Indus Valley Civilization expands to the Ganges?

[BirdyWard]

If their collapse was postponed or done away with altogether, could the Indus Valley Civilization have expanded to the Ganges? The second Indian civilisation formed there, and their both on the North Indian plain so travel wouldn't be too difficult until the distance itself gets in the way.

I mean, the IVC had an outpost in northern Afghanistan, past tens of miles of mountains, just for the mines. It honestly surprises me they didn't travel across the plain.

 

[Skraea]

I don't think it'd be a problem since they were able to expand as far west as Afghanistan. It's a myth that the South Asian subcontinent has never been united or that they were isolated. But you'd need a lineage of strong, visionary rulers with powerful allies. As for the Aryan/Dravidian divide, I'[m unsure how much of that is true or encouraged by centuries of British rule.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

But you'd need a lineage of strong, visionary rulers with powerful allies.

We have no idea what the government of the Indus valley was like- theres not really evidence that they had kings at all.

As for the Aryan/Dravidian divide,

Early vedic texts and the epics are definitely very Aryan supremacist, if that's what you mean, although obviously there's no evidence that the people the vedic tribes met when they moved into the Gangetic plain were Dravidians.

 

[EmperorOfTheNorthSea]

I'[m unsure how much of that is true or encouraged by centuries of British rule.

True though it's not like Indian Nationalists don't input their own Biases into the subject either.

 

[ramones1986]

Well, it seems that IOTL, demographic changes in Gangetic basin were caused by the decline of IC (it may be particularily the case if the decline of the latter was caused by climatic changes, droughts and over-populations).

So it may be already the case historically, altough not the part about "moving the center of the civilisation" but it may be because we know too little to have a real glimpse at how these populations were politically organised.

We know that proto-Indo-Aryans populations managed to settle and dominate over urban/semi-urban/palatial cultures as Mitanni, for exemple. (Or, possibly Elamite which may be more or less related to pre-IE Indian languages, without real certainty if it's Dravidian or another one).

That said, what about an earlier decline of IC, less due to ecological problem than political or geopolitical? Meaning the move towards Gangetic basin happens earlier ITTL and while Indo-Aryan may benefit the situation, the slower changes may provoke several butterflies.

As I read this thread, I really thought of the quote written by @LSCatilina.

Early vedic texts and the epics are definitely very Aryan supremacist, if that's what you mean, although obviously there's no evidence that the people the vedic tribes met when they moved into the Gangetic plain were Dravidians.

If the proto-Dravidians weren't the original inhabitants of Gangetic plain, then who actually were? Just curious.

 

[manitobot]

There has been discussion of the Aryan-Dravidian divide I would like to share that in reality groups of Indo-European pastoralists mixed with agricultural villages descended from the post-IVC population via elite dominance. Evidence of a military invasion is fairly low, and a rigid caste system is not particularly supported in the Rigveda.

 

[Shahrasayr]

If their collapse was postponed or done away with altogether, could the Indus Valley Civilization have expanded to the Ganges? The second Indian civilisation formed there, and their both on the North Indian plain so travel wouldn't be too difficult until the distance itself gets in the way.

I mean, the IVC had an outpost in northern Afghanistan, past tens of miles of mountains, just for the mines. It honestly surprises me they didn't travel across the plain.

The reason the IVC didn’t expand into the Indo-Gangetic Valley is simple; they had already established many mining villages in the northern Aravallis, specifically the Tosham Hills. These settlements acted as both resource extraction locations and trading posts. Trade with whom you may ask? Well here’s the kicker...

People to their east. Both the Ahar-Banas Culture and the Ganeshwar Suneri Cultural Complex point to sophisticated and complex Chalcolithic polities to the east of the IVC in Rajasthan and the Doab, and while they were not as sophisticated as their western neighbours, the ABC and the GSCC‘s lower urban density was the reason they weathered the 4.2 kya event so much better. The IVC folk, who had become over reliant on the double monsoon cycle to nourish the non-glacier fed Ghaggar-Hakra and the ever-flooding Indus, saw great demographic decline, whereas their eastern neighbours were able to thrive as their western neighbours of both IVC and Indo-Aryan type began to flock eastwards to lusher pastures.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

the proto-Dravidians weren't the original inhabitants of Gangetic plain, then who actually were? Just curious

Honestly no clue and it probably was different along the Gangetic plain- they could have been majority austro Asiatic, or there might have been a dominant Dravidian element or something else entirely. I was reading a paper yesterday that suggested kosala is a Tibeto-Burman name. As far as I'm concerned all we know is that whoever they were they had retroflex consonants and while that might lead some people to think they were Dravidians on the grounds that Dravidian languages have retroflex consonants, i don't think that's conclusive.

