Could you please cite some references please. I can find virtually no archaeological remains from the Vedic period : [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period]Vedic period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
The scholars who wrote the history of the Vedic period used mythology as a basis. The whole history of this period is false and has no scientific evidence to date. Even the wikipedia article is constantly referring to the Rig Veda (which I regard as a spiritual text), for evidence of this period. Despite the fact that it is scientifically proved that Rig Veda could not have described events from this time period: The Myth of Aryan Invasion of India
As the Rig Veda makes hundreds of references to the sarasvati river as a mighty flowing river and never mentions it drying up, this means that the "mythological" events in the Vedas, must have taken well before (if they did even really take place) the Vedic period. The dating of all the ancient dynasties was formed under the basis the Rig Veda happened in the falsely called "Vedic period". This was made by: (please ignore the foolish arguments made on the rest, but this article is authentic) (38) F. E. Pargiter (1852-1927).
Now before you started raging insults at me and claiming that I believe mythology to be true, take a step back, I am not saying the mythology of the Vedas and the various epics are true, I am saying that our understanding of ancient Indian history is nothing but a distorted version of the mythology presented in the epics and Vedas themselves. To me the Vedas are not a historical source, but yet scholars like Pargiter and other numerous scholars use them as historical sources. If you want to use these mythologies as historical sources, then rather than distorting them, keep them in their original form.
Conclusion: Lots of what we are taught about ancient Indian history is mythology; namely the Vedic period (which is falsely called "Vedic"), the dates of the classical north Indian dynasties, and dates subscribed to the composition of the ancient texts.
Yes, that was my question. You said early Indian history was "vague and ambiguous". What I have read so far suggests to me that you are right.
I was just wondering if there was a better summary out there than India: A History by John Keay.
New to this forum and already see so much interesting topics.....
Here is my take on ancient India and her history.. I believe Indian history and culture is much older then anyone can imagine and I will provide you with some links for you to refer.
1) DHWARKA, city of Lord Krishna...in Mahabharat epic it is very well known fact that after Lord Krishna left this world, his city sank in sea...click on below link which was done by BBC..and their initial claim is that this city under the sea is atleast 9000 years old, older then any greece or egyptian or chinese history.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQZFS9Hij0M]Dwarka, India - 12,000 Year Old City of Lord Krishna Found - *Full* - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KkDMBhrAD4]Dwarka - Krishna 's Home Discovered !! - YouTube[/ame]
2) Recently I came across NASA photo, underwater bridge between India and Srilanka and NASA claimed that bridge is man mad, if we check Ramayan epic it is well know fact that Lord Rama built bridge with the help of his army to cross sea...