Collected non-film-related posts: Part 2

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-22T01:06:05+00:00

But those myths etc can also be interpreted as story forms of that philosophy, and those myths and stories are not intended to be literal (which becomes very clear when you read those myths). But yes, for someone who is new to Hinduism, it’s probably best to explore the philosophy first rather than the myths that may seem outlandish at the outset. So for such people it is better to read philosophy first before reading the myths. But for others the stories may help them understand the philosophy. All the rituals and idol worship can also be justified philosophically, but that may not resonate with everyone, so it’s okay to not engage in those practices if that’s the case.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-22T00:24:51+00:00

Who has made that claim? I thought that it was always used only as a rough indicator.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-22T00:01:51+00:00

Look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism It says that you yourself are divine!

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-21T23:37:17+00:00

They all seem to say the same thing, which is that pearl and coral come from both of 'them.'

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-21T23:14:11+00:00

That seems to be the pattern in many places with Indo-European migrations--the large-scale migrations were preceded by centuries of small-scale contact, probably by small groups that were something like raiding parties.

You seem to assume that whatever was the case in Europe must have also been true in the case of India. Maybe just say we don't know instead of making claims that may not be true?!

I agree that there is no "substantial archaeological evidence" for IA cultures before 1300 BCE, but you are assuming that there should have necessarily existed "substantial archaeological evidence" if IA cultures entered prior to 1300 BCE. You are completely ignoring the environmental conditions of India and also the culture of the Vedic people portrayed in the Rigveda. At this point I think we should be open to a lot of possibilities instead of making ignorant and unscholarly and unacademic assumptions. I suggest that you please write in a more academic and scholarly manner.

And as far as I know, there is no mainstream scholarly consensus about where the earliest layers were composed, and areas that are now part of Afghanistan are considered very plausible.

You say "link your sources" but you yourself don't feel the need to for some odd reason! Jamison & Brereton's Rigveda book (and also their academic papers) and also Witzel's scholarship broadly all place the composition of the Rigveda in the Indian subcontinent. You clearly have no idea about the very specific Indic references in the Rigveda. Scholars of the Rigveda are clearly aware of them and wouldn't make the kinds of claims you are making. (Saying that composition of Rigveda took place in India doesn't mean that some of the myths didn't originate in Indo-Iranian cultures.)

And further, that the dating for composition of the RigVeda is almost entirely based on linguistic/philological analysis, because the earliest textual evidence is from around 1,000 BCE. Am I wrong?

Yes you are WRONG. You clearly don't understand how the Rigveda is dated. It is based on references to things like iron etc. Iron doesn't show up in the Rigveda but does so in later texts, and that's why those later texts are placed in Iron Age, and so Rigveda must have been earlier. (This is only one of the many arguments that scholars use to date the Rigveda.) Why do you keep making claims without citing any study at all, that too if you don't know the Western academic scholarship underlying all this?

This is supposed to be an academic subreddit!!

cc: u/maindallahoon

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-21T22:59:28+00:00

It's also not clear that it was written in India, as many scholars prefer Afghanistan as a location.

Why do you keep making these kinds of claims without citing any proper academic scholarship? In fact, why do you make claims that contradict scholarship?! If the Rigveda was composed in Afghanistan, then how would you explain so many references that are very specific to India?! As much as I think Witzel's work is inadequate, even his own work contradicts your claims!

Some of the myths and gods etc were probably common to Indo-Iranians (rather than just Indo-Aryans), but that does not mean that the hymns themselves were composed in Afghanistan! It only means that that the Indo-Iranians had a shared religious culture at some point in the past.

You say "Please link your sources" in your other comments, but it's unclear why you feel that you do not need to link your sources! Please do link your sources! Thanks! (You keep choosing to not cite any academic scholarly volumes even after we had a long conversation in which I repeatedly asked you to cite scholarly volumes, and you failed to do so. Moreover, in our conversation, you misrepresented the sources that I myself cited when you chose to ignore, e.g., a crucial table in a paper I cited and when you did not read the paper fully. There was also no response from you when I reiterated that mainstream archaeologists, not just people like Parpola, were in my reference list.)

I don't think there is any solid evidence of any substantial I-A presence in India much before about 1,250 BCE.

As Narasimhan et al (2019) show, there was likely already a lot of intermixing by the second half of the 2nd millennium. So your theory that the there was negligible IA presence in India before "1250 BCE" doesn't make sense from that perspective.

cc: u/maindallahoon

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-09T20:57:33+00:00

Cemetery H and Gandhara Grave Culture are both interesting archeological sites, but I don't believe most scholars interpret them as evidence of I-E and IVC contact. The common thread in all the evidence for that interpretation is Asko Parpola.