@Shahrasayr Im intrigued but a little skeptical- if the model you're proposing was true, I'd expect there to have been more evidence in the names of rivers- normally incoming immigrants, no matter how much they manage to assimilate the people dont change the names of rivers. Even the tigris is still called essentially the Akkadian name for it in Arabic. But in the Gangetic plain there are approximately zero river names not derived from Sanskrit, unlike say Maharashtra, suggesting that whoever was there before, they were so thoroughly marginalised and cultural collapse had been so through they couldn't even give the names of their rivers, something that even the Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians managed.

Also would you really call it thriving if they didn't form any urban centres?

 

[Shahrasayr]

Honestly no clue and it probably was different along the Gangetic plain- they could have been majority austro Asiatic, or there might have been a dominant Dravidian element or something else entirely. I was reading a paper yesterday that suggested kosala is a Tibeto-Burman name. As far as I'm concerned all we know is that whoever they were they had retroflex consonants and while that might lead some people to think they were Dravidians on the grounds that Dravidian languages have retroflex consonants, i don't think that's conclusive.

@Shahrasayr Im intrigued but a little skeptical- if the model you're proposing was true, I'd expect there to have been more evidence in the names of rivers- normally incoming immigrants, no matter how much they manage to assimilate the people dont change the names of rivers. Even the tigris is still called essentially the Akkadian name for it in Arabic. But in the Gangetic plain there are approximately zero river names not derived from Sanskrit, unlike say Maharashtra, suggesting that whoever was there before, they were so thoroughly marginalised and cultural collapse had been so through they couldn't even give the names of their rivers, something that even the Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians managed.

Also would you really call it thriving if they didn't form any urban centres?

You’re right about the IVC containing retroflexes, I believe they’re the mainstay areal feature of Indic languages, but the truth of the matter is by the time of collapse the IVC society would have been polyglots in the elite circles, speaking both their ancestral tongue and the Sanskrit of the incoming migrants, while a patois would have existed amongst the common classes of society.

You also make a good point about hydronomics. The most glaring cases are probably the Ganga. Ghaggar, Hakra, Hindon, Banas.

I’m suspect of Yamuna as well, the reflexive association with the Yami myth seems to be applied to the river around 300 BCE, during the Krishnaite synthesis.

Also I’d say they were thriving. They represented the eastern extent of semi-urban lifestyles and their material cultures survived the ’storm’, as compared to, say, the Jorge culture for example.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

the time of collapse the IVC society would have been polyglots in the elite circles, speaking both their ancestral tongue and the Sanskrit of the incoming migrants,

It looks to me like by the time you have Sanskrit speaking migrants establishing themselves in the area, we'd already be at a sufficient stage of deurbanisation that there probably wasn't a massive difference between elites and common people, and you'd have already gotten to the stage where urban ruins are essentially just campsites for semi nomadic pastoralist tribal groups.

 

[Deleted member 116192]

It looks to me like by the time you have Sanskrit speaking migrants establishing themselves in the area, we'd already be at a sufficient stage of deurbanisation that there probably wasn't a massive difference between elites and common people, and you'd have already gotten to the stage where urban ruins are essentially just campsites for semi nomadic pastoralist tribal groups.

