Sarasvati (texts & arch.)

Paul K. Manansala kabalen at MAIL.JPS.NET
Thu May 21 18:27:26 UTC 1998

> >The estimates of archaeologists on the exact date of the drying up of much
> >of the Sarasvati differ considerably: Mughal (1995) argues that the Hakra
> >was a perennial river in the 4th and early 3rd millennium BC and that it
> >had dried up about the end of the second. Other dates range from 2500-1700
> >BC.
> >
> The concentration of sites on the Sarasvati is very clear. All three - Early,
> Mature and Late - Harappan sites are on the Sarasvati. So even if we are
> accept that the river had dried up by 1400BC there is very clear
> evidence of a continous civilization.
> The reason some of the sites are ON the ancient bed is precisely because
> they were built AFTER the water had been captured away from the Sarasvati
> and the river became smaller !!

Excellent point.  Also, even the latter  date of 1,700BCE is before the
supposed arrival of Indo-Europeans.  Using this chronology, it hardly
seems that they would have described the Sarasvati as a raging river
from the mountains to the sea.

Personally, I don't believe IVC was IE, but at the same time, the
facts don't match the chronology of invasion/migration.

Paul Kekai Manansala

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list