birth of new borns by position of planets, we have similar records of Rama, Krishna, Buddha etc that how we know what day to celebrate their birthdays.

Another thread in future when I discuss historiography carefully. I may quote you from this thread. Currently I am busy with prehistoric South Asian archaeology and will shade into arcaheology of Indus Valley. Stay tuned.
I do not trust narrative histories of ancient world from any source at all much. Many historians do not as well. The over-reliance on narrative history despite their obvious ideological, ethnic, religious and elitist biases (certain to occur when literacy is the preserve of the few) is highly problematic to many. Of course since history in the West started in order to prove "Christianity" historically, such over-reliance itself is due to bias. Its getting corrected swiftly. Archaeology is the primary source of history appended very carefully with textual history when necessary. This of course means we do not actually know much about the past, but that is ok. Admitting ignorance is the first step in getting at knowledge.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Another thread in future when I discuss historiography carefully. I may quote you from this thread. Currently I am busy with prehistoric South Asian archaeology and will shade into arcaheology of Indus Valley. Stay tuned.
I do not trust narrative histories of ancient world from any source at all much. Many historians do not as well. The over-reliance on narrative history despite their obvious ideological, ethnic, religious and elitist biases (certain to occur when literacy is the preserve of the few) is highly problematic to many. Of course since history in the West started in order to prove "Christianity" historically, such over-reliance itself is due to bias. Its getting corrected swiftly. Archaeology is the primary source of history appended very carefully with textual history when necessary. This of course means we do not actually know much about the past, but that is ok. Admitting ignorance is the first step in getting at knowledge.

I can understand the skepticism of ancient historical testimony. In fact forget ancient, any testimony even modern testimony is subject to the same flaws of ideological, political, ethnic, religious and elitist bias. That is because it is produced from the perspective of human authors. However, there are limitations in all epistemologies, this does not mean we throw away the discipline altogether. History as a discipline relies strongly on testimonial evidence and the standard of proof in history is based on consistency, reliability, trustworthiness and corroboration etc.

You see there is certain kind of knowledge you cannot get by just looking at raw empirical data, you cannot get details which only human eye witness accounts can provide e.g. What did you do for your birthday last year? Where do I get empirical data for this? I can only rely on your testimonial evidence. If you said you had a birthday party with a group of friends, then I corroborate it with their testimonial evidence. The more corroboration I find the more stronger your evidence becomes. Similarly, history works in the same way, when several sources corroborate an event, we can consider it to be valid e.g. Multiple Indian sources corroborate the historicity of Krishna, Rama, Mahabharata etc. The fact is we have exact list of genealogies leading all the way up to the Mahabharata age, each dynasty, each king in that dynasty, the duration of reign of each king? Did we make up these lists?

Ideally, I do agree with you, empirical evidence should also be present as supporting proof. It cannot provide us details which only testimony can provide us, but it can provide weight to it. This is why I have said several times now we have that as well.

The Mahabharata mentions the Saraswati river is starting to disappear and dry up. This backed up by geological evidence, the river was indeed starting to dry up in 3000BCE and completely extinct by 1900BCE. It is equally backed up with archaeological evidence, we find the settlement alongside the Saraswati river abandon all of a sudden in a short of amount of time, exactly at the time new settlements appear in the Gangatic plains and other parts of India.

The Bhagvata Purana describes the sinking of the Dwaraka, and marine archaeology has indeed found the submerged Dwaraka at exactly the location where it is described to be.

The archaeological digs of the IVC reveal settlements which are exactly as they are described in the Mahabharata texts. They even us the same units of measurements, the angula for example, that were used in the post-Vedic texts like Arthashastra. They use the same ratios for buildings which are prescribed in Vastu Shastra texts.​

The astronomical positions recorded in the Mahabharata and Hindu almancs are validated by modern astronomy to be the actual positions 3102 BCE. In other words they are naked eye observations made in 3012BCE to record the era.​

We have convergence from three major kinds of evidence: Textual, geological and archaeological. So as I have said before OIT rests on a solid empirical evidence backed foundation.

What does AMT rest on? Why are you not skeptical of this arbitrary 1500BCE date of arrival of Aryans, even after knowing that the date was given by partly using the bible? I have yet to see a single bit of definitive evidence the Aryans arrived in 1500BCE. What if they arrived in 2000BCE? 3000BCE? 4000BCE? 5000BCE? 6000BCE? 7000BCE? Why is this 1500BCE date even reported as fact when it lacks completely in evidence.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Lets shift gear.

In these debates its always us OIT proponents(or lets just say us Indians) who are having to prove the AMT proponents wrong(or let us just say Western historians) but for once, lets turn the tables on the AMT, why don't they try to prove AMT right?

They say factually that Aryans arrived in 1500BCE in India and then composed the Rig Veda by 1200BCE. But where is their evidence? Lets get straight to evidence. You will find out yourself AMT theorists have no evidence at all. Zilch. Nada. Zero. The only evidence provided so far is the very old and now dead argument of horses, we now know the IVC definitely had horses. So what else have they got to fix 1500BCE as the arrival of Aryans? When Muller himself disowned that date admitting he guessed it, why do we continue to repeat it as fact?