While I agree to everything that you have to say except with the words sanskrit speaking migrants....... I mean sanskrit was not only the language of the migrating and also occasionally invading indo Iranians/aryans. The indo Iranians themselves were multi linguistic and multi ethnic. For all we know sanskrit could have been spoken by few migrants who established themselves on other tribes and formed the kuru tribe which inturn established it's domination over other indo Iranian tribes of South Asia.
I just don't buy that migrating people spoke sanskrit Or proto sanskrit. Remember vedas is just one of the religion and tradition that survives, we Don't know what sort of culture did other migrants/invaders have.
Ps: most indo Iranians were migrants and few were invaders please do easy on that word invader.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

I just don't buy that migrating people spoke sanskrit Or proto sanskrit

Well I think it's a reasonable statement that rigvedic Sanskrit eventually became the prestige dialect among the potential multiple old indo Aryan languages, and the Puru tribe were probably more iranic than others that had been in the Panjab for longer.

 

[Deleted member 116192]

Well I think it's a reasonable statement that rigvedic Sanskrit eventually became the prestige dialect among the potential multiple old indo Aryan languages, and the Puru tribe were probably more iranic than others that had been in the Panjab for longer.

only Sanskrit ? what i meant was there could have been multiple languages spoken and Sanskrit won out

 

[Deleted member 116192]

the Ahar-Banas Culture and the Ganeshwar Suneri Cultural Complex point to sophisticated and complex Chalcolithic polities to the east of the IVC in Rajasthan and the Doab, and while they were not as sophisticated as their western neighbours, the ABC and the GSCC‘s lower urban density was the reason they weathered the 4.2 kya event so much better. The IVC folk, who had become over reliant on the double monsoon cycle to nourish the non-glacier fed Ghaggar-Hakra and the ever-flooding Indus, saw great demographic decline, whereas their eastern neighbours were able to thrive as their western neighbours of both IVC and Indo-Aryan type began to flock eastwards to lusher pastures.

The Tuberculosis and the leprosy outbreak were a consequence of the bond event as weakening of monsoon combined with cooling caused reduction in rainfall and snow water melt. That being said things should have been worse if you look at the bigger picture I imagine how many things had to go right to ensure that civilization in south Asia continues although with break in urbanization. The Gap between the first and second urbanization was marked by innovation in agriculture from double cropping, crop rotation, multi cropping etc. There was a outbreak of Para Plague in 1800 BCE in eastern Kazakhstan, imagine if that travelled to India, it would be as devastating as Neolithic collapse in Europe and the agricultural innovations would not have taken place which would have impact later down the line as it would butterfly away the arab agricultural revolution which relied much on know how of south Asian farmers. Bond event as devastating as it was, we could have had worse.

 

[Shahrasayr]

only Sanskrit ? what i meant was there could have been multiple languages spoken and Sanskrit won out

I think when Madhukar says Sanskrit he's referring to the various Old Indo-Aryan dialects.

In fact I think the word Sanskrit shouldn't even be used in this context, Sanskrit can only refer to the refined classical language of Panini. Old Pracya (for the eastern languages), Old Pascima (for the north and western languages) and Old Madhya (for the central languages). Vedic would then refer to the chronologically composite languages of the Samhitas and Brahmanas.

 

[Deleted member 116192]

I think when Madhukar says Sanskrit he's referring to the various Old Indo-Aryan dialects.

In fact I think the word Sanskrit shouldn't even be used in this context, Sanskrit can only refer to the refined classical language of Panini. Old Pracya (for the eastern languages), Old Pascima (for the north and western languages) and Old Madhya (for the central languages). Vedic would then refer to the chronologically composite languages of the Samhitas and Brahmanas.

My question is, was it a spoken language? It might have been used in liturgical texts and IMO its was only after 800 BCE was Sanskrit came to be "Spoken". It might have begun its life as the language of the Shaman priests and subsequently with the development of state and urbanization did Sanskrit leave the world of religion and entered secular world.
As for the question of the OP, all i can tell him is Indus valley civilization wasn't the only civilization that was going on in the subcontinent although one would argue that those other "civilization" are just culture and not civilization because they weren't sophisticated enough but those cultures had sufficient knowledge of metallurgy and agriculture that they could easily be the most technologically advanced civilizations of the age. They had begun to smelt iron long before the Hittites and made alloys of copper-iron and agriculture wise they too did a lot of innovations. There were civilization even in deccan and far south that sold gold and other products to the IVC

 

[Workable Goblin]

It might have begun its life as the language of the Shaman priests and subsequently with the development of state and urbanization did Sanskrit leave the world of religion and entered secular world.

