6 ms·

One of Norman Davies' (one of my favorite popular history authors) pet peeves is the trend to refer to areas and cultures by their modern equivalents. Sure, it

One of Norman Davies' (one of my favorite popular history authors) pet peeves is the trend to refer to areas and cultures by their modern equivalents. Sure, it's convenient and gives a reference point, but Davies' thing is that it's a bit misleading to do so. Back on track, this was NOT an Indian civilization tens of thousands of years ago. This might be a precursor to the Dravidian peoples, but this was a civilization that existed where India WOULD be.

addicted 8y ago
I do not understand the argument. They apparently existed in the region called India. So until they are named, people are referencing them as an Indian civilization. Much like you would call a prehistoric, unnamed civilization African if they were found in Africa, or European if they were discovered in Europe, and so on. Indian isn’t referring to the culture (they are hunter gatherers...they have little to do with modern culture of any sort) but the geographical region they are discovered in.
- sillyquiet 8y ago
  The point is, not just the culture, but 'India' as a name for that region and for the subcontinent, is very modern. When these peoples were around, that region was not 'India' any more than the people were 'Indian'. The name 'India' has soo many connotations what only makes sense in the modern context that calling this civilization 'Indian' is, like I said, convenient but misleading.
  - empath75 8y ago
    India is a location as well as a nation. "Native Americans" were around before "America" existed.
    - sillyquiet 8y ago
      Davies would probably have an objection to that term as well. After all, the people who we now call Native Americans, besides not being unified in culture or origin or time of migration very much at all such that a singular term like that is not accurate anyway, started migrating to the western hemisphere about 7 - 15000 years before Amerigo Vespucci was born. Remember, these arguments are from a historian's / archaeologist's viewpoint. I am sure they dramatically prefer the academic designations for various cultures. They certainly didn't call themselves 'native americans'. That's a label we slap on them post-facto.
      - poulsbohemian 8y ago
        >They certainly didn't call themselves 'native americans'. Which is why I like the way in Canada they are referred to as “First Nations.” It describes a reality in terms that feel less politically loaded or geographicalally misguided than others.
        codyb 8y ago
        While simultaneously removing any clues about origin for the uninformed no? So then you need to affix either Canadian to the front or of North America or of Canada to the back and then you're right back to where you started, so in the end I suppose I can only muster up a "what's the point?". We still call the Cherokee nation the Cherokee nation, that's their own name, and when we have them we use them, but what's the point of removing all contextual information from the casual observer's view? So they can go to Wikipedia and search and go "ahh, they use to live in what's now Canada?" Lol.
      - ummonk 8y ago
        So what are we supposed to call them? "The I wish I knew what they called themselves 10,000 years ago people" doesn't really disambiguate between prehistoric people from different regions.
de_watcher 8y ago
The "Cucuteni-Trypillia culture" is also a very annoying name, but we have no idea what did they call themselves.
abhiminator 8y ago
The term 'Indian civilization' in the article is more of a placeholder than an outright naming attempt, imo -- I'm sure archeologists would assign a proper name once they dig/discover more stuff up from the site. This is why we don't call Harappa and Mohenjadaro ancient "Indian" civilization, though they provenly existed in the region that's today the country of India.
- ummonk 8y ago
  Harappa and Mohenjadaro are actually in modern-day Pakistan.
- yumraj 8y ago
  Mohenhjo-daro and Harappa are just two sites in a much larger Indus valley civilization.
unmole 8y ago
You have an issue with calling it an Indian civilization yet you use the term Dravidian which literally means Southern Indian. That's an interesting position to take.
- sillyquiet 8y ago
  'Dravidian' is the (current, archeological) name for the (maybe) indigenous people of India. At the very least, they lived there BEFORE the Indo-Persion and Indo-Europeans migrated there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_people And I didn't say these people were Dravidian, I said they might be the pre-cursors to the Dravidian people - which is also probably doubtful. I guess I should have said 'People who would now be called Dravidian' ?
  - yumraj 8y ago
    The so called Aryan invasion/migration and existence of so called Dravidian people is just a theory, not a fact.
    - linuxkerneldev 8y ago
      > existence of so called Dravidian people is just a theory uh, what? care to elaborate?
      - yumraj 8y ago
        In other words, there is no difference between North and South Indians, they are the same people. Not Aryans and Dravidians.
        unmole 8y ago
        Eh, no. Genetic stuides show that South Asians are descendants of two major ancestral components, one restricted to South Asia (Ancestral South Indian) and the other component (Ancestral North Indian) more closely related to those in Central Asia, West Asia and Europe. Sure, the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory is too simplistic but nevertheless, there is a clear dicotomy. N.B. Ancestral South Indian and Ancestral North Indian are testing used in genetic studies to sidestep the use of loaded/controversial terms like Aryan and Dravidian.
_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
The article doesn't seem to refer to Dravidians at all. And the place where the art was found is an Indo-Aryan speaking region (though admittedly bordering a Dravidian-dominant area).
- gumby 8y ago
  > And the place where the art was found is an Indo-Aryan speaking region (mostly) today, true, but these traces appear to far far predate the arrival of indo-aryan genes, languages and memes.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    Yes, but presumably they also pre-date the arrival of the Dravidians, who seem to have been preceded by the Mundas, who seem to have themselves been preceded by speakers from a distinct language family (or families).

