theories about the Bronze Age history
- Which of the theories about the Bronze Age history seems more plausible to you? Why?
Based on the evidence presented in the readings, I believe that there was not an Aryan invasion and that Indo-Europeans are not responsible for Indian culture. One article spoke about a place that has not been found that could be Harappa but it had no substantial evidence other than the slight similarity of the names of the cities. In the second reading I see that there has been no evidence of horse remains which would point to an Aryan invasion. Additionally, we do know that there has been a continuation of an ancient language of the region which points to not having been affected/conquered by Aryans. Language is hard to conserve when a new culture takes over another one. I also believe that the geological evidence regarding a change in agriculture can offer more precise evidence for the loss of Harappa as can the lack of evidence of warfare. Lastly, the gradual change of culture found in Harappa seems to be more natural instead of forced.
- Have you ever encountered a negative attitude toward non-western cultures (perhaps your own)?
Yes, I think that in some people may consider non-western cultures as unrelatable and this could be due to stereotypes that mass media has presented and lack of exposure to non-western people. I do not have an Asian background, but I do know that there have been untasteful jokes and suggestions made about non-western cultures. I think that a lot of people can consider something (like a work of art) ugly just because they don’t understand the hidden meanings and the historical references that are presented. I feel that I always end up liking something more the more I learn about it.