That would be, to my knowledge, quite unique among languages. There have been a great number of languages (including Sanskrit!) that have survived as liturgical languages used by priests long after they have stopped being spoken, but this is pretty much always just a twilight phase of slow death while wider culture moves on.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

but this is pretty much always just a twilight phase of slow death while wider culture moves on.

Well Sanskrit had been abandoned in politics as far as we can tell between 600BC and around 100Ad, it made a resurgence later on patronised by immigrants seeking Indian legitimacy.

 

[Deleted member 116192]

That would be, to my knowledge, quite unique among languages. There have been a great number of languages (including Sanskrit!) that have survived as liturgical languages used by priests long after they have stopped being spoken, but this is pretty much always just a twilight phase of slow death while wider culture moves on.

I have my doubts, what I am saying is sanskrit that we see in the vedas was never intended to be a spoken language, it's in the word itself sanskrit, meaning refined and cultured language.
Vedic verses were composed by kavi who by inspiration ( probably under influence of soma rasa) composed the vedas. It is important to note that the indo aryans came in waves lasting half a Millenium, I find it very hard to believe that each and every such immigrant spoke Sanskrit or a language related to Sanskrit.

Sanskrit probably a part of a bigger language something like Arabic, with a standard version and popular version spoken former spoken by the priesthood and the kavi and latter being spoken by commoners and I have to warn this is very inaccurate but my point is the Sanskrit that we know and understand is the standard version while the more popular ones went on to give birth to various indo aryan languages and was subsequently influenced by Sanskrit. Basically Sanskrit is a dialect of a language spoken by the priesthood of a tribe probably of the bharatha tribe.
This is quite in line with language development for example English language ,the language in which I am typing right now is a standard language whose origin may be traced to some monk in the 17th century whereas the English language spoken by people of Britain or USA or Canada or any other place is different from this standard language both are English true but without schooling these two versions of a same language would probably diverge.
That's why I had a problem with the word Sanskrit being thrown around.

 

[Shahrasayr]

I have my doubts, what I am saying is sanskrit that we see in the vedas was never intended to be a spoken language, it's in the word itself sanskrit, meaning refined and cultured language.
Vedic verses were composed by kavi who by inspiration ( probably under influence of soma rasa) composed the vedas. It is important to note that the indo aryans came in waves lasting half a Millenium, I find it very hard to believe that each and every such immigrant spoke Sanskrit or a language related to Sanskrit.

Sanskrit probably a part of a bigger language something like Arabic, with a standard version and popular version spoken former spoken by the priesthood and the kavi and latter being spoken by commoners and I have to warn this is very inaccurate but my point is the Sanskrit that we know and understand is the standard version while the more popular ones went on to give birth to various indo aryan languages and was subsequently influenced by Sanskrit. Basically Sanskrit is a dialect of a language spoken by the priesthood of a tribe probably of the bharatha tribe.
This is quite in line with language development for example English language ,the language in which I am typing right now is a standard language whose origin may be traced to some monk in the 17th century whereas the English language spoken by people of Britain or USA or Canada or any other place is different from this standard language both are English true but without schooling these two versions of a same language would probably diverge.
That's why I had a problem with the word Sanskrit being thrown around.

I think we’re agreeing?

We only call it Sanskrit. for ease of use. Within the Rigveda it’s only referred to as vác, ‘words, voice’ and bhāṣá or ‘language’. Panini, his predecessors and successors only refer to the language they have refined as Sanskrit, while retroactively applying the term to the language of the Vedas as well. Hell, Panini in his brilliance even goes as far as saying that he recognises the fallacies of basing his work on his own dialect and states that there sandhi rules and sounds which are not present in it from other regions, giving extra rules to accomodate them, stating that they are born from ‘cousin tongues’.

As for all Indo-Aryan migrants speaking the Vedic dialect, you’re right, it’s likely only the Bhārata-Purus spoke that dialect. But by the 11th century BCE this (or a close descendan) has become the tongue of the Madhyadeśa and is definitely being spoken by large sections of society.