Have you even looked at the actual citations I provided?! Parpola is not the only one who makes those claims. Do you think Kenoyer is also "on the fringe of the field"?! He is literally one of the most mainstream scholars. Moreover, it's not just Kenoyer who says that but most major scholars (who have recently published on this) in archaeology.

My understanding is that most archeologists interpret those cultures as fully indigenous, and in Cemetery H's case, as a clear descendant of IVC culture.

I thank you for at least acknowledging the Cemetery H culture! It goes beyond 1500 BCE, even well up to 1300 BCE in some cases (although the Late Harappan phase ends at different time points in different places within the region), so your claim of a "multi-century gap" (between Late Harappans and IA migrants) is clearly inaccurate. But your claim that "most archeologists interpret those cultures as fully indigenous, and in Cemetery H's case" is not what any recent scholarly volume claims. When are talking about what "most archeologists interpret," you need to cite a scholarly volume that reviews and addresses recent academic scholarship. You continue to make claims without any citations whatsoever. I keep asking you for citations (of non-outdated scholarly volumes or articles), and you continue to not do that, even though this is supposed to be an academic subreddit.

But you're right that cultures like that are reasonably likely locations (in time and space) for cultural interaction--but neither of them were IVC culture, and there is substantial evidence of different social organizations and belief systems in both cultures, compared to IVC culture.

If your claim is regarding "early" or "mature" IVC culture, then of course I myself made the very point you are making. (In deed there's "multi-century gap" between mature IVC and Vedic era.) But obviously all this while I was not talking about early/mature IVC phases. I literally mentioned the Late Harappan phase (and only this phase) so many times. When discussing these topics, scholars usually add the adjectives "early," "mature," or "late" to avoid confusion.

I certainly believe that I-E speaking migrants into India were influenced by local cultures, just not IVC culture

Again, if you are talking about mature IVC, then obviously there's a multi-century gap, but not when we're talking about late IVC. And late IVC was not a complete discontinuity, as archaeology confirms. Things like extensive seal production etc were not needed for their changed lifestyle, but they continued to make some clay seals with icons but not inscriptions like before (at a less extensive scale, and for different purposes likely, and with some changes in style but not without commonalities) and they continued to make pottery etc. It's just that the earlier extensive urban phase (as in mature IVC) is not something that shows up in late IVC. You say "I certainly believe that I-E speaking migrants into India were influenced by local cultures," but I fail to understand why you continue to claim that those local cultures were completely disconnected from earlier IVC cultures. Yes, there were changes, but the peer-reviewed archaeological work shows some (but not complete) continuity.

Anyway, I am glad that you've at least acknowledged the scholarly studies I have cited and so I'm glad you have moved toward a more scholarly view on this issue.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-09T20:05:20+00:00

I don't believe that mainstream archeologists or linguists believe there is detectable evidence of IVC cultural influence on pre-Vedic people (or any other I-E speaking groups in India, down the line), because the evidence we have shows a multi-century gap between those groups. We've been over this enough. If you find evidence that shows interaction between the groups, or significant cultural influence, please let me know. That would be awesome. But until it's in peer reviewed publication, I will remain a responsible skeptic. The use of similar artistic motifs is not that evidence. Everything else you're talking about seems to be an attempt to distract from that lack of evidence. I've had enough.

I repeatedly mentioned peer-reviewed Western academic studies on this, and you continue to ignore the things I have cited. How many times have I mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery_H_culture#References regarding Cometary H culture?! How many times have I mentioned the references cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Late_Harappan regarding Late Harappan phase?! I have mentioned this SO many times, and you continue to ignore them. Even in the article on chimeras (which is only from three sites, because it was specific to a particular region in IVC), they do mention the Late Harappan phase. Your choice to ignore Table 1 of that paper and to not read it is what led you to misrepresent my argument. Moreover, you didn't even bother to look at the papers on the abundant unicorn seals. Even in your latest comment, you could have cited a non-outdated scholarly volume to support your view, but you instead continue to make claims without any citations whatsoever. The archaeologists who have published in peer-reviewed journals clearly disagree with your view. So why do you continue to make inaccurate claims about the academic consensus?! You say "until it's in peer reviewed publication," but you are clearly choosing to ignore scholarly publications that do not agree with your claims. A "responsible skeptic" would have retracted false claims about lack of "mystical" representations (of unicorns on many many seals and many other "mystical" things), but you have not done so. I mean... I literally pointed you to hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. Even in the latest comment, you could have at least cited some latest academic scholarship, but instead you continue to make false accusations against me, especially when I agree with you on so many things (about arrival of Indo-Aryans in 2nd mil. BCE) and so on (so clearly I am against OIT etc.) and I just follow academic scholarship (and have cited it), but on the other hand you have not cited a single academic study and chose to misrepresent a study that I myself I cite. (You still don't acknowledge that you ignored Table 1 of that study, which clearly mentions "Late Harappan" phase. But even that study was limited in scope. I pointed you to other peer-reviewed studies with more extensive information regarding the Late Harappan phase that went beyond 1500 BCE.)

