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 December 6th, 2014, 07:02 AM   #1521
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comet View Post
And you can certainly continue posting as long as you follow our rules . I apologize for the lack of clarity in my comment. It really had nothing to do with you. Simply put, if people don't like what's posted then don't interact in the thread.
Thank you.
Ticker is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 6th, 2014, 07:12 AM   #1522

Comet's Avatar
Jedi Master
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: IA
Posts: 8,675
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
I do apologize. I'll try to refrain, though I find the spamming highly irritating.

Normally, I'd agree. But you have seen the last two or so pages right?
It's certainly your right to find things irritating, but that doesn't mean he's spamming or trolling. Keep in mind that the disruption is coming from the people responding, not the poster. As I mentioned earlier, if you don't like what the individual is written don't respond. If you feel the need to respond, do it respectfully. This is all we really ask of everyone.
Comet is offline  
Old December 6th, 2014, 07:19 AM   #1523
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: India
Posts: 4,333

Comet is right guys.Why bother replying to the refuted arguments over and over again?Ticker has complete freedom to post random links found on google.If you are not interested,then just don't reply to them.
Vajra is offline  
Old December 6th, 2014, 07:23 AM   #1524

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,030
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajra View Post
Comet is right guys.Why bother replying to the refuted arguments over and over again?Ticker has complete freedom to post random links found on google.If you are not interested,then just don't reply to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comet View Post
It's certainly your right to find things irritating, but that doesn't mean he's spamming or trolling. Keep in mind that the disruption is coming from the people responding, not the poster. As I mentioned earlier, if you don't like what the individual is written don't respond. If you feel the need to respond, do it respectfully. This is all we really ask of everyone.
Fair enough, I apologize once again.
tornada is offline  
Old December 6th, 2014, 11:48 AM   #1525
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Excerpts .......

The river Ghaggar which flows through the Indian states of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan and onwards into Pakistan had dried up in the latest Pleistocene (from 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago). Therefore it may not have been the main water source for the later mid-Holocene Harappan settlements in that region and also likely was not the river Saraswati described in Rig-Ved. That's the gist from three separate studies, Welcome | AGU, (pages 23, 24, 103) on the Ghaggar river basin presented at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union and summarized in Science.

The finding that the river Ghaggar likely dried up or had a drastically reduced flow in the latest Pleistocene is not that surprising from the perspective of the broader climatic regime existing from Late Pleistocene to Holocene.

The studies by Gupta et al and Maemoku et al which suggest that between 15,000 years and 10,000 years ago the Ghaggar basin shows signs of drying up .......

Rapid Uplift: Geological Update On River Ghaggar / Saraswati

Also, the field work conclusion that Ghaggar has been defunct for about 20000 years was reported by MA Courtyard in 1986.

Reference: Geoarcheological approach of Holocene paleoenvironments of the Ghaggar Plain. Man and environment vol. 10 pp 449-453 1986.
Ticker is offline  
Old December 7th, 2014, 12:29 AM   #1526
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Rajesh Kochhar, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, in his paper titled, "On the Identity and Chronology of the Rigvedic River Sarasvati" states that, "the attributes of the celebrated Rigvedic river Sarasvati do not match those of the Old Ghaggar, even if one assumes that the Satluj and the Yamuna flowed into it; and secondly, that the Ghaggar was already defunct in Rigvedic times. While the identification of the Sarasvati of the later texts with the present-day Ghaggar is retained, arguments are given in support of the identification of the original Sarasvati with the Helmand in south Afghanistan, having the original Yamuna and Ganga as its tributaries. In this picture, the rivers to the east of the Satluj bearing Rigvedic names are not Rigvedic rivers at all, but merely named in their honour."
Ticker is offline  
Old December 7th, 2014, 06:03 AM   #1527
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

As the technology improved, the methodology to identify various aspects in a more accurate manner improved as well. The earlier and later studies universally confirmed one aspect clearly, that the Ghaggar-Hakra never emanated from higher glaciated mountains as the Rig Veda suggested for Saraswati and generated a doubt with regard to the two being the same river. This prompted some to point out that though Ghaggar-Hakra did not emanate from higher glaciated mountains, rivers like Sutlej and Jamuna may once could either have been its distributaries or their distributaries could have flowed into Ghaggar-Hakra and therefore making it a big and ferocious river as stated in the Rig Veda. Such thoughts had also been expressed by earlier British and other European scholars as well. This prompted further scientific analyses, which revealed that if Jamuna had flowed into Ghaggar-Hakra, it stopped doing so around 50,000 years ago and in the similar manner, Sutlej stopped flowing into Ghaggar-Hakra around 10,000 years ago. What it proved was that Ghaggar-Hakra was a seasonal river during the times of the IVC, and could not have been the Saraswati of IVC times. Therefore, Saraswati river in the form of Ghaggar-Hakra could not have been the Saraswati River Valley of the IVC era and therefore not part of Indus Valley Civilisation. The studies did not prove that Saraswati river did not exist as stated in the Rig Veda, though it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was certainly not Ghaggar-Hakra.
Ticker is offline  
Old December 7th, 2014, 10:22 AM   #1528
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Excerpt

The biggest argument against the identification of the Old Ghaggar with the naditama Sarasvati comes from the position of the Satluj. If the Old Ghaggar is to be regarded as a mighty river, it must have been able to receive the waters of the Satluj. The Satluj is mentioned in the Rigveda and there is no suggestion whatsoever that it was in any way connected with the Sarasvati. As a matter of fact, the Rigveda (Rv 3.33) explicitly associates the Satluj with the Beas and refers to their confluence.

On the Identity and Chronology of the Rigvedic River Sarasvati
Ticker is offline  
Old December 7th, 2014, 11:00 AM   #1529
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Excerpt

While Sarasvati is equated with the Ghaggar, the Chautang is equated with the Drishadvati on grounds of plausibility. As already noted, a rishi in Latyayana Srauta-sutra (10.19.8,9) could travel to the source of the Drishadvati and reach the Yamuna with ease. This is not possible in the Ghaggar set-up, because the source of the Yamuna is not within walking distance of the Chautang. The Yamuna originates in the middle Himalayas, from the Yamunotri glacier on the Bandar-punch ('monkey's tail) peak in Garhwal; a short distance from the source of the Bhagirathi which unites with Alakananda to give rise to the Ganga (Mathur 1991).

On the Identity and Chronology of the Rigvedic River Sarasvati
Ticker is offline  
Old December 7th, 2014, 12:09 PM   #1530
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Excerpt

One obvious proof that the Ghaghar-Hakra did not even have water to take it beyond the middle of the Bahawalpur Cholistan comes from the distribution maps of the protohistoric sites themselves. While the Harappan (as well as pre-Harappan and post-Harappan) sites seem to run in a large belt along the Hakra river, and are especially numerous around Derawar, they just cease here, with only very rare sites below the great settlement of Ganweriwala. The pattern of distribution of the Hakra Ware (4th millennium BC), the early Harappan (Kot Diji) and mature Indus sites also give the appearance of being positioned along the deltaic branches of the Hakra; and this makes even G.L. Possehl, a believer in "the Sarasvati system", agree that the "Sarasvati" flowing through the Hakra bed has never, at least in Holocene, flowed past the
deltaic fan around Derawar, and so could never have joined the E. Nara to make its way down to the sea.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
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.