 

[sayak83]

I can understand the skepticism of ancient historical testimony. In fact forget ancient, any testimony even modern testimony is subject to the same flaws of ideological, political, ethnic, religious and elitist bias. That is because it is produced from the perspective of human authors. However, there are limitations in all epistemologies, this does not mean we throw away the discipline altogether. History as a discipline relies strongly on testimonial evidence and the standard of proof in history is based on consistency, reliability, trustworthiness and corroboration etc.

You see there is certain kind of knowledge you cannot get by just looking at raw empirical data, you cannot get details which only human eye witness accounts can provide e.g. What did you do for your birthday last year? Where do I get empirical data for this? I can only rely on your testimonial evidence. If you said you had a birthday party with a group of friends, then I corroborate it with their testimonial evidence. The more corroboration I find the more stronger your evidence becomes. Similarly, history works in the same way, when several sources corroborate an event, we can consider it to be valid e.g. Multiple Indian sources corroborate the historicity of Krishna, Rama, Mahabharata etc. The fact is we have exact list of genealogies leading all the way up to the Mahabharata age, each dynasty, each king in that dynasty, the duration of reign of each king? Did we make up these lists?

Ideally, I do agree with you, empirical evidence should also be present as supporting proof. It cannot provide us details which only testimony can provide us, but it can provide weight to it. This is why I have said several times now we have that as well.

The Mahabharata mentions the Saraswati river is starting to disappear and dry up. This backed up by geological evidence, the river was indeed starting to dry up in 3000BCE and completely extinct by 1900BCE. It is equally backed up with archaeological evidence, we find the settlement alongside the Saraswati river abandon all of a sudden in a short of amount of time, exactly at the time new settlements appear in the Gangatic plains and other parts of India.

The Bhagvata Purana describes the sinking of the Dwaraka, and marine archaeology has indeed found the submerged Dwaraka at exactly the location where it is described to be.

The archaeological digs of the IVC reveal settlements which are exactly as they are described in the Mahabharata texts. They even us the same units of measurements, the angula for example, that were used in the post-Vedic texts like Arthashastra. They use the same ratios for buildings which are prescribed in Vastu Shastra texts.​

The astronomical positions recorded in the Mahabharata and Hindu almancs are validated by modern astronomy to be the actual positions 3102 BCE. In other words they are naked eye observations made in 3012BCE to record the era.​

We have convergence from three major kinds of evidence: Textual, geological and archaeological. So as I have said before OIT rests on a solid empirical evidence backed foundation.

What does AMT rest on? Why are you not skeptical of this arbitrary 1500BCE date of arrival of Aryans, even after knowing that the date was given by partly using the bible? I have yet to see a single bit of definitive evidence the Aryans arrived in 1500BCE. What if they arrived in 2000BCE? 3000BCE? 4000BCE? 5000BCE? 6000BCE? 7000BCE? Why is this 1500BCE date even reported as fact when it lacks completely in evidence.

1)Can you link a single archaeological paper showing that it has found anything under the sea at all related to Dwarka? Not media reports. Archaelogical papers.
Paper titles with abstract is sufficient.
2) Also can you link the chapter and verse regarding the drying up of Saraswati river from the mahabharata.

The second may be doable. The first will not be, I bet.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

1)Can you link a single archaeological paper showing that it has found anything under the sea at all related to Dwarka? Not media reports. Archaelogical papers.
Paper titles with abstract is sufficient.
2) Also can you link the chapter and verse regarding the drying up of Saraswati river from the mahabharata.

The second may be doable. The first will not be, I bet.

Sure, I'll get to work on that. However, again I want to ask, I appreciate the skepticism you have for Indian history, but why don't you extend this skepticism to 1500BCE date given by colonial scholars? Where is the evidence for starting Indian history at 1500BCE?

 

[sayak83]

Sure, I'll get to work on that. However, again I want to ask, I appreciate the skepticism you have for Indian history, but why don't you extend this skepticism to 1500BCE date given by colonial scholars? Where is the evidence for starting Indian history at 1500BCE?

Of course I do. I extend it to all history everywhere.

 

[Vinayaka]

Lets shift gear.

In these debates its always us OIT proponents(or lets just say us Indians) who are having to prove the AMT proponents wrong(or let us just say Western historians) but for once, lets turn the tables on the AMT, why don't they try to prove AMT right?

It's not just Indians who cite studies against AMT, and its precursor. Lots of open-minded western archeologists and people in other fields do as well. "Blame those Indians' is just a common theme amongst the anti-Hindu crowd.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

It's not just Indians who cite studies against AMT, and its precursor. Lots of open-minded western archeologists and people in other fields do as well. "Blame those Indians' is just a common theme amongst the anti-Hindu crowd.

Generally, it is true OIT is mostly promoted by Indians, and among Indians Hindus. Western archaeologists and scholars etc who support OIT, while they do exist, are less in number and are often dismissed by the AMT camp as hippies. It is also true as Copernicus said, outside of India, AMT is not considered controversial. It is taught universally as fact, including even in Indian universities.