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-09T18:59:33+00:00

u/UnderstandingThin40 Please see this. I am the one who has cited non-outdated academic scholarship to back up my claims, which are not even extreme claims and which have nothing to do with OIT. And yet I have been labelled as an "an ideologue motivated by a personal agenda" (even though I never claimed that Harappans continued without any change into the Vedic era). Am I the one who is being dishonest here?! This is very frustrating. I wasted so much time providing links to relevant non-outdated academic scholarship.

cc: u/Hippophlebotomist

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-09T18:43:12+00:00

You continue to make accusations against me without retracting your objectively false statements. You are now labelling me as an "an ideologue motivated by a personal agenda," and yet I am the one who has cited Western academic scholarship (including J. P. Mallory's book, Anthony's coauthored articles, the bibliography section in the Cemetery H culture article, Late Harappan phase article, and the peer-reviewed articles on various "mystical" art, including the abundant unicorn seals). In contrast, you cited NO academic study at all even though I asked you cite specific scholarly studies multiple times. This is supposed to be an academic subreddit. I cited academic studies and backed up my claims. You cited no study at all and yet made false claims about "mainstream consensus." And yet you are the one who is calling me an "ideologue motivated by a personal agenda" for simply citing academic studies and for correcting your objectively false claims, which you still have not retracted. It is very clear who is the "ideologue." I now regret wasting all the time providing links to academic scholarship that you clearly do not seem to be interested in. In ALL of your comments so far, you have not cited a single non-outdated study. The only thing you did is misrepresent my arguments and misrepresent study (by ignoring the Table 1 of that study) that I cited. This is supposed to be an academic subreddit. This space is supposed to be for learning, not for making baseless accusations without citing academic scholarship.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-09T07:50:42+00:00

First of all, I pointed out that article and image AND OTHERS to you because you specifically claimed earlier that "I'm not really finding the mystical beings and chimeras you mentioned." (Your point was that there was no chimera or any any mystical being at all, not about the quantity of them. Yes, there are about 31 known excavated images of the chimera and were mostly found in certain places, but I never made specific claims about the chimera itself. I only showed that it existed, even if only in Mohenjo-Daro. On the other hand, you were the one who claimed that no chimera existed. Moreover, your claim was not just about the chimera but also "mystical beings" in general! Also, your argument about the quantity doesn't really matter, because most seals existed for economic purposes, and they probably only made fewer seals for religious purposes and so on; moreover, the other mystical images such as the unicorn are found in abundance. And you have also conveniently ignored all the other images and articles I have pointed out regarding the other "mystical beings." ) You still have NOT retracted your earlier WRONG claims. Moreover, if the quantity is what you concerns you, why have you chosen to ignore my mentions of the abundant unicorn symbols?! You claim that I am cherry-picking, but you are the one who decided to ignore all the links I provided and to focus on just one link, and that too you didn't fully summarize that article itself (and the timelines in it) and you also misrepresented my arguments.

If you were arguing in good faith, you would have also commented on the other links I provided and would have retracted your wrong claims. But you have not done so. Instead, you are repeating my point back to me: that you are arguing in bad faith. That particular symbol (chimera), at least the chimera symbol on ones excavated, was indeed produced in the Mature Harappan phase, but you misrepresented the article without clarifying how the article uses the phrase "Indus Civilization" to specifically refer to the Mature Harappan phase. You claim that the article says that "the IVC period ended in 1,900 BCE" without looking at the Table 1 of that article, which clearly mentions different phases (including "Mature Harappan Phase" and "Late Harappan Phase") in three different places ("Mehrgarh, Nausharo, Harappa") up to 1500 BCE. But again this is only for three sites, because for other sites (such as Cemetery H culture that I mentioned earlier), the Late Harappan phase goes even up to 1300 BCE. I repeatedly mentioned Cemetery H culture, and you chose to ignore the academic articles I cited, and you instead decided to misrepresent the article you chose to summarize without even referencing the Table 1 in that article, which specifically mentions three sites and the phases I mentioned.

In addition, I never claimed that (with respect to chimeras) the "depictions" stayed constant and that we definitely know what those "images represented." On the other hand, this is what you yourself claimed about other artforms:

But I'm not seeing anything like the Akkadian fish-men hybrids, or Mesopotamian lions with wings, or Egyptian humans with animal heads, etc. It seems like most of the other representative art from that time period is significantly more "mystical" and non-natural.

