Archaeologica.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory

The "Out of India Theory" (OIT, also known as the Indian Urheimat Theory) is the hypothesis that the Indo-European languages (I-E) originated in India, from which they spread into Central and Southwestern Asia and Europe. The theory suggests that the Indus Valley Civilization was Proto-Indo-Iranian (in obsolete or popular terminology, "Aryan") and the spread of Proto-Indo-European from within northern India. It uses mainly archaeological and Vedic textual references.

The theory is not favored by the Indo-European linguist community.The majority of the Indo-European linguist community favours the Kurgan hypothesis, which postulates an expansion during the fourth millennium BC from the Pontic steppe, and an Indo-Aryan migration to India in the early 2nd millennium BC. A minority of scholars favours the Anatolian hypothesis, with Indo-Aryan migration taking place in the 4th and 3rd millennium BC.[1]

There is no reference more benign than Wiki. The biggest advantage being that it stays current with orthodoxy.

The scientists of old are not budging but the Out of India theory is becoming accepted. Especially since the rediscovery of the riverbed of the Sarasvati, which places the origin of the Vedas as early as 3500BC.

Those of us who know Daybrown just know he isn't going to like this.

I'll post more on this later but I thought I'd start with Wiki.

In that sense, I think it lends strength to the "out of India" theory.

Be careful here, Beags. The out of India theory is thoroughly refuted by human genetic evidence. Tracking human migratory patterns can be done quite well through genetics and substantiates the fact that India was not the cradle of civilisation.

The scientists of old are not budging but the Out of India theory is becoming accepted. Especially since the rediscovery of the riverbed of the Sarasvati, which places the origin of the Vedas as early as 3500BC.

this is crap as well
for it to be true the Harappan civilisation would have had to collapse when the riverbed dried up in 3500bce
it also dried up in 1700bce which is the accepted date and the one corroborated by carbon dating as well

so you have a bunch of people with Agendas who believe in an advanced technological golden age in India claiming it all happened thousand of years earlier and then you have
Carbon dates which don't agree
the Vedas writing date which doesnt agree
every qualified expert in the field who dosnt agree
all the evidence which doesnt agree
so
you can either be a crackpot and claim the out of india is valid or you could accept the evidence as it stands

the Out of India theory is becoming accepted.

please furnish us with a list of who is accepting it and why they are qualified to make that assesment

Obviously Cogs, the proponents of the Out of India theory (see my post above from Wiki) are referring to the spread of culture and language, etc, and not of people.

Take time to read about it. I think you'll change your mind. Early India was a seafaring civilization also, which would expedite the flow of culture with trade.

At the beginning of middle eastern civilization we see Lapis Lazuli trade. The ancient mines in Afghanistan have been worked before there was a civilization in Sumeria.

Obviously Cogs, the proponents of the Out of India theory (see my post above from Wiki) are referring to the spread of culture and language, etc, and not of people.

you think language and culture spreads independantly of peopel then
amazing
they had tvs to do this I expect

Take time to read about it. I think you'll change your mind. Early India was a seafaring civilization also, which would expedite the flow of culture with trade.

crap it was
it was based inland

The ancient mines in Afghanistan have been worked before there was a civilization in Sumeria

duh
then maybe you should look up Ubaiadians and see whats been found at their sites everything from carnelian, obsidian, turquoise, amethyst, lapis lazuli, ivory, shells, and. amazonite beads.
you seem to think that until the Sumerians turned up Mesopotamia was uninhabited
do you actually make this stuff up or do you actually know anything at all
your claim that the afghanistan mines were solely used by ancient indians is complete crap
Afghanistan at that period was completely under the control of the ancient iranians
who were building Ziggurats at the same period that the mines were being used
and whos ancient sites turn up lapis lazuli in large amounts
you think people were coming all the way from india on donkeys with shovels don't you beagle
maybe you should look up the word trade and see how it functions

Obviously Cogs, the proponents of the Out of India theory (see my post above from Wiki) are referring to the spread of culture and language, etc, and not of people.

