This likely isn't a useful thought exercise, but I'm trying to figure out *why* a civilization this big/successful/important isn't considered like Egypt and Mesopotamia? My amateur first thought is that Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, plus the overt, visible nature of the pyramids, etc. really pushed it to the forefront of European imagination? Which makes me assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the British, Portuguese, and others didn't care or investigate the archaeology of the Indus valley to the same degree? Too busy pillaging the region, I suppose.
Depends who you talk to. In India, the Indus Valley Civilization is taught to every schoolchild in the same breath as Egypt or Mesopotamia and I'm sure it's the same in Pakistan as well. Asian, African and South American history, except for where it's connected to "Western" history, is just not as big in the Western world.
Yes, spot on. Sorry, I should have provided additional clarification about why Americans don't consider it as much. Which is the only perspective to which I can speak. Good follow up.
The problem is that there were lots of available clues for Egyptian. The Coptic language has a living tradition in the Egyptian Church. There were multi lingual texts like the Rosetta stone.
Similarly, in Mesopotamia there was the Behistun Inscription in cuneiform in the Old Persian, Akkadian, and Elamite languages. Old Persian is a living tradition in Zoroastrian scripture, and Akkadian is a Semitic language close related to Aramic, which is also a living tradition.
There is speculation that the Dravidian languages of India (Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, and Kannad) originated in the Indus valley civilization but little evidence. Another problem is that the texts that have been found are very short (the longest is about 26 symbols long) and no multi lingual texts have been found.
Other scripts that have been decoded such as Maya and Linear B were in well known languages and were far more extensive. Generally speaking it may be impossible to decode a script that represents an unknown language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeciphered_writing_systems.
If you look at the archeological story of it, it wasn't really known outside of the Indus area until the 1920s. We have no writing from them that is understandable, and no reference to it in other writings beyond a few trade records from Sumeria (this entire civilization may be a colony of Sumeria, or vice-versa).
Contrast this with say, Egypt. Egypt never disapeared from the Western imagination. The curriculum for ancient history used before the 20th century relied upon Hellenic historians who went into great lengths about Egypt. The Romans then revived Egypt for the Arabs to come in. The Arabs were also familiar with Egypt, ancient and contemporary, and even have a proverb about the pyramids. Bring it up to the 18th century and Napoleon reinvigorated interest in the study. With advances in archeology, the relative ease of finding sights, and the quality of the sights, of course we are going to know about Egypt.
One professor I saw lecture thinks a lot of it has to do with that no modern day civ truly has "owned" the Indus people as "theirs". Which makes some sense.
This likely isn't a useful thought exercise, but I'm trying to figure out *why* a civilization this big/successful/important isn't considered like Egypt and Mesopotamia? My amateur first thought is that Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, plus the overt, visible nature of the pyramids, etc. really pushed it to the forefront of European imagination? Which makes me assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the British, Portuguese, and others didn't care or investigate the archaeology of the Indus valley to the same degree? Too busy pillaging the region, I suppose.
Depends who you talk to. In India, the Indus Valley Civilization is taught to every schoolchild in the same breath as Egypt or Mesopotamia and I'm sure it's the same in Pakistan as well. Asian, African and South American history, except for where it's connected to "Western" history, is just not as big in the Western world.
Yes, spot on. Sorry, I should have provided additional clarification about why Americans don't consider it as much. Which is the only perspective to which I can speak. Good follow up.
The problem is that there were lots of available clues for Egyptian. The Coptic language has a living tradition in the Egyptian Church. There were multi lingual texts like the Rosetta stone.
Similarly, in Mesopotamia there was the Behistun Inscription in cuneiform in the Old Persian, Akkadian, and Elamite languages. Old Persian is a living tradition in Zoroastrian scripture, and Akkadian is a Semitic language close related to Aramic, which is also a living tradition.
There is speculation that the Dravidian languages of India (Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, and Kannad) originated in the Indus valley civilization but little evidence. Another problem is that the texts that have been found are very short (the longest is about 26 symbols long) and no multi lingual texts have been found.
Other scripts that have been decoded such as Maya and Linear B were in well known languages and were far more extensive. Generally speaking it may be impossible to decode a script that represents an unknown language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeciphered_writing_systems.
Great book on the deciphering of the Maya inscriptions: https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Maya-Code-Third-Michael/dp/0500289557
If you look at the archeological story of it, it wasn't really known outside of the Indus area until the 1920s. We have no writing from them that is understandable, and no reference to it in other writings beyond a few trade records from Sumeria (this entire civilization may be a colony of Sumeria, or vice-versa).
Contrast this with say, Egypt. Egypt never disapeared from the Western imagination. The curriculum for ancient history used before the 20th century relied upon Hellenic historians who went into great lengths about Egypt. The Romans then revived Egypt for the Arabs to come in. The Arabs were also familiar with Egypt, ancient and contemporary, and even have a proverb about the pyramids. Bring it up to the 18th century and Napoleon reinvigorated interest in the study. With advances in archeology, the relative ease of finding sights, and the quality of the sights, of course we are going to know about Egypt.
One professor I saw lecture thinks a lot of it has to do with that no modern day civ truly has "owned" the Indus people as "theirs". Which makes some sense.
Ain't no Indus Valley Civilization in the Bible, Greg!
Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia's proximity to Europe helped preserve cultural memory of it. Abrahamic religions also helped preserve the memory.