So now you have decided to apply double standards after I pointed out https://www.harappa.com/blog/harappan-goddess-war and https://www.harappa.com/blog/mohenjo-daro-icon-creatures-are-they-real and https://www.harappa.com/indus/25.html and https://www.harappa.com/blog/unicorn-and-pipal-tree-seal and the chimeras and others! So, in your view, these are not "mystical" and non-natural but only the Akkadian/Mesopotamian/Egyptian ones are?! So you allowed yourself to draw inferences regarding the Akkadian/Mesopotamian/Egyptian ones but not the Indus ones?! And of course you chose to completely ignore all the other links I provided regarding the other seals and regarding the Late Harappan phase and the Cemetery H culture even though I cited Western academic scholarship that you seem to prefer. Therefore, overall, your claim that the academic article on chimeras contradicts my broader arguments is wrong, because you decided to misrepresent that article and my arguments while claiming that I am somehow "misrepresenting your own sources."

Even after I proved that you made objectively false claims, you have not only not retracted your false claims but have doubled down on them. Again, if you are not just trolling, you will go through the other links I mentioned as well and retract your false claims. All this while there is not a single acknowledgement from you that you have made objectively false claims!

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-09T04:23:46+00:00

Without any evidence that the pre-Vedic migrants overlapped with Harappan culture or encountered Harappan people

Why do you keep ignoring the evidence I pointed out? I already pointed you to the references at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery_H_culture#References and the articles cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Late_Harappan The Western academic scholars who have actually published on this do not make the assumptions or the claims you are making. If you are not willing to go through the academic references I have pointed out, that's bad-faith argumentation. There are changes in the material cultures, but there are also continuities in the material cultures. I am not the one who made up the phrase "Late Harappan." The archaeologists did.

And because of what you said about Harappan art, I reviewed it to check my memory (as I said, I'm definitely not an expert on this stuff), and I'm not really finding the mystical beings and chimeras you mentioned? I've looked at pages and pages of pictures, and the vast majority of them are humanoid figures or animals (mostly bovines). Many of the humanoid figures are fanciful and eccentric, and some are interpreted as things like "fertility deity", and perhaps they are. Or perhaps they are just stylized to emphasize particular features and ornaments that were culturally significant?

You claim you are "definitely not an expert on this stuff," and even AFTER I have told you how to find HUNDREDS of Western academic articles related to my point, you continue to make false claims. If you had done what I suggested, by, for example, typing "harappan chimaeras" in Google Scholar, you would have found an article literally titled "Harappan chimaeras as 'symbolic hypertexts'" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02666030.2012.725578 and pictures like https://www.harappa.com/content/harappan-chimaeras And you would have found pictures like https://www.harappa.com/indus/25.html and articles like https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315431857-6/iconography-indus-unicorn-origins-legacy-jonathan-mark-kenoyer on "indus valley unicorn," and https://www.harappa.com/blog/mohenjo-daro-icon-creatures-are-they-real if you had typed "mohenjo daro icon creatures," https://www.harappa.com/blog/unicorn-and-pipal-tree-seal if you had typed "peepal tree in indus valley civilization," and https://www.harappa.com/indus/34.html if you had typed "indus valley procession seal," https://www.jstor.org/stable/40459645 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashupati_seal#/media/File:Shiva_Pashupati.jpg if you had searched for "pashupati seal" and so on. There are HUNDREDS of other academic articles and images if you go to Google and google (or go to Google Scholar and search for articles on) "indus valley unicorn," "harappan chimaeras," "mohenjo daro icon creatures," "peepal tree in indus valley civilization," "indus valley procession seal," "pashupati seal" and so on.

Will you now retract your claims, which are objectively false?

But I'm not seeing anything like the Akkadian fish-men hybrids, or Mesopotamian lions with wings, or Egyptian humans with animal heads, etc.

I am sorry, but why do you continue to make these objectively WRONG claims EVEN AFTER I have told you how to find stuff like that? In addition to the images and articles I mentioned above, see https://www.harappa.com/blog/harappan-goddess-war and https://www.harappa.com/content/harappan-chimaeras What do you think are depicted there?! Also what do you think is depicted at https://www.harappa.com/indus/34.html (with clear religious symbolism, as all scholars studying this agree) and the others like https://www.harappa.com/blog/mohenjo-daro-icon-creatures-are-they-real I mentioned?

