a possibility of Indo Gangetic tradition instead of ''Indus valley civilization'' during the bronze ages?

Mar 2019
1,809
KL
an imminent archaeologist JM Kenoyer in one of his lectures presented this scenario linking indian prehistory to its historic age

1573120432172.png


what if the historic india was the result of indo gangetic traditions since the bronze ages culminating in the form of nanda maurya age in the 5-3rd century BC?

the sites such as daimabad so far south of IVC is intriguingly related to the sites like shortugai at the oxus which presents a real possibility of indo gangetic tradition instead of IVC. what if the notion is proven with ground breaking archaeological discoveries in gangetic plain and central india in the future?

so far archaeology fails to find pre mauryan layers which is astonishing since the nandas preceded the mauryans so they should also have cultural signs, which makes me believe that archaeology in india hasn't developed to that level to link historic periods with archaeology properly.

regards
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,500
Australia
an imminent archaeologist JM Kenoyer in one of his lectures presented this scenario linking indian prehistory to its historic age

View attachment 24555


what if the historic india was the result of indo gangetic traditions since the bronze ages culminating in the form of nanda maurya age in the 5-3rd century BC?

the sites such as daimabad so far south of IVC is intriguingly related to the sites like shortugai at the oxus which presents a real possibility of indo gangetic tradition instead of IVC. what if the notion is proven with ground breaking archaeological discoveries in gangetic plain and central india in the future?

so far archaeology fails to find pre mauryan layers which is astonishing since the nandas preceded the mauryans so they should also have cultural signs, which makes me believe that archaeology in india hasn't developed to that level to link historic periods with archaeology properly.

regards

First you made a claim in the first sentence ; JM Kenoyer in one of his lectures presented this scenario linking indian prehistory to its historic age.

He does ????

What it does say and what it IS about is described by its title .


If I am wrong, please show us the time on the video where we can see and hear where Mark Kenoyer is " presenting this scenario linking indian prehistory to its historic age ."

Also:

Shortugai is known to be an IVC 'trading post' (Harrapan), not an 'indo gangetic tradition ' trading post. So what if Daimabad is 'so far south' (it isnt really anyway ) as discoveries at Daimabad suggest that Late Harappan culture extended into the Deccan Plateau in India *

and the 'Daimabad Phase' comes AFTER the 'Harrapan Phase' at Daimabad

Phase I: Savalda culture

Phase II: Late Harappan culture

[There is a break in occupation for about half-a-century between the Phase II (Late Harappan period) and Phase III (Daimabad period)]

Phase III: Daimabad culture

Phase IV: Malwa culture

Phase V: Jorwe culture








*; Upinder, Singh (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Delhi: Pearson Education. p. 230.
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,500
Australia
so what does he say and what does his powerpoint picture means?

regards
You mean , you posted a video of a lecture as 'evidence' or 'reference' and cited the lecturer as saying certain things ..... and you have not even watched it ? !


:oops:
 
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
You mean , you posted a video of a lecture as 'evidence' or 'reference' and cited the lecturer as saying certain things ..... and you have not even watched it ? !


:oops:
no i have watched, im only asking you, what have you deduced from the lecture portion starting at 9:59

regards
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,500
Australia
Okay then , try watching it and listening to what he is saying at the same time !

The onus is on you to show what YOU claimed , its your post, and your claim.


Regardless, I will go first . He talks about the many cultures in the area and that they had a role to play in the emergence of Indus civilization . Its obvious ! Thats what he says , just listen to it, listen to his words ... dont just make up your own stuff around what he said .

Its not what I or you 'DEDUCE' from what he is saying ... it is what he is saying and its clear .

It is about the emergence of IVC and the roles the surrounding cultures had in that emergence . It is NOT about what you are claiming .

Now, even though it IS up to you to prove your claim , I obliged you with an answer to your queston. Now , you tell me at what time in the video the lecturer or anyone else says what YOU claim ; ie, " ... JM Kenoyer in one of his lectures presented this scenario linking indian prehistory to its historic age. "
 
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
watch 10:56 till 11:04

now tell me, how does that statement not support my OP?

how do you explain the PP picture?

regards
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,500
Australia
Okay, It supports the first line of your OP, ( I conceded that - see my post 4 ) but not your OP as a whole , what you shifted into in the rest of the post ;

" .... all these cultures played a part .... " (my emphasis ) ,. they all (the ones shown in the left map) including those to the north west , played a part in the development of IVC . The ones highlighted in the right map, including 'Indus' (not 'instead of' ) played a part in continuance up to historical times .

