Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 29th, 2014, 12:28 PM   #1431
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: Montréal
Posts: 90
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
I am working on making a blog article on peculiarities of Vedic age writing as found in texts, will share the link pretty soon.
Thank you so much.
Laziz is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 29th, 2014, 12:28 PM   #1432
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: India
Posts: 474
Dating of Hastinapur By ASI


Below is the excerpt from ASI's site on Dating of Hastinapur



The dating at Hastinapura thus seem to be re-affirmed as follows: Site Period I: first half of 2nd millenniuin B.C.; Period: early 11th to early 8th century B.C.; Period III : early 6th B.C. to 3rd century B.C.; Period IV: early 2nd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D., and Period V: late 11th to early 15th century A.D.

Excavation Sites in Uttar Pradesh - Archaeological Survey of India
litsol is offline  
Old November 29th, 2014, 12:43 PM   #1433
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajanbahu View Post
lol, Thapar was born in Pakistan and as per Ticker's logic, she is Pakistani.
Whenever any one in Republic of India writes against Hindutva Hindu extremism, he or she is immediately labeled as a Pakistani. Nothing new. They are all from Republic of India and you can insult them in any manner you see fit. It does not matter to me.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 29th, 2014, 12:47 PM   #1434
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
Below is the excerpt from ASI's site on Dating of Hastinapur



The dating at Hastinapura thus seem to be re-affirmed as follows: Site Period I: first half of 2nd millenniuin B.C.; Period: early 11th to early 8th century B.C.; Period III : early 6th B.C. to 3rd century B.C.; Period IV: early 2nd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D., and Period V: late 11th to early 15th century A.D.

Excavation Sites in Uttar Pradesh - Archaeological Survey of India
And how is that related to the topic under discussion.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 29th, 2014, 01:12 PM   #1435
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: India
Posts: 474

Here is the Rigvedic reference (8.21.8) to a King, named "Chitra" whose kingdom was on the bank of Saraswati river, Chitra had larger kingdom than the other kings of his neighbourhood.
litsol is offline  
Old November 29th, 2014, 01:30 PM   #1436
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
Here is the Rigvedic reference (8.21.8) to a King, named "Chitra" whose kingdom was on the bank of Saraswati river, Chitra had larger kingdom than the other kings of his neighbourhood.
And what does this lead to. Was he part of Dasrajana. Is any location mentioned of his kingdom. Could you please elaborate.

Last edited by Ticker; November 29th, 2014 at 01:34 PM.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 29th, 2014, 01:42 PM   #1437
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: India
Posts: 474

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
And what does this lead to. Was he part of Dasrajana. Is any location mentioned of his kingdom. Could you please elaborate.
Above citation leads to -

1) Saraswati was the real river, since there was a large Vedic kingdom.

2) Since, As per the Rigveda, there was a large vedic kingdom on the bank of Saraswati that also covers many sites of IVC, the finding indicates that Vedic Kings were the makers of those IVC towns.

Last edited by litsol; November 29th, 2014 at 01:49 PM.
litsol is offline  
Old November 29th, 2014, 01:47 PM   #1438
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: India
Posts: 474

Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
Above citation leads to -

1) Saraswati was the real river, since there was a large Vedic kingdom.

2) Since, As per the RIgveda, there was a large vedic kingdom on the bank of Saraswati that also covers many sites of IVC, the finding indicates that Vedic Kings were the makers of those IVC towns.
I think, It was Tornado, who was arguing that Aryans were Agro-Pastoral society either in this thread or in other threads, don't remember, any ways, here are arguments with evidences asto why nature of Aryan Kings i.e nature of rulership doesnt approve the Agro - Pastoral- Nomadic society.

------------------------------------

Why Aryans could not be nomades is because there has been a defined system of making and grading of Kings ruling in a geographical area unlike the nomades who keeps moving after a small interval. Vedic Kings rule for generations in a region.


Further, there were various grades of kings for instance - Chayamana ( Rigveda 6.27.8) was the "Samrat" or the "Emperor" whereas "Chitra" was a "Rajan", the bigger than other kings in the region, Nomadic elements are overruled here.