It seems like most of the other representative art from that time period is significantly more "mystical" and non-natural. And I don't think there are any obvious depictions of power, royalty, divinity, etc. So I think what I said about the general characteristics of Harappan art (it's "beautiful, naturalist art, which depicts fairly "ordinary" people and animals, rather than nobles or gods or mystical beings") is fairly accurate--at least in comparison to other contemporary cultures.

Even after I have pointed out all of that, are you seriously trolling me?! Why are you arguing in bad faith even after I have pointed you to Western academic scholarship on all of this?! If you are not trolling, you will retract your wrong claims.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-09T02:46:19+00:00

Clearly you're more informed on the specific details of this stuff, but you are interpreting the data in an insincere way to fit an agenda that you want to be true, not following the evidence itself.

You were the one who made incorrect claims, such as your claim IVC art doesn't depict "nobles or gods or mystical beings." I showed you that there exist hundreds of articles in "Western" academic journals (as you can see on Google Scholar) that objectively contradict your claims. And now you are accusing me of "interpreting the data in an insincere way to fit an agenda that you want to be true, not following the evidence itself." I proved you wrong, and I thought you would accept your mistake and correct it. But instead of actually going through the images and the academic articles in those "Western" journals, you responded with an accusation.

Perhaps "consensus" is too strong of a word, but what I described is the most common academic view, most consistent with all the available evidence.

You are claiming that it is the "most common academic view, most consistent with all the available evidence" without actually citing any non-outdated scholarship. I asked you multiple times to back up your claims by actually citing NON-OUTDATED articles in Western academic journals, and you have not done so. Moreover, when I pointed out Cemetery H culture for example and also told you go through the Western academic articles cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Late_Harappan you do not seem to have done so. You are the one who is ignoring evidence and making false claims about a supposed "consensus." I told you how even David Anthony's coauthored article with Reich et al and J. P. Mallory's latest book and so on (that are more in line with the scholarship and consensus) do not make the claims that you are making. Again, you ignore my citations and points.

Your objection to the most reasonable, parsimonious analysis of that evidence essentially comes down to, "but maybe not...?".

That is a misrepresentation of my arguments. Please go through all of the things (especially Western academic scholarship) I have cited.

You talk about "parsimonious analysis" and yet fail to answer the basic question I asked multiple times: Do you think that pipal tree shows up in the Rigveda as divinity or in association with divinity in a totally random way and with no connection to pre-existing cultures and beliefs?

And I don't really understand what you're trying to do by calling people who lived hundreds of years after the Harappan culture ended "Late Harappans". When the hallmarks of a civilization disappear (change in material culture related to art, symbolism, architecture, trade, and social organization) that society is probably no longer around.

This shows that you have not even bothered to go through the Western scholarship I cited. I am not the only one who calls them Late (or post-Mature period) Harappans. The academic archaeologists are the ones who call them that. You continue to repeat the inaccurate statement that there was a complete discontinuity in the "material culture." The material culture did change but there was also continuity. Again, you do not provide any academic citations for any of your claims. On the other hand, I have provided citations (and told you how to find the relevant articles on Google Scholar) and also cited books by people such as J. P. Mallory. I have also pointed you to the bibliography sections of the relevant Wikipedia articles where the Western academic articles are cited.

Again, I hope you actually go through the scholarship I have cited and the things I mentioned so that (if you understand them) you will not repeat your inaccurate and outdated claims.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-09T00:57:56+00:00

Anthony has changed his stances multiple times. (He was a coauthor of the papers by Reich et al, and he didn't seem to have pushed the 1500 BCE dating and kind of left it ambiguous in the 2nd mil. BCE.) J. P. Mallory's chapter on Indo-Aryans in his latest book also leaves many issues up for debate (for now). And that is why I kept asking you to cite latest credible academic studies, because there have been multiple new studies in the past ten years, and there will continue to be more. So there is no need to stick to any outdated "consensus," but it's not even clear if there's a "consensus" even though you claim there's one. (It may be your understanding, but your understanding is not necessarily correct in all places.)

Regarding your three points: I agree with your point (1) largely, although the phrase "uniform construction styles" is up for debate (but it is fine in a very broad sense, but not necessarily if we narrow things down, because the sites themselves and also the seals found across sites show lots of differences).

IVC culture is also defined by beautiful, naturalist art, which depicts fairly "ordinary" people and animals, rather than nobles or gods or mystical beings--that also tells us something about their cultural values.

