The pdf on the Harappans and Aryans we read this week was very informative. In th same token, however, I felt as if it was a bit unorganized in the way the author (Manian) presented the information. He did categorize the Indus civilization into four categories, but he lost me when he started talking about all the authors he was disputing. Stravianos this, and Greaves that; I just could not keep up! He basically bunched up ALL other theories within the four categories and disputed them that way. This way kind of confused me and lost my attention. Instead of taking notes on the reading (which I always do) I was stuck rereading sentences wondering , “who’s the author referring to now?” In my opinion, I felt as if he should have discussed one author per paragraph, mentioned their beliefs, THEN disputed them, instead of chunking all of that information into four categories. Doesn’t my way make a little more sense? Or is it just me?
Another thing I did not understand was how he came up with these far off theories when most of the authors he mentioned held the same beliefs? Has he, himself, studied the Indus civilization up close or does he piggy-back off of other people’s work and findings? I’d love to hear how he came up with his theories… and his paragraph structures for that matter.