I seriously think this is more about power than it is about evidence. History is written by the victorious -- the West has been victorious for the last 500 years, and they have gone around rewriting the history of everybody presenting it as scientific and objective research; at the same time exaggerating their own history to create a fiction of ancient glory -- first through the Indo-Europeans as the progenitors of most of civilisation and second through the Greeks and Romans. Implicit in this is that Western civilisation is the main civilisation that discovered well pretty much everything: Agriculture, wheel, horse domestication(via the Indo-Europeans) Philosophy, Science, Art, History, Drama(via the Greeks) and engineering, administration, technology(through the Romans) Hence, why I say AMT because its main driver is power and politics, will not survive the end of the century, because Indians(and Chinese) will have more power than the West, perhaps as early as 2050. Hence, expect us Indians, especially us Hindus to assert ourselves more strongly.

In the end, as we say, the truth will prevail.

 

[sayak83]

Sure, I'll get to work on that. However, again I want to ask, I appreciate the skepticism you have for Indian history, but why don't you extend this skepticism to 1500BCE date given by colonial scholars? Where is the evidence for starting Indian history at 1500BCE?

While you are at it, could you very briefly outline a few things for me?

You say that the Mahabharata war happened around 3000 BCE. Based on literature sources could you tell me:-

Where did it happen (in terms of modern location)?

What were the names and geographic locations of the major kingdoms that participated in it? (Major 5-6 kingdoms will do). Please link the source of your analysis of geographic source.

How long had those kingdoms existed before 3000 BCE? Since it was a war between well-established kingdoms, can I posit that these kingdoms were prosperous and well established from at least 3300 BCE? More? Less?

What kind of material culture did they have? Was it iron age or bronze age or stone age. Please base your estimate from the literature sources. Did they have coinage? Were the kings and kingdoms rich in gold, silver, jewellery etc. Palaces, big urban centers etc.?

What animals did they domesticate? Horse? Elephant? cattle? sheep? All of them? Was their staple food rice or wheat or millet?

Did they bury or burn their dead?

Please base all of these on the literary sources you trust.

This will help me zero in on the region and the date of the period in south asia where I need to look for archaelogical excavations. I will check many were conducted and what have they discovered so far.

You look at evidence for Dwarka, I will look at the rest. Thanks.

 

[Kirran]

You have noticed how I've stayed out of it this time, other than rewarding those whom I agree with? I thought you were going to stay out of it too. Whatsamatter, no will?

Certainly my willpower has many weaknesses, but in this case I wasn't arguing with anybody!

I'll refrain from looking at all threads on this subject hereonin out of the interests of discipline.

 

[ajay0]

Generally, it is true OIT is mostly promoted by Indians, and among Indians Hindus. Western archaeologists and scholars etc who support OIT, while they do exist, are less in number and are often dismissed by the AMT camp as hippies. It is also true as Copernicus said, outside of India, AMT is not considered controversial. It is taught universally as fact, including even in Indian universities.

I seriously think this is more about power than it is about evidence. History is written by the victorious -- the West has been victorious for the last 500 years, and they have gone around rewriting the history of everybody presenting it as scientific and objective research; at the same time exaggerating their own history to create a fiction of ancient glory -- first through the Indo-Europeans as the progenitors of most of civilisation and second through the Greeks and Romans. Implicit in this is that Western civilisation is the main civilisation that discovered well pretty much everything: Agriculture, wheel, horse domestication(via the Indo-Europeans) Philosophy, Science, Art, History, Drama(via the Greeks) and engineering, administration, technology(through the Romans) Hence, why I say AMT because its main driver is power and politics, will not survive the end of the century, because Indians(and Chinese) will have more power than the West, perhaps as early as 2050. Hence, expect us Indians, especially us Hindus to assert ourselves more strongly.

In the end, as we say, the truth will prevail.

An another issue is that archaeology and historical research in India has not been upto the mark due to lack of adequate funding and personnel.

The city found submerged off the coast of Dwaraka has not been properly studied yet due to technological limitations and other issues. If this had been found off Europe or the U.S, it would have been thoroughly studied by now and even projected as the remains of an ancient civilization.

So, it will take some time for the Indians to get their house in order. This is one disadvantage that comes with inheriting an ancient civilization with all the traditional baggage and its reluctance in embracing modernity.

Keeping a balance between the ancient and the ultra-modern is a hard act to execute precisely but that is what is weighing upon India at the moment.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Thank you for your request for research Sayak. I took your request seriously(I will respond to your later request also in due course, however you may find in these series of posts some of those points are indirectly addressed). Ironically, contrary to what you said (1) was far easier than (2) The latter proved to be a lot harder, hence why it has taken me a few days to compile. I had to search for a lot of reliable references, then cross-reference those references and then look through available sources of Mahabharata, Puranas, Vedas and Brahmanas. I enjoyed the exercise though, because it also increased my own knowledge on the subject and further strengthened my convictions.

(1) The journals and academic articles documenting the discovery of the submerged Dwaraka

Here you go

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.484.553&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://mahabharata-resources.org/ola/New_Trend_Indian_Art_Archaeol_1992_2_479.pdf

I will just excerpt the concluding lines of the study:

From the foregoing conclusion, it would be a reasonable to conclude that on the basis of archaeological evidence so far adduced, as a result of underwater explorations and excavations, the existence and subsequent submergence of Dwaraka of Mahabharara era is a reality and not a myth​

I do not need to offer much description or commentary here, your request was just links to archaeological journals and papers. So I will leave it for your own reading and let you draw your own conclusions.