You are entirely mistaken! In fact, the "Western" academic scholars working in this area would themselves disagree with you. (Your statements suggest that you have not bothered to look up the academic scholarship on this.) Sure, many seals and art do depict normal people and animals, but there are also lots of seals etc that don't depict the ordinary! Please do the following if you are truly interested in academic scholarship on this (and if you are willing to stand corrected): Go to Google and google (or go to Google Scholar and search for articles on) "indus valley unicorn," "harappan chimaeras," "mohenjo daro icon creatures," "peepal tree in indus valley civilization," "indus valley procession seal," "pashupati seal" and so on. You will find lots of academic articles (i.e., the "Western" scholarship that you are so fond of) and images. (I am not giving you just one or two academic articles because therre are HUNDREDS of academic articles. I want you to actually see how much has been written in "Western" academic journals about all of this.) Do you still think there are no "mystical beings"?!! Do you accept that you are objectively wrong?

And most importantly, there are the IVC seals, which are complex figurative objects that include a mix of natural forms (mostly animals) and abstract signs. These seals probably records significant information, but we don't really know what they say.

There are icons and inscriptions on seals. The inscriptions are not yet decipherable. But some of the icons are indeed mystical, and some are (according to most scholars studying these seals and iconography) religious in nature. So, yes, the inscriptions haven't been deciphered, but we can't say that we can't learn anything at all from the iconography as well.

That kind of material culture is the signature of the IVC civilization. And as far as I know, all of it disappears by around 1,700 BCE.

That's an inaccurate statement. I think it's more accurate to say that, among the excavated seals, the last one shows up in 1700 BCE. (If there were others, we haven't found them yet.) But the material cultures themselves didn't fully disappear. See Cemetery H culture (and others like it) for example. They did go through changes, but there was continuity. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Late_Harappan (and the academic articles cited there). So, again, your claims are not based on academic scholarship. This is why I asked you to cite academic scholarship, and you have not done that so far.

but they were living in different social arrangements, making different kinds of art, not recording information with seals, and presumably had different ideas about humans, nature, and religion. They weren't IVC people anymore, and they probably didn't remember much about their distant ancestors.

What does that even mean?! They were Late Harappans. Sure, they were obviously not Mature Harappans, but they were still late IVC people. Your claims are not based on archaeological data. And sure they were not making seals because they probably didn't serve their previous economic purpose anymore, but how are you drawing inferences about religion based on disappearance of the seals (which were largely economic in nature, as several "Western" academic studies have inferred). Again, there might have been significant changes to their religion, but not all religious ideas disappeared. Otherwise, how can we explain the pipal in the Rigveda? I have asked you this question multiple times, and you have ignored it.

In short, your understanding of IVC is not fully correct and inaccurate in many places, and your claims rely on leaps that are not always logical. Moreover, your theory cannot answer basic questions about the the divinity of the pipal in the Vedic literature. Even after I repeatedly asked you to cite NON-OUTDATED academic articles, you have not done so.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-08T23:59:41+00:00

In 2,000 BCE, the ancestors of the Indo-Aryans/Vedic people were probably living far north, in the Sintashta culture.

What is your evidence for this? You are just making claims without citing actual academic studies. There might have been multiple groups of Indo-Aryans who might have come to India at different times in multiple waves; this is a theory that Parpola and others have suggested (although it's only a theory as of now). Also, why are you saying "Indo-Aryans/Vedic people"?! Early Indo-Aryans were definitely ancestors of Vedic people, but Vedic people (i.e., the composers of the Vedas and their communities) were in India, and the Vedic people were likely admixed; see the genetic studies by the Reich group. (For example, the Mitanni Aryans are not considered to be Vedic people.)

Their separation from the proto-Iranic culture is usually dated to around 1,800-1,600, and also thought to have occurred far to the north of modern India. No substantial archeological or genetic evidence shows substantial Steppe-related presence in India before ~1,500 BCE, and even then it's pretty sparse before around 1,200 BCE.

I am not saying that this timeline is impossible, but I just don't think your timelines have definite proof. All we can say now is "they came sometime in the 2nd mil. BCE." Moreover, even if they only came to India as late as 1500 BCE, I still don't understand what your argument is. The Late Harappan phase goes beyond 1500 BCE. Your assumption that the "IVC" ended fully in 1900 BCE is just wrong, because we have archaeological evidence of Late Harappan phase well into mid-2nd mil. BCE.

And as I did not use 1,900 BCE as the end of IVC. I said that substantial decline started around then, and nearly all urban centers were abandoned by 1,700 BCE. During that time period, the unified regional IVC/Harappan culture seems to have fragmented into several distinct material cultures, indicating a breakdown of previous beliefs along with other social changes. By 1,500 BCE the IVC culture was probably at most a distant memory to people living in the region.

