Sarasvati (texts & arch.I)

[Sn. Subrahmanya]

> As far as I am concerned whether aryans are indigenous or
> immigrants does not make any difference to me. I

I have no problem with it either....but I also believe that knowing the
truth about Indian history is important.  Atleast till now,
I have found that there is a total lack of conclusive evidence
of either a invasion/migration of Aryans into India.

Now back to  Prof Witzels posting...

>The Rgveda tells us (3.33) that the (glacier-fed) Sutlej joined the Beas.
>A look on the map will show that, due to that westward shift, the
>Sarasvati lost the bulk of its water (all in Mughal 1995). Clearly the
>later part of the RV ( books 3,7, 10) is LATER than the "great Sarasvati".
>Thus, NO Rgvedic "Sarasvati civilization." (more on this last sentence
>separately if wished).
>
If 3.33 tells us that the Satluj joined the Beas.
One may argue that the info was passed down  but wouldnt that indicate
that whoever observed it and passed it on was present  at that time ?
You would probably argue that it was possibly a dravidian or pre-vedic
aryan presence, but it can also be equally valid that it was the same
rgvedic people as well !.
Archeological evidence  shows that there has been a continous cultural
evolution and there is no sign of any migration or invasion. So it seems
that it is more logical to conclude that the people who first observed the
Sutlej joining the Beas were the same people who put it into the Rgveda as well.
We will see more about this later with the "cultural" and "religious"
traits later as well.

>> ---------------------
>
>> 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.
>
>Nobody doubts that. But you overlook one or two things:
>
>(a) The great number of the (unexcavated) "Sarasvati" sites on the Hakra
>in Cholistan is due to the fact that this is a dead, fossile river bed:
>therefore, the sites have been preserved for the past 3-4000 years.
>
>(b) this is usually NOT the case in the rest of the Panjab with its
>frequently shifting rivers. Much of what had been, say, near the ancient
>Ravi or Beas has long been obliterated by these rivers... Also, many
>Harappan sites might be under present towns, such as Lahore, and of
>course, the modern town of Harappa....
>
>Sn sum, we still do not know the full, real distribution of Harappan Civ.
>sites in *real* percentages.
>

I agree with (a). But (b) is completely unjustified.
...The rivers of the Punjab just did not start to shift
after or during IVC. They have been doing that for much longer time period.
So it might be that the SIVC people did not even settle there because of
the shifting rivers.
The reason there are more sites on the Sarasvati
is precisely because it was comparitively more stable than the
rivers in the Punjab.
After the capture of the Sarasvati it probably became worse.
Also, many(not all) of the pre-Harappan and mature Harappan sites on the
Sarasvati are on the eastern sides of the river where the denudation by
floods was less and they also had the technology to counter the
occasional floods compared to the floods in the Punjab.
(1984, Raikes. Mohenjo Daro environment.
Joshi et al,1984, A reconsideration based on distribution maps).

As for your arguments about what is under Lahore ....
One can also come up with all kinds of speculation about what is
under Delhi or Kashi !
We come to conclusions, based on available data, the rest is mere speculation.

Regards,
Subrahmanya