(2)

As I explained earlier the Saraswati river identification with the Ghaggar-Hakkar river of India is unambiguous. Its course and location is described explicitly in the Rig Veda, Mahabharata, Brahmanas, Dharma shastra and sutras and other Indian literature. I will begin by first describing, and where I can cite directly from the primary sources, the descriptions pertaining to Saraswati. Then I will show you the geological evidence.

Textual Evidence

Early Vedic Period: Rig Veda

The Saraswati river is the most praised river in the Rig Veda. There are 60+ hymns that mention Saraswati directly and several hymns directly addressed to Saraswati. As the Saraswati river was the largest river in Veidc times, along which the Vedic people resided, it became the main sustenance of its people, and the along the banks of which Vedic Rishis composed their mantras and the cattle grazed, the Saraswati thus came onto to acquire divinity as a Goddess of inspiration, knowledge, speech and the the provider of milk, ghee and as mother because she nourished the people.

Hymns from Rig Veda:

RV.3.23-4:​

4 He set thee in the earth's most lovely station, in Iḷā's place, in days of fair bright weather. On man, on Āpayā, Agni! on the rivers Dṛṣadvati, Sarasvatī, shine richly.​

RV 6.96.1-6:

1. I SING a lofty song, for she is mightiest, most divine of Streams.
Sarasvatī will I exalt with hymns and lauds, and, O Vasiṣṭha, Heaven and Earth.
2 When in the fulness of their strength the Pūrus dwell, Beauteous One, on thy two grassy banks,
Favour us thou who hast the Maruts for thy friends: stir up the bounty of our chiefs.
3 So may Sarasvatī auspicious send good luck; she, rich in spoil, is never niggardly in thought,
When praised in jamadagni's way and lauded as Vasiṣṭha lauds.
4 We call upon Sarasvān, as unmarried men who long for wives,
As liberal men who yearn for sons.
5 Be thou our kind protector, O Sarasvān, with those waves of thine
Laden with sweets and dropping oil.
6 May we enjoy Sarasvān's breast, all-beautiful, that swells with streams,
May we gain food and progeny.


RV 6.61.2-14:

2 She with her might, like one who digs for lotus-stems, hath burst with her strong waves the ridges of the hills.
Let us invite with songs and holy hymns for help Sarasvatī who slayeth the Paravatas.
3 Thou castest down, Sarasvatī, those who scorned the Gods, the brood of every Bṛsaya skilled in magic arts.
Thou hast discovered rivers for the tribes of men, and, rich in wealth! made poison flow away from them.
4 May the divine Sarasvatī, rich in her wealth, protect us well,
Furthering all our thoughts with might
5 Whoso, divine Sarasvatī, invokes thee where the prize is set,
Like Indra when he smites the foe.
6 Aid us, divine Sarasvad, thou who art strong in wealth and power
Like Pūṣan, give us opulence.
7 Yea, this divine Sarasvatī, terrible with her golden path,
Foe-slayer, claims our eulogy.
8 Whose limitless unbroken flood, swift-moving with a rapid rush,
Comes onward with tempestuous roar.
9 She hath spread us beyond all foes, beyond her Sisters, Holy One,
As Sūrya spreadeth out the days.
10 Yea, she most dear amid dear stream, Seven-sistered, graciously inclined,
Sarasvatī hath earned our praise.
11 Guard us from hate Sarasvatī, she who hath filled the realms of earth,
And that wide tract, the firmament!
12 Seven-sistered, sprung from threefold source, the Five Tribes' prosperer, she must be
Invoked in every deed of might.
13 Marked out by majesty among the Mighty Ones, in glory swifter than the other rapid Streams,
Created vast for victory like a chariot, Sarasvatī must be extolled by every sage.
14 Guide us, Sarasvatī, to glorious treasure: refuse us not thy milk, nor spurn us from thee.
Gladly accept our friendship and obedience: let us not go from thee to distant countries.


RV 7.36.6:

6 Coming together, glorious, loudly roaring - Sarasvatī, Mother of Floods, the seventh-
With copious milk, with fair streams, strongly flowing, full swelling with the volume of their water

RV 7.95-1-2:

1. THIS stream Sarasvatī with fostering current comes forth, our sure defence, our (ayus)forts.
As on a car, the flood flows on, surpassing in majesty and might all other waters.
2 Pure in her course from mountains to the ocean, alone of streams Sarasvatī hath listened.


RV 8.21.18:

17 Indra or blest Sarasvatī alone bestows such wealth, treasure so great, or thou,
O Citra, on the worshipper.
18 Citra is King, and only kinglings are the rest who dwell beside Sarasvatī.
He, like Parjanya with his rain, hath spread himself with thousand, yea, with myriad gifts.

