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 21st, 2014, 01:03 PM   #981
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajra View Post
LOL,now you are even questioning ASI?



This is a new find actually,so obviously the old works of archaeologists does not comment much on Rakhigarhi.


Rakhihgarhi IS near Ghaggar-Hakra.

Rakhigarhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now please STFU & GTFO.
The source of Wikipedia is the newspaper India Today. Till the time, reputed international archeologists confirm this as a fact, it remains a news story and nothing more.

And I chose not to use abusive language.
Ticker is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 21st, 2014, 01:06 PM   #982
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: India
Posts: 4,333

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
Excerpt

Horses were critical to Vedic civilisation, as we see in Vedic texts describing horse sacrifices, horse raids, and warfare using horse-drawn chariots. If Rigvedic culture (normally dated to the last half of the second millennium BCE) is identified with Harappa, it is critical to find evidence of extensive use of domesticated horses in India in the third millennium BCE. In the case of Hindutva “revisionists” like Rajaram, who push the Rigveda to the fourth or even fifth millennium, the problem is worse. They must find domesticated horses and chariots in South Asia thousands of years before either existed anywhere on the planet.

http://www.safarmer.com/frontline/horseplay.pdf

Hahahahahaha I cited a fresh article which came out today and you have cited something which is more than 10 years old!! Wah wah!
Vajra is offline  
Old November 21st, 2014, 01:10 PM   #983
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: India
Posts: 4,333

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
The source of Wikipedia is the newspaper India Today. Till the time, reputed international archeologists confirm this as a fact, it remains a news story and nothing more.

It appears that the story is not new.
Here is another source from 2007 http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146412888

This is NOT an Indian source.It just cites ASI,which is a reliable source.

Do you still dispute that the largest Harappan site is in India near Ghaggar-Hakra?Do you accept that Ghaggra Hakra was not a small river and had enough waters to nourish large sites like Rakhigarhi?
Vajra is offline  
Old November 21st, 2014, 01:13 PM   #984
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by litsol View Post
Two requests :

A) Pls don't call Rajaram a Hindu "Revisionist", I don't think he is, he has just tried his hands on history in post retirement time, He has to do a lot to become thorough.

B) Also, pls don't quote a superficial guy like Steve Farmer, his knowledge and activities are questionable, I have silenced him many times in last two years and now he doesn't come in direct debates with me. These guys talk without knowledge and study, who takes them to universities and institutions, is a real question.
I just quoted from the paper and did not add a word of my own.

Basically the article has been co-authored by Michael Witzel, who is a famous Harvard University Indologist and the person you don't want to be referred to, who is described as a comparative historian, report on media hype, faked data, and Hindutva propaganda in recent claims that the Indus Valley script has been decoded.

I am sorry, I will be mindful of Steve Farmer.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 21st, 2014, 01:18 PM   #985
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajra View Post
Hahahahahaha I cited a fresh article which came out today and you have cited something which is more than 10 years old!! Wah wah!
There is a world of difference between this article where the head of the Indian Council of Historical Research and the Indian Prime Minister make statements and a news report which quotes an official whose excavations and claims need peer review.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 21st, 2014, 01:23 PM   #986
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: India
Posts: 4,333

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
official whose excavations and claims need peer review.
Huh?They ARE the ones who does the excavations,right?Without them,how can we know about ancient stuff?I believe that ASI is an authentic source.Now you are even questioning basic foundations of archaeology and thus,history!

Vajra is offline  
Old November 21st, 2014, 01:26 PM   #987
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajra View Post
It appears that the story is not new.
Here is another source from 2007 http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146412888

This is NOT an Indian source.It just cites ASI,which is a reliable source.

Do you still dispute that the largest Harappan site is in India near Ghaggar-Hakra?Do you accept that Ghaggra Hakra was not a small river and had enough waters to nourish large sites like Rakhigarhi?
All I am saying regarding the claims of Rakhigarhi is that these need to be peer reviewed. If after the peer review, it is acceptable to be the largest site, why would I have any objection.

Ghaggar-Hakra was proven to be a small seasonal river at the time of Harappan settlements in the area, through many scientific studies conducted by experts from different countries. Rakhigarhi is far away from Ghaggar-Hakra to directly "nourish" this city.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 21st, 2014, 01:28 PM   #988
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajra View Post
Huh?They ARE the ones who does the excavations,right?Without them,how can we know about ancient stuff?I believe that ASI is an authentic source.Now you are even questioning basic foundations of archaeology and thus,history!

I do not believe in ASI and many others around the world also do not. Sorry!
Ticker is offline  
Old November 21st, 2014, 01:32 PM   #989
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: India
Posts: 4,333

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
All I am saying regarding the claims of Rakhigarhi is that these need to be peer reviewed. If after the peer review, it is acceptable to be the largest site, why would I have any objection.
It IS peer reviewed!! The link I provided is authentic,it cites ASI official!

Quote:
Ghaggar-Hakra was proven to be a small seasonal river at the time of Harappan settlements in the area, through many scientific studies conducted by experts from different countries. Rakhigarhi is far away from Ghaggar-Hakra to directly "nourish" this city.
No,Rakhigarhi is in Haryana,near Ghaggar-Hakra river!

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakhigarhi]Rakhigarhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Jump out from your madrassa education!
Vajra is offline  
Old November 21st, 2014, 01:33 PM   #990
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: India
Posts: 4,333

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
and many others around the world also do not.
They all do.Indian archaeology owes it to ASI.
Vajra 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.