Sorry Cogs, I had to get a late lunch. Here are some of my feelings about this.
I never said that India was a "mother culture". I don't hold any centrist views and don't believe in any mother culture. It makes more sense to me that civilizations and cultures traded knowledge, as well as goods. For instance, there seems to be a possibility that certain kinds of metallurgy came to India from the west.
you claimed that the out of india theory was valid
The mDNA findings show us where women went - nothing more. There is no genetic evidence that Alexander the Great occupied Persia with his army, although there is a lot of Greek spoken there. And more than a few blue-eyed people. Genetics continues to be a young science and I don't rely on it except for nomadic hunter-gatherer societies.
you know nothing about dna clearly
the women followed the men, do you think vast groups of women were being deported willy nilly and their menfolk were "oh thats cool should confuse genetic scientists in the future"
A quick word about ancient India. When we were young we learned about the Indus Valley and Mojenjo-daro. Well, throw all of that out - it's obsolete. The Indus civilization was centered around two (not one) mighty rivers. Until recently this was not known. I posted a map showing the extent of this culture and it shows it to be the largest early civilization in the world. The Vedic texts even speak of a war with Ceylon (Sri Lanka) which suggests it was even larger.
when I was young the aryan invasion theory had long been discounted
you are confusing the claims made by pseudohistorians such as hancock who claims his evidence disproves the AIT when in fact it was never generally accepted by the orthodox hostorical community
it was a political tool used to subjugate a nation and not a proven historical fact. even the man who came up with it (max mueller) recanted it. I see however that for your belief to flourish you need to believe that outdated information is still valid so that you can then say "aha I am clever"
thats how pseudohistory works Beags
it creates a straw man argument and then bedazzles its readers by easily destroying it
when you actually study the culture a little better from proper sources you will soon see the truth of this
The second river, the Sarasvati, was mentioned many times in the earliest Vedic texts. The ancient river bed has been found. Scientists have determined that the river dried up by 1900BC at the very latest. Also that it may have taken centuries for this to happen. The Vedas, in the Brahmayain I think, mentions that the Sarasvati is drying up. This text is far from the oldest Vedic text.
what the texts say is irrelevant
you are basing scientific study on a religious text. you don't do that with the bible yet you think the hindu texts are more valid. they are stories about mythology, they are not a geologists fieldbook
For this reason the Indus Vally civilization is being redated to a much older time. As usual, the old fossils refuse to budge, but they are clearly out of step now. An article was posted in this forum recently about the ancient Harrapan script being translated finally. It was described as being proto-Sumerian among other things.
it has nothing to do with that at all. it is being redated purely in pseudohistoric circles.
to redate something you need scientific evidence. there are a range of carbon dates from most of the Harappan cities. none of them are older than 3000bce
This is a lot to think about. I've got a lot to post but I think I'll hold up a little and let some folks get caught up. I would appreciate it if you want to post contradictory articles or papers for discussion. Thanks Cogs.
aha so i'm playing catchup.
I'm sure your friend is busy screaminng "I know everything about this and you know nothing". His usual mantra
I'm sure your friend is busy screaminng "I know everything about this and you know nothing". His usual 100% correct mantra