RV 10.64.9:

Let the great Streams come hither with their mighty help, Sindhu, Sarasvatī, and Sarayu with waves.
Ye Goddess Floods, ye Mothers, animating all, promise us water rich in fatness and in balm


RV 10.75.1-9:

1. THE singer, O ye Waters in Vivasvān's place, shall tell your grandeur forth that is beyond compare.
The Rivers have come forward triply, seven and seven. Sindhu in might surpasses all the streams that flow.
2 Varuṇa cut the channels for thy forward course, O Sindhu, when thou rannest on to win the race.
Thou speedest o’er precipitous ridges of the earth, when thou art Lord and Leader of these moving floods.
3 His roar is lifted up to heaven above the earth: he puts forth endless vigour with a flash of light.
Like floods of rain that fall in thunder from the cloud, so Sindhu rushes on bellowing like a bull.
4 Like mothers to their calves, like milch kine with their milk, so, Sindhu, unto thee the roaring rivers run.
Thou leadest as a warrior king thine army's wings what time thou comest in the van of these swift streams.
5 Favour ye this my laud, O Gan!gā, Yamunā, O Sutudri, Paruṣṇī and Sarasvatī:
With Asikni, Vitasta, O Marudvrdha, O Ārjīkīya with Susoma hear my call.
6 First with Trstama thou art eager to flow forth, with Rasā, and Susartu, and with Svetya here,
With Kubha; and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnu, thou seekest in thy course Krumu and Gomati.
7 Flashing and whitely-gleaming in her mightiness, she moves along her ample volumes through the realms,
Most active of the active, Sindhu unrestrained, like to a dappled mare, beautiful, fair to see.
8 Rich in good steeds is Sindhu, rich in cars and robes, rich in gold, nobly-fashioned, rich in ample wealth.
Blest Silamavati and young Urnavati invest themselves with raiment rich in store of sweets.
9 Sindhu hath yoked her car, light-rolling, drawn by steeds, and with that car shall she win booty in this fight.
So have I praised its power, mighty and unrestrained, of independent glory, roaring as it runs.​

Main appellations:

"Burst through her with strong waves through ridges of the hill"
"Pure in her course from mountains to the sea"
"Seven-sisteted"
"Mightiest of rivers"
"Surpassing in might and majesty all other rivers"
"Swift moving with a rapid push, coming forth with a a tempestuous roar"
" glorious, loudly roaring - Sarasvatī, Mother of Floods, the seventh-, strongly flowing, full swelling with the volume of their water"


Summary:

1. Saraswati is a thriving river in India
2. Saraswati is the mightiest, biggest and greatest river, flowing directly from the mountains into the sea
3. The Saraswati river is the mother of 7 others rivers or tributaries which join into her and swell her up
4. Along the banks of the Saraswati, the settlements of many kingdoms, some mentioned by name Purus are located
5. The Sarwasti river is located in between the Yamuna and the Sutej(described in order from East to West, Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati, Sutlet.... Sindhu)
6. The Saraswati is the main sustenance of the Vedic people
7. Although in the early books the Saraswati is the most important river, by the latest book, book 10 the Saraswati is replaced by Sindu as the most important.​

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Later Vedic Period: Other Vedas, Brahmanas, Dharma shastras

Yajur Veda: (In a supplementary chapter of the Vajasaneyi-Samhita of the Yajurveda (34.11))

Five rivers flowing on their way speed onward to Sarasvati, but then become Sarasvati a fivefold river in the land.​

Tandya/Panchavimsa Brahmana

PB 25.10 -

(The first sacrificial session onthe Sarasvatl.)

1. They (the participants of the sattra) undertake the consecration
at the place (i.e., to the south of the place) where the (river) Sarasvatl is
lost (in the sand of the desert).

2. They should maintain the mode of life of the consecrated
during twelve days, and perform the upasads during twelve days 1 .

11. By means of the SarasvatI, the Gods propped the sun but
she could not sustain it and collapsed ; hence it (the SarasvatI) is full of
bendings *, as it were.

12. They move against the stream, for it is not (possible) to
reach (the term going) along the stream l .

(Note: This seems simply to imply that only by going against the stream of the
SarasvatI, which flows from east to west, can they reach the term (Plaksa prasra-
vana) which is situated to the east. )

13. 14. They move along the eastern part (of the stream), for at
this (part) one single (other stream) flows into (it) : the Drsadvatl.

15. At the juncture of the Drsadvatl (with the SarasvatI), they
sacrifice a mess of boiled rice to Aparnnapat and, then, cross (this
river).

16. At a distance of a Journey of forty days on horseback from
the spot where the SarasvatI is lost (in the sands of the desert), (is
situated) Plaksa prasravana.​

Dharma sutras

Baudanya Dharma sutra 1.2.4:

The region to the east of where the Sarasvatı¯
disappears, west of Ka¯laka forest, south of the Himalayas, and
north of Pa¯riya¯tra mountains is the land of the A¯ ryas.* The
practices of that land alone are authoritative.​

Vasistha Dharma sutra 1.8-16:​

The region east of where the Sarasvatı¯ disappears, west of
Ka¯laka forest, north of Pa¯riya¯tra mountains, and south of the
Himalayas is the land of the A¯ ryas; 9or else, north of the
Vindhya mountains. 10The Laws and practices of that region
should be recognized as authoritative everywhere​

Latyayana Srautasutra:​

10.15.1 The consecration for the Sarasvata Sattra is performed at the Southern shore of Vinasana

10.17.10 They should not even once approach the Sarasvati river for the Avabhrta rite. This is, indeed, their sacrificial ground.