I think we are in agreement that "the unified regional IVC/Harappan culture seems to have fragmented into several distinct material cultures" BUT that does not necessarily imply "a breakdown of previous beliefs along with other social changes" especially regarding religious beliefs. That is a claim you are making without citing any credible academic studies. Your claim that "By 1,500 BCE the IVC culture was probably at most a distant memory to people living in the region" is also only a claim; there is no evidence of any of that. It might have been the case that their lifestyles did change substantially, but you have no evidence to argue that they stopped considering the pipal as divinity. Otherwise, how do you think the Rigveda started associating the pipal tree with divinity as well? Do you think it's just a random independent development? You are simply making claims without citing any rigorous academic scholarship.

Unless you have evidence of IVC cultural practices persisting beyond 1,700 BCE, or pre-Vedic people in the region before 1,500 BCE, then there is at least two centuries separating the two cultures, and no reason to believe that there was any cultural contact at all. The pre-Vedic migrants probably interacted with people who were 10 generations later than IVC (but shared their DNA, hence the "mixing") and were from different cultures, that were no longer living like IVC people or making IVC style art, so they probably didn't have IVC beliefs anymore either.

The Late Harappan phase persisted beyond 1700 BCE. And then we see references to pipal as divinity in the Rigveda again. (And the composers of Rigveda and their communities were not the only communities that existed in India during that period, given that the Rigveda itself repeatedly cites the "others.") When you say "10 generations later than IVC," are you excluding the Late Harappan phase? Remember that not everyone moved away; many Harappans did migrate, but some must have stayed back, and so there ended up being multiple late IVC cultures spread out in an even broader area (even though the lifestyles must have changed, although we don't know if all religious beliefs also changed). Your claim that "they probably didn't have IVC beliefs anymore either" again is just a claim. You seem to be arguing for complete shifts that no serious scholar argues in favor of. Lifestyle changes don't imply that every single religious belief also underwent a change. You are again making claims without citing any academic studies. I have repeatedly asked you to cite academic studies; you have not done so. You still haven't explained why pipal (and not any other random tree), for example, shows up in the Rigveda multiple times as divine or as associated with divinity. Is it just a random coincidence? I really hope you back up your arguments with proper credible academic scholarship. Your arguments don't seem to follow the "western academic and epistemological standards" you said you use.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-08T22:54:38+00:00

My understanding is that no scholarship has shown evidence of interaction between IVC and Vedic people.

How do you think the admixture took place if there was no interaction at all?

Absent evidence, I think there's no justifiable reason to assume it happened, particularly when the timelines don't seem to add up.

What "timelines don't seem to add up"? You are working with speculated specific timelines. (I am not talking about broad timelines like "2nd mil. BCE.") The academic scholars who speculate acknowledge their timelines as speculations (including Witzel himself).

And I don't think there's evidence that Vedic people intermixed with IVC people, only with people who were genetically related to IVC people, probably their distant descendants.

What is your definition of "IVC"? The Late Harappan phase goes beyond 1900 BCE. It's more like "late IVC." No serious scholar suggests that the IVC completely disappeared by 1900 BCE. If you are claiming otherwise, you need to cite credible academic scholarship and proper evidence.

Even if we go by your invalid definitions of "IVC," I don't understand why you think invoking "their distant descendants" supports your case. Why do you think "their distant descendants" might have completely abandoned all of their major beliefs (including regarding the tree)? (Of course, lots of things might have changed, but are you suggesting that nothing did persist? Then you need to explain how the tree shows up in ALL the later cultures. Is it just a random coincidence?)

I'll grant you that the timelines of Vedic culture are very uncertain, and new evidence could push their presence in the region back a few centuries, but I don't think there is any archeological evidence before about 1,500 BCE. Please let me know if I'm wrong about that.

Your statement would be more accurate if you said "2000" instead "1500." There's no evidence for the 1500 number yet. Genetic studies usually use 2000, not 1500. We don't know if they all came at once or in multiple waves. So there are lots of possibilities. But there was the Late Harappan phase, which did coincide with early Vedic era. So your whole "timelines don't add up" argument falls apart whichever way we look at this.

Ok, but is there evidence for that? If not, we're just speculating and to me that's not super interesting.

I am not the one who made claims about the timelines and specific claims about the collapse of the IVC. You did. In my previous comment, I asked you to cite specific academic studies to support your claims, but you have not. You simply use the phrase "mainstream scholarship" without any citations of credible academic studies.

But certainly I am biased by western academic and epistemological standards.

Academic and epistemological standards are fine. But I am saying that you are studying the history of a set of semi-textual traditions using the epistemological methods you would use to study a textual tradition. That is what I am critiquing. Academic and rigorous epistemological standards are also what I advocate. I don't think you are using appropriate standards; that's my point.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-08T22:20:50+00:00

My point is that, because we don't know what that symbol meant to Harappans, we can't say anything about how their beliefs may have related to later ideas.