addicted 8y ago

I do not understand the argument. They apparently existed in the region called India. So until they are named, people are referencing them as an Indian civilization. Much like you would call a prehistoric, unnamed civilization African if they were found in Africa, or European if they were discovered in Europe, and so on. Indian isn’t referring to the culture (they are hunter gatherers...they have little to do with modern culture of any sort) but the geographical region they are discovered in.

sillyquiet 8y ago
The point is, not just the culture, but 'India' as a name for that region and for the subcontinent, is very modern. When these peoples were around, that region was not 'India' any more than the people were 'Indian'. The name 'India' has soo many connotations what only makes sense in the modern context that calling this civilization 'Indian' is, like I said, convenient but misleading.
- empath75 8y ago
  India is a location as well as a nation. "Native Americans" were around before "America" existed.
  - sillyquiet 8y ago
    Davies would probably have an objection to that term as well. After all, the people who we now call Native Americans, besides not being unified in culture or origin or time of migration very much at all such that a singular term like that is not accurate anyway, started migrating to the western hemisphere about 7 - 15000 years before Amerigo Vespucci was born. Remember, these arguments are from a historian's / archaeologist's viewpoint. I am sure they dramatically prefer the academic designations for various cultures. They certainly didn't call themselves 'native americans'. That's a label we slap on them post-facto.
    - poulsbohemian 8y ago
      >They certainly didn't call themselves 'native americans'. Which is why I like the way in Canada they are referred to as “First Nations.” It describes a reality in terms that feel less politically loaded or geographicalally misguided than others.
      - codyb 8y ago
        While simultaneously removing any clues about origin for the uninformed no? So then you need to affix either Canadian to the front or of North America or of Canada to the back and then you're right back to where you started, so in the end I suppose I can only muster up a "what's the point?". We still call the Cherokee nation the Cherokee nation, that's their own name, and when we have them we use them, but what's the point of removing all contextual information from the casual observer's view? So they can go to Wikipedia and search and go "ahh, they use to live in what's now Canada?" Lol.
    - ummonk 8y ago
      So what are we supposed to call them? "The I wish I knew what they called themselves 10,000 years ago people" doesn't really disambiguate between prehistoric people from different regions.

de_watcher 8y ago

The "Cucuteni-Trypillia culture" is also a very annoying name, but we have no idea what did they call themselves.

abhiminator 8y ago

The term 'Indian civilization' in the article is more of a placeholder than an outright naming attempt, imo -- I'm sure archeologists would assign a proper name once they dig/discover more stuff up from the site. This is why we don't call Harappa and Mohenjadaro ancient "Indian" civilization, though they provenly existed in the region that's today the country of India.

ummonk 8y ago
Harappa and Mohenjadaro are actually in modern-day Pakistan.
yumraj 8y ago
Mohenhjo-daro and Harappa are just two sites in a much larger Indus valley civilization.

unmole 8y ago

You have an issue with calling it an Indian civilization yet you use the term Dravidian which literally means Southern Indian. That's an interesting position to take.

sillyquiet 8y ago
'Dravidian' is the (current, archeological) name for the (maybe) indigenous people of India. At the very least, they lived there BEFORE the Indo-Persion and Indo-Europeans migrated there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_people And I didn't say these people were Dravidian, I said they might be the pre-cursors to the Dravidian people - which is also probably doubtful. I guess I should have said 'People who would now be called Dravidian' ?
- yumraj 8y ago
  The so called Aryan invasion/migration and existence of so called Dravidian people is just a theory, not a fact.
  - linuxkerneldev 8y ago
    > existence of so called Dravidian people is just a theory uh, what? care to elaborate?
    - yumraj 8y ago
      In other words, there is no difference between North and South Indians, they are the same people. Not Aryans and Dravidians.
      - unmole 8y ago
        Eh, no. Genetic stuides show that South Asians are descendants of two major ancestral components, one restricted to South Asia (Ancestral South Indian) and the other component (Ancestral North Indian) more closely related to those in Central Asia, West Asia and Europe. Sure, the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory is too simplistic but nevertheless, there is a clear dicotomy. N.B. Ancestral South Indian and Ancestral North Indian are testing used in genetic studies to sidestep the use of loaded/controversial terms like Aryan and Dravidian.

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago

The article doesn't seem to refer to Dravidians at all. And the place where the art was found is an Indo-Aryan speaking region (though admittedly bordering a Dravidian-dominant area).

gumby 8y ago
> And the place where the art was found is an Indo-Aryan speaking region (mostly) today, true, but these traces appear to far far predate the arrival of indo-aryan genes, languages and memes.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  Yes, but presumably they also pre-date the arrival of the Dravidians, who seem to have been preceded by the Mundas, who seem to have themselves been preceded by speakers from a distinct language family (or families).