So much from the "subhumans"

>small but accurate
You got that right

India's intellectual tradition is every bit as vast and sophisticated as China's and Europe's.

>>3197642
some chink probably dropped in during a sunday walk
also DESIGNATED

>>3197759
Except as pertains to history and strategy.

>"
Kautilya, the author of the the Arthashastra,
the Indic tradition's sole strategic treatise,
gives advise to the Maurya King. Image Source.
The Indic tradition can claim sacred hymns, epic poetry, treatise on philosophy, mathematics, grammar, and science, handbooks on art, dharma, politics, and sex, love poems and tragedies, religious devotionals and children parables - but no histories. Because of this, the most important historical sources for these societies are usually outsiders from the West or from China! Despite the wealth of literary and epigraphical material these societies produced, Megasthenes remains one of the most important primary sources for historians studying the Maurya Empire and Zhou Daguan is one of the most important sources we have for the Angkor Empire. It was not until Muslim marcher lords fought their way into India that the discipline of history took root on the subcontinent. Southeast Asia waited even longer, seeing its first indigenous historians well after their conquest by imperial European powers."

http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2013/04/whence-springs-strategic-canon.html?m=1
Great blog btw.

File: A U R Y O N D.png (119KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 250x250px

>>3197642

WHO REGARDS THE PEOPLE FROM THE "HARAPPAN CULTURE" AS "SUBHUMAN"?

>>3197774
Chink weren't even civilized back then

>>3197791
>Chink weren't even civilized back then
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh aren't to this day, so...

>>3197801
false

>>3197791
>>3197811
First anon is probably right. A good date for the start of Chinese civilization would be the emergence of the Bronze Age Erlitou culture around 1900 bc. I think it's likely that they were the Xia Dynasty, the first attested in traditional Chinese historiography, though we don't have proof of that yet.

test

>>3197784
Kill yourself

File: 865132064.jpg (173KB, 709x994px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 709x994px

>>3197642
>It's small but accurate
It already has that funny potbelly that many Indian guys get unless they work out like maniacs.

>>3197642
>This is from Harappa 2300 bc
proof?

File: 0lBXFeW.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>>3200111
>Black Olmecs

>>3200111
>Black Olmecs
I know it's a joke but I've actually seen African-American try to claim Olmec achievements as their own and it's infuriating.

File: tumblr_inline_mu5t7esTaw1rhe2o2.jpg (98KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 500x375px

>>3197642
We have no idea what the ethnicity of the Harappans was.

I tend to believe they were dark-skinned Dravidians, but that's pure opinion.

>>3200266
whats the skull on the left?

>>3200308
Australian Aborigine / literally Homo erectus.

>>3201879
>>3200266
The skull on the left is a particularly robust Australian Aboriginal human male, and the one on the right is a Caucasian female. The most archaic looking Australian Aboriginals are less primitive looking than your average Neanderthal, let alone Homo erectus. Get your facts straight.

>>3202174
>particularly robust
You mean pureblood.

>The most archaic looking Australian Aboriginals are less primitive looking than your average Neanderthal
This is simply false.

File: main-qimg-ad5cd7f1688a675b10c06cd9626dc545.gif (80KB, 520x300px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 520x300px

>>3202373
Yeah no shit he's pureblooded, but my point still stands. And yes, compared to the average Neanderthal he looks like a baby, that is to say neotenous. Now obviously the skull on the left isn't Abbo, but look for yourself.

>>3200259
>Olmec achievements
There are none.

File: 04b5fa94f190d543dadfb8f8762a05e3.jpg (183KB, 544x680px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 544x680px

>>3202554
Meanwhile, Homo erectus looks more primitive than either Abbos or Neanderthals when it comes to the skull. I mean seriously, look at this shit.

>>3202554
Neoteny was a mistake

>>3202554
>Neanderthals look really primitive
Oh boy we got a scientific genius over here.

>>3202687
Okay, "archaic", my mistake. Compared to Homo sapiens they have more of an robust appearance. It doesn't mean they're 100% primitive, especially not mentally, as they were about as smart as us.

>>3202567
>JOHJ

>>3202992
Still wrong.

>>3200266
Why do you care what race they are? That's the most uninteresting and unimportant part of the Harrapan culture.

>>3203034
I bet you tell people that you dont see race, downvote

>>3203128
W R O N G
R
O
N
G


It just annoys me that OP posted something incredible, from a culture I had never heard of before, and yet I see posters obsessing over what race they are.

Imagine the effort that went into creating that, the intentions of the artist, etc, and yet you're only thinking about whether or not he was a Dravidian? Who even cares?

>>3197642
Wasn't that Persia back then?

>>3200111
>Black Olmecs
WE