10.17.11 If no other water-place is available (for the Avabhrta) they should collect water from the Sarasvati and create a water-place in its neighbourhood for the Avabhrta rite.

10.18.3 The Brahmana states- there are settlements called Naitandhavana near the river Sarasvati. One of them is known as Vyarna. One should kindle fire for one year at this place implies that one should perform worship by means of the (Aupasana) single fire.

10.17.1 If the river Drsadvati is full of water, they should perform the Aponaptriya Isti near its confluence (in the Sarasvati)

10.17.2 Dhanamjaya maintains that it may be performed there, even if it (the Drsadvati) has no water.

Note: An important point to note here is that the river Sarasvati is implied to be always full of water till Vinasana, which is placed west of its confluence[24] with Drshadvati. The Drshadvati appears to be a seasonal stream from the sutras cited above, but its connection with Yamuna in older times is clearly hinted in the subsequent sutras

10.19.8 He should move by the southern bank of the river Drsadvati.

10.19.9 Having reached the settlement at the origin of this river and having performed this Isti (to Agni), he should move to the region called Triplakshaharana on the Yamuna River for the Avabhrta rite.

10.19.10 He may even perform this Isti at any point where the Yamuna is at a long distance, and then proceed to the Avabhrta place either while chanting the (Avabhrta) Saman by himself or not​

Manusmriti

17. That land, created by the gods, which lies between the two divine rivers Sarasvati and Drishadvati, the (sages) call Brahmavarta.

18. The custom handed down in regular succession (since time immemorial) among the (four chief) castes (varna) and the mixed (races) of that country, is called the conduct of virtuous men.

19. The plain of the Kurus, the (country of the) Matsyas, Pankalas, and Surasenakas, these (form), indeed, the country of the Brahmarshis (Brahmanical sages, which ranks) immediately after Brahmavarta.

20. From a Brahmana, born in that country, let all men on earth learn their several usages.

21. That (country) which (lies) between the Himavat and the Vindhya (mountains) to the east of Prayaga and to the west of Vinasana (the place where the river Sarasvati disappears) is called Madhyadesa (the central region).

22. But (the tract) between those two mountains (just mentioned), which (extends) as far as the eastern and the western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta (the country of the Aryans).​

Summary:

The Saraswati river is still flowing, but it is now disappears at a point, which was tentatively called "Vinashana" meaning disappearance or destruction, meaning it now stops before the sea at some point. Its course which in the Rig Veda is described as direct and pure, is now described as meandering. In the Panchavisma Brahma/Tandya Brahmana, the source of the river is located at plakshaprasvana, which is named after fig free that grew there, this place is identified to be Shivalik Hills in the Himalayas in the Mahabharata(discussed next) The distance is also estimated from the source to the point of disappearance in the desert to be 40 asvinis, the time it takes to get from source to point of disappearance to be 40 days on horseback -- although this is not literal, this is just notional to give an idea that it is several hundreds of miles.

As we could see by the time of the last book of the Rig Veda book 10, Saraswati had already been replaced by Sindhu as the mightiest of rivers. In later Vedas Yajur etc the number of tributaries of Saraswati have reduced to 5. Drishdvati has been reduced to a seasonal river by this stage.

See more here: Saraswati river | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Post Vedic period: Mahabharata, Puranas

Mahabharata:

The field of Kuru has been said to be sacred. The river Saraswati has been said to be more so. The tirthas of the Saraswati are more sacred than the Saraswati herself; and the tirtha called Prithudaka is more sacred than all the tirthas of the Saraswati. One that has bathed in Prithudaka. and drunk its waters will not have to grieve for a premature death. Thou shouldst go to Mahasaras, to all the tirthas designated by the name of Pushkara, to Prabhasa, to the northern lake Manasa, and to Kalodaka. Thou shalt then regain life and acquire longevity. Lake Manasa is on the spot where the Saraswati and the Drisadwati mingle with each other. [/i]​

Vaishampayana said, "Then Valadeva, O king, proceeded to Vinasana where the Sarasvati hath become invisible in consequence of her contempt for Sudras and Abhiras. And since the Sarasvati, in consequence of such contempt, is lost at that spot, the Rishis, for that reason, O chief of the Bharatas, always name the place as Vinasana.​

The Mahabharata, Book 12: Santi Parva: Apaddharmanusasana Parva: Section CLII
The Mahabharata, Book 9: Shalya Parva: Section 37

The passages are too lengthy to cite here, so I've excerpted some of it and given you a link to read the rest. I am relying on citations from from articles of the stories in the Mahabharata, because the Mahabharata is too massive a text to go look them. The Saraswati is still a very important river in the Mahabharata, because on the banks of there are very important tirtha or piligramage sites and ashrams of yogis. It recounts the pilgrimage of Balram upstream along the banks of the Saraswati starting from modern day Somnath. He travels along to the point of vinashana where the Saraswati disappears or can no longer be seen, and exlaims "The Saraswati is the most holy river, we all must remember the Saraswati" The vinshana point or disapperance of Saraswati moves up further near South of Kurukshetra ending in the modern day Thar desert in Rajahsthan, indicating the river has dried up even more than reported in Late Vedic period.