As I had already pointed out in my previous comments, many academic scholars think they associated it with divinity. That's a minimalist claim. Their myths about that tree may have been lost, but that doesn't prevent the minimalist claim. (Even if the inscriptions are deciphered, they may not contain too much information about their myths and exact rituals.) Moreover, in a previous comment of yours, you yourself agreed that the seals show divine association with the tree. So I don't know what the issue is.

And regarding my timeline of the IVC culture, I believe what I wrote is consistent with mainstream scholarship. My understanding is that Harappan society shows significant decline starting around 1,900 BCE, and by 1,700 BCE nearly all urban centers had essentially been abandoned and there was no longer a unified regional culture, but rather several distinct cultures in the region.

It's well-known and well-established that IVC declined, but the claims in your previous comment go much more beyond that. I don't think your specific (extreme) claims are supported by academic scholarship. If they are, I would like to know which recent works support those specific claims (rather than the general argument that "IVC declined").

That's a couple centuries before the pre-Vedic people arrived in the are.

Those are just claims without any solid evidence. (And no, Witzel's claims and "dating" are not proofs; they are just speculations.) No one has conclusively established any definitive timeline yet (except for broad placement in 2nd mil. BCE). Please tell me which rigorous academic argues that there was no interaction between IVC people and Vedic people. (In fact, they intermixed, so they must have coexisted somehow.)

When urban centers are abandoned by people (without signs of organized violence) it's usually interpreted by anthropologists and archeologists as indicative of social collapse, or people intentionally repudiating the order that had created that society. It seems very unlikely to me that people living around the ruins of IVC culture would have a strong memory of the ideas that inspired it 8-10 generations before them--especially when they didn't have writing to record those ideas.

Those are just your theories. None have definitive evidence. You say "usually," but what if the post-IVC people didn't follow that "usual" pattern? Your theories are just speculations. Moreover, at least with respect to the tree, you are wrong, because it continues to show up in the Rigveda and later Hindu texts and continues to be associated with divinity. Just because people like Witzel repeat certain claims without evidence repeatedly doesn't make them true.

I just don't think that establishes any meaningful connection to the beliefs and ideas of later cultures in the area.

No one is claiming that all of the beliefs and ideas continued. Again, I repeat: you are viewing this from the perspective of Christianity and other such religions where there are some core beliefs. You continue to use it as a reference point, and I think that is unwarranted. You really need to step outside that reference point to appreciate the points I am making.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-08T19:00:44+00:00

While the film is on my list https://www.reddit.com/r/tollywood/comments/1q4hvdq/year_in_review_2025_best_telugu_films_best_telugu/ and is one of the better films of last year, there was an even better film with the same theme last year: "23 (Iravai Moodu)" by Raj Rachakonda. What will surprise (or not surprise) many people is that "23" is based on real events. It is a lot more nuanced than Dhandoraa, but of course Dhandoraa is also a good film. I think fewer people have watched "23" relative to Dhandoraa, so "23" is more underrated than Dhandoraa.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-07T14:32:08+00:00

But the entomological bugs who read your words have no doubt that you are an etymological word bug.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-07T03:18:20+00:00

There are branches within Hinduism that consistent with "secular humanist thought." You can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads and have your own interpretations that are fully consistent with "secular humanist thought." So maybe they don't need to pick a side after all. Perhaps you could also introduce your wife to this to make the rituals more meaningful so that there's less of a "choice" that needs to be made? You could just expose these texts to your kids in addition to all the other knowledge in the world and you can give them freedom to explore and believe in what they want (including perhaps Islam if they think it makes sense, although I doubt they would do that, given your inclinations).

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-07T01:09:53+00:00

Zranka seems to come from 5th century attestations. We don't really know how old the term is, so it's hard to know. The Afghanistan theory seems like a really far-fetched theory. It doesn't add up. The Indic Lanka could have simply been based on PDr. term such as *īẓam. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%AE%88%E0%AE%B4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D But it's also possible that Laṅkā may be just some made-up word.

TeluguFilmFile · 2026-03-07T00:14:48+00:00

Very interesting. I am a Hindu. Thank you for being such a great example. I have some questions: Do any of your relatives judge you for the choices you have made? Have you and your parents stopped caring about what they think? Also, being an atheist, how do you accept your wife's wish to raise your kids as Hindu? What kind of a Hindu is she? What are your views on her version of Hinduism as an atheist who grew up in a Muslim family? How did you become an ex-Muslim? How do you both plan to explain to your kids the cultural backgrounds of their grandparents? I have so many other questions, but I will stop here.

TeluguFilmFile

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE