What's new

Children of the Indus

XXX,

It must have been a constant stream rather than waves.

Dada,

  1. Those who are to be found in north India are unlikely to have been lineal descendants of the IVC people.
Is it not a possibility that they might be. After all the environmental degradation that you allude to may have forced many IVC people to migrate to more fertile and better watered neighbouring regions in N and C India. This of course assumes that they had the tools to chop down the forests in these regions.

Regards
 
Is it not a possibility that they might be. After all the environmental degradation that you allude to may have forced many IVC people to migrate to more fertile and better watered neighbouring regions in N and Central India. This of course assumes that they had the tools to chop down the forests in these regions.

Right, they were totally unable to recreate the same civilization they had in Pakistan - probably left their IQ behind! Lol!
 
XXX,

Maybe they didnt leave their creativity behind. But the rains and floods may have destroyed their creations in GV region much more than in IVC where the dry climate preserved their ruins.

Regards
 
XXX,

Maybe they didnt leave their creativity behind. But the rains and floods may have destroyed their creations in GV region much more than in IVC where the dry climate preserved their ruins.

Regards

Nothing adds up with that theory.

First of all, Central India wasn't up for grabs - it was already more densely populated. Moving an entire civilization into another densely inhabited territory is no easy task.

Secondly, Sindh's weather has not changed drastically in the past 3000 years. What makes you think the arid climate had driven them off while it still supports 55 million people today?

Thirdly, there is absolutely no sign of mass migration of Sindhi people. A superior culture does not need mass migration to influence neighboring regions.
 
@Joe Shearer got a question for you.

I know that Europe was populated by waves of Indo-Euro invaders (Celts, Latin, Germanic, Slavic etc.) over centuries, so was Western Asia (Medes, Persians etc.).

How many waves of Indo-Euro invaders/migrants came to the subcontinent since the Vedic people arrived (assuming they were the first one)? The Jats would be a latecomer right?

@Tergon18 feel free to chip in.



Disagree. Language carries culture. Flow of language is accompanied by flow of culture.
Will reply on return.

Your point on language and culture is excellent but I wish to contest it. Please bear with me.
 
@Joe Shearer got a question for you.

I know that Europe was populated by waves of Indo-Euro invaders (Celts, Latin, Germanic, Slavic etc.) over centuries, so was Western Asia (Medes, Persians etc.).

How many waves of Indo-Euro invaders/migrants came to the subcontinent since the Vedic people arrived (assuming they were the first one)? The Jats would be a latecomer right?

@Tergon18 feel free to chip in.



Disagree. Language carries culture. Flow of language is accompanied by flow of culture.

Back a day earlier, so I'm piling on.

First, may I say, with genuine pleasure, that it was nice to see you posting this? I had gathered a melancholy impression that your view was more or less that of Colonel Custer, that the only good Indian was a dead Indian, and that nothing in the nature of these essentially historical discussions was worth the sheer pleasure of a knee in a random Indian middle. Clearly, going by these astute questions, I was wrong. A happy situation. I love being wrong in these things.

Coming to the waves of invaders in western Europe, let me answer by painting a word-picture, without doing the heavy lifting, in the interests of promptitude. Permit me, if you will, to do the same for the western Asia case. Some of this may turn out to be terribly wrong, when I return to the books later, afterwards; apologies in anticipation.

Taking the Greeks first: yes, they came in waves. The Achaeans first, destroying the Cretan and pseudo-Cretan cultures, and paving the way for the Ionians and Aeolians. The Dorians last, and prevalent over all the previous races (they had iron swords, their predecessors bronze ones; might have made a very big difference). It is worth remembering also that the authochthones, the people of the preceding culture, remained and were recognised by their different speech as late as Herodotus.

The Latins? Far more confusing. We know that the Etruscans preceded them, but we have no idea about the time-sequence of their coming to the Italian peninsula. At this distance, it looks like one agglomerated mass.

The Celts, then. They certainly formed the recognisable mass of 'European' culture, from the reaches of Iberia, contemporary Spain and Portugal, through France, with its 'indomitable' Gauls, and the entirety of the British Isles, Ireland, Scotland (with variations between Pict and Scot), Wales and central 'England'. Did they come in waves? I have to confess that I don't know, not having studied the subject as deeply as I ought to have. Honestly, I only know that the Romans found the cis-Alpine Gauls a handful, and the trans-Alpine Gauls too strong for them, as they defeated and sacked the city several times. It was only with Caesar that they were finally subdued and crushed.

The Germans, on the other hand, provide strong evidence with which to respond to you. Before going further, do note that it is assumed that the different races may have preceded or succeeded each other, but except for the very late date of the Germans, it is not clear if the Greeks, the Latins or the Celts came first or last or in which sequence. What we do think to be true is that the Germans were probably the last. I have also tried to look at each race by itself, and see if 'pulses' were there to be detected; in the case of the Greeks, they were.

Back to the Germans, as they were then, not as they are today.

The difficulty even with this relatively well-documented race's comings and goings is that the good documentation is good relative to the murk and mist covering the origins and the movements of the others - the Greeks, Latins and the Celts. We know that the Romans found them after they swept through Gaul and came to the Rhine, and gingerly penetrated the northern forests. But what they found, what we now know, is still very obscure. Let me pause here, please, largely to catch breath!

To be continued:
The Germans, their tribes, and the sequence of their coming into the Roman Empire;
The question of waves of immigration of such tribes in west Asia;
The question of waves of immigration of such tribes in sub-continental India, and some speculation of what happened before.
 
Last edited:
Back a day earlier, so I'm piling on.

First, may I say, with genuine pleasure, that it was nice to see you posting this? I had gathered a melancholy impression that your view was more or less that of Colonel Custer, that the only good Indian was a dead Indian, and that nothing in the nature of these essentially historical discussions was worth the sheer pleasure of a knee in a random Indian middle. Clearly, going by these astute questions, I was wrong. A happy situation. I love being wrong in these things.

Coming to the waves of invaders in western Europe, let me answer by painting a word-picture, without doing the heavy lifting, in the interests of promptitude. Permit me, if you will, to do the same for the western Asia case. Some of this may turn out to be terribly wrong, when I return to the books later, afterwards; apologies in anticipation.

Taking the Greeks first: yes, they came in waves. The Achaeans first, destroying the Cretan and pseudo-Cretan cultures, and paving the way for the Ionians and Aeolians. The Dorians last, and prevalent over all the previous races. It is worth remembering also that the authochthones, the people of the preceding culture, remained and were recognised by their different speech as late as Herodotus.

The Latins? Far more confusing. We know that the Etruscans preceded them, but we have no idea about the time-sequence of their coming to the Italian peninsula. At this distance, it looks like one agglomerated mass.

The Celts, then. They certainly formed the recognisable mass of 'European' culture, from the reaches of Iberia, contemporary Spain and Portugal, through France, with its 'indomitable' Gauls, and the entirety of the British Isles, Ireland, Scotland (with variations between Pict and Scot), Wales and central 'England'. Did they come in waves? I have to confess that I don't know, not having studied the subject as deeply as I ought to have. Honestly, I only know that the Romans found the cis-Alpine Gauls a handful, and the trans-Alpine Gauls too strong for them, as they defeated and sacked the city several times. It was only with Caesar that they were finally subdued and crushed.

The Germans, on the other hand, provide strong evidence with which to respond to you. Before going further, do note that it is assumed that the different races may have preceded or succeeded each other, but except for the very late date of the Germans, it is not clear if the Greeks, the Latins or the Celts came first or last or in which sequence. What we do think to be true is that the Germans were probably the last. I have also tried to look at each race by itself, and see if 'pulses' were there to be detected; in the case of the Greeks, they were.

Back to the Germans, as they were then, not as they are today.

The difficulty even with this relatively well-documented race's comings and goings is that the good documentation is good relative to the murk and mist covering the origins and the movements of the others - the Greeks, Latins and the Celts. We know that the Romans found them after they swept through Gaul and came to the Rhine, and gingerly penetrated the northern forests. But what they found, what we now know, is still very obscure. Let me pause here, please, largely to catch breath!

To be continued:
The Germans, their tribes, and the sequence of their coming into the Roman Empire;
The question of waves of immigration of such tribes in west Asia;
The question of waves of immigration of such tribes in sub-continental India, and some speculation of what happened before.

Do I give that impression? Lol. Don't take my troll assaults on sanghi brigade as an expression of hate against ordinary Indians. But the ideas and agenda of those in power today are truly revolting.

Anyways, back to history. Great post and very informative (as expected). :tup: Looking forward to the rest.
 
Do I give that impression? Lol. Don't take my troll assaults on sanghi brigade as an expression of hate against ordinary Indians. But the ideas and agenda of those in power today are truly revolting.

Anyways, back to history. Great post and very informative (as expected). :tup: Looking forward to the rest.

YES, YES, YES.
 
The Germans, on the other hand, provide strong evidence with which to respond to you. Before going further, do note that it is assumed that the different races may have preceded or succeeded each other, but except for the very late date of the Germans, it is not clear if the Greeks, the Latins or the Celts came first or last or in which sequence. What we do think to be true is that the Germans were probably the last. I have also tried to look at each race by itself, and see if 'pulses' were there to be detected; in the case of the Greeks, they were.

I don't know why (did I read that somewhere?) - I always thought the Latin wave(s) pushed the Celts to the fringes of Europe. Germanic people came after for sure, seeing their geographic distribution. Again my assumption.. didn't read much about it.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why (did I read that somewhere?) - I always thought the Latin wave(s) pushed the Celts to the fringes of Europe. Germanic people came after for sure, seeing their geographic distribution. Again my assumption.. didn't read much about it.

I didn't know that. Let me read up on it and get back to you, but I will continue with the dregs of what I had read earlier for the time being, in the interests of continuity.

The Gauls were Celtic, weren't they? Only Italy and Greece would have been drained of Celts, in that case, considering that Spain and Portugal, France and the British Isles were all Celtic.
 
The Gauls were Celtic, weren't they? Only Italy and Greece would have been drained of Celts, in that case, considering that Spain and Portugal, France and the British Isles were all Celtic.

Right Gauls were Celtic. My ideas about the sequence of arrival are mostly based (maybe wrongly) on geographic distribution as I now little about the real history. That brings me to the question - what path did each of the groups take? Greeks must have come through Anatolia. How about the Latins? Anatolia, then Southern Europe? Steppes, then Eastern Europe? Mediterranean Sea?

Please continue. Signing off, will read tomorrow.
 
Right Gauls were Celtic. My ideas about the sequence of arrival are mostly based (maybe wrongly) on geographic distribution as I now little about the real history. That brings me to the question - what path did each of the groups take? Greeks must have come through Anatolia. How about the Latins? Anatolia, then Southern Europe? Steppes, then Eastern Europe? Mediterranean Sea?

Please continue. Signing off, will read tomorrow.

Whoa!

When you get going, you really get going, don't you?

The Greeks, I can answer for partially; it was a long hike around, through Anatolia OR the southern steppes into Thessaly (linked to the modern city of Thessaloniki) downwards through the peninsula, and outward into the archipelago, right back to the sea coast of Anatolia.

I'm damned if I know about the Latins.

Nobody has sent me on a source-hunt like this for a long, long time.
 
XXX,

It must have been a constant stream rather than waves.

Dada,

  1. Those who are to be found in north India are unlikely to have been lineal descendants of the IVC people.
Is it not a possibility that they might be. After all the environmental degradation that you allude to may have forced many IVC people to migrate to more fertile and better watered neighbouring regions in N and C India. This of course assumes that they had the tools to chop down the forests in these regions.

Regards

Or they became gatherers, eventually hunters.

In the forests. For refuge and hideaways.

Hence did not translocate to a new river system.

Hence no take-overs (pottery, architecture, organised dwelling concentrations, granaries) seen from different periods, since they never went back to agriculture. And over a few centuries, or even generations, lost their collective civilizational memory (a typical Hollywoodesque Post Armagedon scenario - Kevin Costner's Waterworld).
 
Yes well Mehrgarh was one of the epicentres of the Indus Valley civilisation which is located in modern day Baluchistan.
 
Here are DETAILED Miltary maps of the three Most powerful empires in the Post Mauryan cum pre-Islamic period
You see time and again either they are stopped way before Sutlej or they are stopped in the Sialkot,Gujarat area....All of them failed to take Indus

Starting with Harsha vardhana of the Pusyabhutis ...One of the most celebrated rulers of Ancient India who is known even to this day


J3XznUf.png




Now the mighty Guptas---The Greatest of Hindu Empires and possibly the only time when a Hindu empire was as mighty as any other contemporary empire or nomadic confederacy in the world..They also could extend to Sialkot and no further

IIAoWTv.png




Third The Rajput Empire of the Gurajara Pratiharas..they extended to just a few miles west of Silakot, and that's it....but Gujarat,Sialkot sector was not under their command during the time of their greatest extent between 890 and 920 AD

qUNFwqJ.png
 
Back
Top Bottom