The Mahabhatata also contains legends about the disappearance of Saraswati. In one legend the wife of the Rishi Uthatya is snatched away by God Varuna while she is bathing in the Yamuna, in order to compel Varuna the God of the waters to bring his wife back, the Rishi causes 600,000 lakes of the region to disappear and commands the Saraswati to disappear and go "to the desert".

Puranas:

I do not have the Puranas available to excerpt from them, so I will give a description of what they say regarding Saraswati. In the Puranas the Saraswati it is still mentioned, but in some Puranas Saraswati is mentioned negatively. In the list of rivers given in the Vishnu Purana, Saraswati is not mentioned, indicating it had become too insignificant as a river to be mentioned while other Puranas mention the pilgramage sites alongside her dry beds. There are more legends created about its disappearance. In one such legend in the Padma Purana, Saraswati is commanded by the God Agni to carry an all consuming fire that threatened to engulf the whole world, after halting at Pushkar(Modern day Rajasthan, Thar desert) Saraswati succeeds in taking the fire to the ocean -- this is perhaps a myth to account for the severe draught that affected the region using the metaphor of fire as evaporating her waters.

Note at the post-Vedic stage Saraswati is now becoming mythologised and turned into a legend, indicating that at this point Saraswati is more or less near her last hour.

Later literature:

In late literature Saraswati's disappearance becomes a memory. In Kalidasa(traditional date 100BCE; Western date 500CE) in his famous play Shankuntala, the Sarawati drying up is used as a simile to explain the despondent kings compares his fruitless life to "Saraswati lost in barbarouos sandy wastes"


Here concludes the textual record showing us how the Saraswasti was described at different periods in Indian history. In the Rig Veda she is mighty, thriving, flowing directly from the mountains into the sea, and in the post-Vedic and later literature she is lost in the desert.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Geological Evidence

Now let us look at the geological record and research

Contrary to current belief by some, the discovery of the Saraswati river by geologists is not recently been discovered through satellite imagery and nor is the identification with the Ghaggar Hakar proposed by OIT theorist. The satellite imagery has only confirmed the Saraswati river really did exist and the Ghaggar Hakar was a part its course through high resolution photography which shows the water lanes through which Saraswati river travelled. It was noted by several British prior researchers that there must have been a dried up river in Rajashtan where the current seasonal Ghagar Hakra river is, which originates in the Shivalik Hills in the Himalyas, and its course must have run all the way through the Thar Desert into the Gulf of Cambay and into the Arabian sea.

The first geologist to note this was Alex Rogers in 1870, he remarks:

A few remarks on the Geology of the country surrounding the Gulf of Cambay in Western India, Quarterly Journal of Geological Society of London, 26: 118-124 who was perhaps among the earliest observers of the geology of the Gulf of Cambay (close to Lothal), points out that from the geological formation of the country bordering on the Rann, it appeared that the drainage of the PanjAb once flowed into it: `` ... The rapid silting up of the Gulf of Cambay gives particular interest to an inquiry into the geological conditions which probably shaped it in remote ages ... (The head of the Gulf) comprises within itself te Great Runn of Cutch ... primary or metamorphic rocks are traceable in its immediate vicinity only in a small tract on its west coast ... even the highest points of the granite peaks show signs of weathering, and probably also of the erosive action of waves ... Many considerations point to the existence in former ages of some large river flowing down from the north, and falling into the Indian Ocean somewhere in the position of the present Gulf of Cambay: and it is not improbable that that river may have been the Indus.

INDOLOGY - Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization (c. 3000 B.C.)​

Rogers did not know about the Saraswati river, so he thought it may have been the Sindhu that once flowed into the Gulf of Cambay. Just a few decades later, R.D Oldham, who was the first director of the ASI(Archeaological survery of India) noted in the dry bed of the Ghaggar Hakra that at some places it was as wide as 8km which is too much for a seasonal river, so he investigated further and realised that it was once a part of the course of much wider now dried up river Saraswati He was the first to identify it as Saraswati, not some Indian, not some Hindu, not some OIT theorist. The Ghaggar originates from the Shivalik hills and descends from there into Rajasthan and terminates at the Thar Desert.

He notes:

".D. Oldham, 1886, On probable changes in the geography of the Punjab and its rivers - a historico-geographical study, J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 55: 322-343: `` ... we have now seen that a dry river bed can be traced, practically continuously, from Tohana in Hissar district to the Eastern Narra in Sind ... `` C.F. Oldham, 1893, The Saraswati and the lost river of the Indian Desert, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, pp. 48-76: `` ... local legends assert (that Sarasvati) once flowed through the desert to the sea. In confirmation of these traditions, the channel referred to, which is called Hakra or Sotra, can be traced through the Bikanir and Bhawulpur states into Sind, and thence onwards to the Rann of Kach ... attested by the ruins everywhere overspread what is now an arid sandy waste. Throughout this tract are scattered mounds, marking the sites of cities and towns. And there are strongholds still remaining ... Amongst these ruins are found, not only the huge bricks used by the Hindus in the remote past, but others of a much later make ... Freshwater shells, exactly similar to those now seen in the PanjAb rivers, are to be found in this old river-bed and upon its banks ... After entering Sind the Hakra turns southward, and becomes continuous with the old river-bed generally known as Narra. This channel, which bears also the names of Hakra or Sagara, Wahind and Dahan, is to be traced onward to the Rann of Kach ... Tha Hakra varies in different parts of its course from about two to six miles in width, which is sufficient for a very large river ... The only river near Marot was the Hakra ..."