Take time to read about it. I think you'll change your mind. Early India was a seafaring civilization also, which would expedite the flow of culture with trade.

At the beginning of middle eastern civilization we see Lapis Lazuli trade. The ancient mines in Afghanistan have been worked before there was a civilization in Sumeria.

Beags, I believe that the spread of language and culture in the ancient world was synonymous with the spread of peoples. Therefore, the comment about human genetics. I am certain that settlements near the seashore in India had boats just like everyone else, but I'm not particularly convinced that at that early date they could be called a seafaring nation.

Further, I don't believe India was the cradle of civilisation nor do I believe that Sumeria holds all of the answers since, quite frankly, the Sumerians came from somewhere else prior to 3500bce and they were already very sophisticated upon arrival.

Cognito wrote:

Obviously Cogs, the proponents of the Out of India theory (see my post above from Wiki) are referring to the spread of culture and language, etc, and not of people.

Take time to read about it. I think you'll change your mind. Early India was a seafaring civilization also, which would expedite the flow of culture with trade.

At the beginning of middle eastern civilization we see Lapis Lazuli trade. The ancient mines in Afghanistan have been worked before there was a civilization in Sumeria.

Beags, I believe that the spread of language and culture in the ancient world was synonymous with the spread of peoples. Therefore, the comment about human genetics. I am certain that settlements near the seashore in India had boats just like everyone else, but I'm not particularly convinced that at that early date they could be called a seafaring nation.

Further, I don't believe India was the cradle of civilisation nor do I believe that Sumeria holds all of the answers since, quite frankly, the Sumerians came from somewhere else prior to 3500bce and they were already very sophisticated upon arrival.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm sure your friend is busy screaminng "I know everything about this and you know nothing". His usual mantra.

I'm one of those who can't get caught up, Beags. One of my hockey boards is coming apart because the moderators are fighting.

Makes me appreciate Michelle's enlightened despotism even more than usual!

Makes me appreciate Michelle's enlightened despotism even more than usual!

I'm outta here for a while. I have to get at least a little done today.

The mDNA findings show us where women went - nothing more.

Beags, you're missing out on yDNA R1a vis a vis India.

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.

I am familiar with the Sarasvati, have seen the satellite photos, and even read most of the Vedic texts.

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.

There are other scripts out there that are proto-Sumerian, but that doesn't result in a culture that influences others. I'm still having a hard time determining what, if anything of consequence was occuring in India at 3,500bce. Jericho was going full tilt at 7,000bce and look how influential they were ... a few toots on Joshua's horn and their walls crumble!

a few toots on Joshua's horn and their walls crumble!

Or so some people would have us believe!

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

should read

I'm sure your friend is busy screaminng "I know everything about this and you know nothing". His usual 100% correct mantra

Beags, you're missing out on yDNA R1a vis a vis India.

Cogs, when you get a chance, help me out with that one. What do you mean by "vis a vis" India?

The time frame here is the Holocene.

Thanks.

The time frame here is the Holocene

astounding observation

Beags, you're missing out on yDNA R1a vis a vis India.

Cogs, when you get a chance, help me out with that one. What do you mean by "vis a vis" India?

Sorry Beags, it's been a real busy day here today with people giving me lots of excuses to fire their asses. Earlier, you mentioned that yDNA was not important in migrations. As a quick response, look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1_(Y-DNA)

At one time it was thought that the Brahmin caste in India was primarily made up of yDNA R1a individuals and this belief became part of the "Aryan Invasion Theory" with its overtones of superiority, now discounted. On the contrary, yDNA R1a with its origin in the Ukraine/Caucasus region, entered India as part of the dispersal migration from west to east during the late Pleistocene/early Holocene. Migrating genetic groups include men as well as women who take their cultural affinities and mythologies with them (plus lots of other mental baggage). The Brahmins, being somewhere around 33% yDNA R1a or so, certainly affected others around them with their imported beliefs.

And don't tell me that R1a originated in India or we'll need to have therapy with one of Charlie's hand axes!