Then there were system of assemblies ( Samiti ) wherein King used to have regular discussions with people.
litsol is offline  
Old November 29th, 2014, 01:54 PM   #1439
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
Above citation leads to -

1) Saraswati was the real river, since there was a large Vedic kingdom.

2) Since, As per the RIgveda, there was a large vedic kingdom on the bank of Saraswati that also covers many sites of IVC, the finding indicates that Vedic Kings were the makers of those IVC towns.
Where is it written in the Rig Veda that King Chitra's Kingdom was in the Indus Valley Civilisation. And is it also written in the Rig Veda that Vedic Kings built Indus Valley Civilisation cities. Could you please quote reference to that. Thanks.

And why couldn't it be in the Ganges river valley.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 29th, 2014, 03:07 PM   #1440
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
I think, It was Tornado, who was arguing that Aryans were Agro-Pastoral society either in this thread or in other threads, don't remember, any ways, here are arguments with evidences asto why nature of Aryan Kings i.e nature of rulership doesnt approve the Agro - Pastoral- Nomadic society.

------------------------------------

Why Aryans could not be nomades is because there has been a defined system of making and grading of Kings ruling in a geographical area unlike the nomades who keeps moving after a small interval. Vedic Kings rule for generations in a region.


Further, there were various grades of kings for instance - Chayamana ( Rigveda 6.27.8) was the "Samrat" or the "Emperor" whereas "Chitra" was a "Rajan", the bigger than other kings in the region, Nomadic elements are overruled here.




Then there were system of assemblies ( Samiti ) wherein King used to have regular discussions with people.
Generally speaking, the centuries between 1500 and 500, BC correspond to the early and the late Vedic Age. During this period the Aryans moved into the whole of Punjab and the Western Gangetic Valley. From the Western Gangetic Valley, about the year 1000, they shifted to the Middle and Eastern Gangetic Valley. Their society changed from tribal organization to caste organisation and their polity changed from tribes ruled by elected chiefs to little kingdoms ruled for the most part by semi-divine kings--and then to larger monarchical states. Romila Thapar identifies this transition as "lineage to state." During this time the Aryans shifted their livelihood from nomad pastoralism to a combination of pastoralism and farming by 1000, and then, in the next five hundred years to agriculture and trade. This last transition is known as India's second urbanisation.

In early Vedic society a tribe was called jana. The clans in a tribe were called vish. The leader of a lineage in a clan was a chief called a raja. The lineage chief, a raja of a clan, had the responsibility of organising protection of his people and their cattle. This involved organising the protection of the clan's herding areas.

In the early Vedic texts rajas are shown as having to consult a council of all male members of a tribe or aristocratic tribal councils called sabhas or samitis. Some tribes had no kingly figures and only councils--these were aristocratic tribal republics, a kind of cheifly organization, or gana-sanghas.

The increasing heterogeneity of Vedic society demanded a category of persons who could be invested with authority, with stronger political control. This subsequently led to a proliferation of small kingdoms, called janapada. This transition is seen in the very use of the word janapada, which comes from the word for tribe. Originally the janapada was the foothold of a tribe, their place, but it came to be known as the territory of all of the people of a community.

This very very briefly is the transition from pastoral nomads of the initial instance, from tribe to caste to the rajas and kings and janapadas and later mahajanapadas, the lineage to state, as it were.

Last edited by Ticker; November 29th, 2014 at 03:10 PM.
Ticker is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
ganges, indus, river, saraswati, valley



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ethnicity of The Indus Valley Civilization 1991sudarshan Ancient History 71 December 17th, 2015 06:44 PM
Indus Valley celtman Ancient History 26 January 10th, 2015 01:08 PM
Indus Valley is Tamil Civilization omtamil Asian History 407 December 21st, 2014 09:18 AM
some indus river valley questions dreamshadow3 History Help 4 February 18th, 2011 08:08 PM
Indus Valley Syed F. Inam Ancient History 3 November 19th, 2010 01:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.