Oldest Harappan
Sites are in the East not in the West
Shrikant G. Talageri
Someone sent me a tweet by Koenraad Elst:
The AIT crowd jubilates that Baluchi
agri-site Mehrgarh's later date than hitherto thought proves Harappa is later.
No, it proves westernmost Mehrgarh isn't the oldest w/in Harappa; more easterly
sites, like Bhirrāņa, are. No provenance from West Asia.
From nature.com
What a wonderful start to the day!
Typing “Bhirrana dates”, I get the following “AI Overview” on google:
“Bhirrana, in the Fatehabad district of Haryana, India, is considered one of the oldest Indus Valley Civilization sites, with estimated dates ranging from 7570-6200 BC. Radio-carbon dating, primarily used to determine the age of organic materials, is the method used to estimate the antiquity of Bhirrana. Based on charcoal samples, two different dates have been calculated for the site: 7570-7180 BCE and 6689-6201 BCE.”
Typing “Mehrgarh news”, I get the following “AI Overview” on google:
“Recent news and updates regarding Mehrgarh primarily revolve around ongoing research and the site's historical significance. Recent radiocarbon studies have revised the age of Mehrgarh, a key site in the Indus Valley Civilization, from 8000 BCE to 5200 BCE. This discovery impacts understanding of the region's agricultural development. Additionally, Mehrgarh is being recognized for its role as one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming and herding in South Asia.”
So Bhirrana now dates to “7570-7180 BCE and 6689-6201 BCE” and Mehrgarh (in Baluchistan) to “5200 BCE”. So Haryana, center of the Rigveda and one of the easternmost sites of Harappan culture is older than Mehrgarh, one of the westernmost sites in India.
Of course, this does not downgrade Mehrgarh in a fundamental sphere (in matters of being the earliest site in respect of agricultural and pastoral origins in India). The news is still: “Mehrgarh is being recognized for its role as one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming and herding in South Asia.”
But, as Koenraad points out, western AIT fanatics like Witzel still don’t get the point: eastern Harappan sites are older than western ones.
On a mail, Koenraad cites Michael Witzel crowing over the “chronological downgrading” of Mehrgarh, hitherto believed to be the oldest Indian site. This is the level of stupidity of these so called peer-reviewed top western academic scholars!
So thank you Koenraad for the news and Witzel for demonstrating your total lack of logic.
On an important side note, does this prove something which has been a subject of intense debate between myself and Jijith recently, that all other Indian people (e.g Ikṣvākus) migrated to their historic areas from Haryana? No. earliest dates of sites do not prove that everyone else from areas with later (or even much later) dated sites “migrated” from the area of the earlier dated site. Human beings do not come into existence on the basis of archaeological sites.
Typing “oldest dated Sumerian site” on google produces the following “AI Overview” on google:
“The oldest dated Sumerian site is Eridu, located on the coast of the Persian Gulf. Eridu is considered one of the oldest cities and is thought to have been founded around 5400 BC, during the early Ubaid period.”
Bhirrana, “7570-7180 BCE and 6689-6201 BCE”, is older than the oldest dated Sumerian site, “around 5400 BC”. But this does not mean that the Sumerians migrated to Eridu from Bhirrana.
A direct question on google, “Do recent carbon dating findings indicate that people from Bhirrana migrated to Mehrgarh” produces the following “AI Overview” on google:
“No, recent carbon dating findings do not indicate that people from Bhirrana migrated to Mehrgarh. In fact, Bhirrana has been identified as potentially older than Mehrgarh, with some evidence suggesting its origins date back to 7570 BCE to 6200 BCE. Mehrgarh is typically dated to around 7000 BCE. This means Mehrgarh may have followed the development of Bhirrana rather than the other way around.”
So let us be balanced and rational in drawing conclusions from facts.
Sir, I have somewhere read the apart from 5th and 1st millenium bc , there is no discontinuity in skeletal record. If above thing is true then it explains why there is not much farming term in PIE but there is enough farming terminology in post anatolian split PIE. Perhaps when zagros farmer moved in india in 5th mill. Bce anatolian branch was already splitted from core PIE. perhaps they were in kelteminar culture in Central Asia. Wikipedia writes about kelteminar culture as" The Kelteminar people practised a mobile hunting, gathering and fishing subsistence system. Over time, they adopted stockbreeding. With the Late Glacial warming, up to the Atlantic Phase of the Post-Glacial Optimum, Mesolithic groups moved north into this area from the Hissar (6000–4000 BCE). " Hissar range is in tajikistan. not far from afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteSo it seems like heggarty dates may have been true. But it not necessarily means instant migration of that branch. What is your opinion. In genetics too we see some anatolian ancestry in IVCp samples around that period so people came in from zagros is a possibility.
Here anatolian homeland supporter think these are IE speaker themselves.
But as in OIT they may contributed in some advancement in farming terminology which is missed by anatolian branch.
Thank you
Been following your blogs for a long time. Amazing and inspiring work.
ReplyDelete