(op.cit)​

Latest research from Satellite imagery:

The latest research has confirmed Oldham's inferences, giving us an exact geological chronology of the Saraswati river:

Ramasamy, SM, PC Bakliwal and RP Verma, 1991, Remote Sensing and River migrations in Western India, Int. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 12, No. 12, 2597-2609: ``The art of remote sensing has opened up many vistas in the study of river migration as satellite photographs, both in their normal and digitally enhanced modes, vividly show the rivers and their migratory signatures. The rivers migrate for various reasons amongst which tectonic movement is one of the main causes ... The study has shown that Western India sow considerable signs of Quaternary tectonics ... `` ... (Landsat photographs, on a 1:1 000 000 scale) ... the palaeochannels were interpreted, as exhibiting linear, curvilinear and loop-like features with typical black ribbon-like stripes ... The Landsat imagery studies show that the Indus river has a very wide flood plain on either side of its course up to a maximum width of 100-120 km in the east and south-east. To have such a wide flood plain on only one side shows that the Indus river has preferentially migrated towards the north-west in the northern parts and towards the west in the central and southern parts. The study of remotely sensed data in the desert tract of Rajastan shows that there are plenty of paleochannels with well sprung-up tentacles throughout the desert. On the northern edge of the Thar-Great Indian desert at the Ganganagar-Anupgarh plains a well-developed set of palaeochannels are clearly discernible in satellite photographs. (Bakliwal PC , Ramasamy, SM, and Grover, AK, 1983, Use of remote sensing in identification of possible areas for groundwater, hydrocarbons and minerals in the Thar desert, Western India, Proceeding volume of the International conference on prospecting in areas of desert terrain, The Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publications, 14-17 April, Rabat, Morocco, 121-129) have explained that these well sprung-up palaeochannels are traces of the mighty Saraswati river which once ruled the desert ... . (these and) the present study show clearly that the Saraswati river once flowed close to the Aravalli hill ranges and met the Arabian sea in the Rann of Kutch, that it has migrated towards the west, the north-west and the north and has ultimately got lost in the Anupgarh plains ...

(op.cit)​

Now we have a factual chronology of the Vedic Saraswati river:

NEARLY ten thousand years ago when mighty rivers started flowing down the Himalayan slopes, western Rajasthan was green and fertile. Great civilizations prospered in the cool amiable climate on riverbanks of northwestern India. The abundant waters of the rivers and copious rains provided ample sustenance for their farming and other activities. Some six thousand years later, Saraswati, one of the rivers of great splendour in this region, for reasons long enigmatic, dwindled and dried up. Several other rivers shifted their courses, some of their tributaries were ‘pirated’ by neigbouring rivers or severed from their main courses. The greenery of Rajasthan was lost, replaced by an arid desert where hot winds piled up dunes of sand. The flourishing civilizations vanished one by one. By geological standards, these are small-scale events; for earth, in its long 4.5 billion years history, had witnessed many such changes, some of them even accompanied by wiping out of several living species. But those that occurred in northwest India took place within the span of early human history affecting the livelihood of flourishing civilizations and driving them out to other regions.​

Rig veda describes it as one of seven major rivers of Vedic times, the others being, Shatadru (Sutlej), Vipasa (Beas), Askini (Chenab), Parsoni or Airavati (Ravi), Vitasta (Jhelum) and Sindhu (Indus)1,3,4 (Figure 1). For full 2000 y (between 6000 and 4000 BC), Saraswati had flowed as a great river before it was obliterated in a short span of geological time through a combination of destructive natural events.

Saraswati – the ancient river lost in the desert

​

We can match it perfectly with the textual record:

Early Vedic Period: 7000-5000BCE, the Saraswati river is the largest, greatest river in India, flowing from the Himalyas into the Arabian sea. The Indian people establish their settlements alongside her banks and usher in the first agricultural revolution, establishing farms, raising cattle, animal husbandary --- Vedic civilisation
Late Vedic period: 5000-3000BCE: The first urban revolution, republic appears all over India Puru etc, the rise of democracy, literature, philosophy, science, navigation and culminating with the Mahabharata war, the Saraswati rivers starts to dry up in the desert --- IVC civilisation
Post Vedic period: 3000-1000BCE: The decline and disappearance of the IVC due to the Saraswati river completely drying up, considering that 2000 of the 2600 IVC sites were on it banks, the IVC cites all were abandoned causing massive waves of tribes to migrate to new lands. It is then we see mass migrations of Indians to the East, South, and also in the West, with Indo-Aryan kingdoms appearing as far as Mesopotamia and Anatoliia.