Not " of indo gangetic tradition instead of IVC. " ( your statement , my emphasis )

Like I said above , if you are looking for a source of Kenoyer showing a possible development from IVC and IGT into 'history' OTHER than the 'missing archeology' see;

https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Kenoyer1995_Interaction Systems, Specialized Crafts and Cult_0.pdf

But that paper does not substitute IVC with IGT , it includes the regions that made up the IGT (and that includes the Indus , that is what the maps are showing .

EG, Bactro Margiana is included in the first map that shows one of the cultural influences that bought about IVC and it is not included in the second map of the IGT as it didnt influence the transition from IGT to historical age ( the Bactro - Margiana 'complex' has remained unknown up to the 1970s ) but 'Indus' is included in the right map highlighted area , not excluded from it .

- thats my take on what I am looking at and what he said .... if there IS a part where he does say " which presents a real possibility of indo gangetic tradition instead of IVC " please point it out . This is your postulation, isnt it ? and its related to what you wrote about "... the sites such as daimabad so far south of IVC ... " , which I addressed : "discoveries at Daimabad suggest that Late Harappan culture extended into the Deccan Plateau in India " .

So I dont see why you seem to be trying to eliminate, somehow, the IVC culture as extending south nor having a role into continence into historical times .

The more interesting part of this lecture is about the trade and and skills and other places IVC culture went to ... not any elimination of it and substituting it with IGT .
 
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
Okay, It supports the first line of your OP, ( I conceded that - see my post 4 ) but not your OP as a whole , what you shifted into in the rest of the post ;

" .... all these cultures played a part .... " (my emphasis ) ,. they all (the ones shown in the left map) including those to the north west , played a part in the development of IVC . The ones highlighted in the right map, including 'Indus' (not 'instead of' ) played a part in continuance up to historical times .

Not " of indo gangetic tradition instead of IVC. " ( your statement , my emphasis )

Like I said above , if you are looking for a source of Kenoyer showing a possible development from IVC and IGT into 'history' OTHER than the 'missing archeology' see;

https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Kenoyer1995_Interaction Systems, Specialized Crafts and Cult_0.pdf

But that paper does not substitute IVC with IGT , it includes the regions that made up the IGT (and that includes the Indus , that is what the maps are showing .

EG, Bactro Margiana is included in the first map that shows one of the cultural influences that bought about IVC and it is not included in the second map of the IGT as it didnt influence the transition from IGT to historical age ( the Bactro - Margiana 'complex' has remained unknown up to the 1970s ) but 'Indus' is included in the right map highlighted area , not excluded from it .

- thats my take on what I am looking at and what he said .... if there IS a part where he does say " which presents a real possibility of indo gangetic tradition instead of IVC " please point it out . This is your postulation, isnt it ? and its related to what you wrote about "... the sites such as daimabad so far south of IVC ... " , which I addressed : "discoveries at Daimabad suggest that Late Harappan culture extended into the Deccan Plateau in India " .

So I dont see why you seem to be trying to eliminate, somehow, the IVC culture as extending south nor having a role into continence into historical times .

The more interesting part of this lecture is about the trade and and skills and other places IVC culture went to ... not any elimination of it and substituting it with IGT .
Indo Gangetic tradition includes the IVC and doesnt exclude it, IVC being only a part of the tradition and not being itself the whole thing, this is clearly stated by JM Kenoyer in his lecture above.

As far as Daimabad is concerned, there is no evidence that it had late harappan culture and not its distinct Deccani culture, i think late harappan postulation is false, as you can clearly see from the map that shortugai is included but daimabad area is included in Deccan culture.

As far as BMAC is concerned, a part of BMAC was part of maurya empire/shown in second map and the site of BMAC was also linked with indo gangetic tradition via buddhism, Gandhara, Kamhoja and loads of other history as well.

regards