Hi,
I need your suggestions about my latest work so please read my article and
tell me your opinion http://characteristics.acpromostore.com
Faithfully, Launchpad-dev
From: launchpad-dev [mailto:launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 6:59 AM
To: thek...@gmx.de
Subject: Why's that?
This was already clarified in the study.
There were 2 migrations into India. The one which is listed in the Genetics
study is more significant because it impacted and determined Indian
subcontinents history for millenia, concepts like casts system and how it
evolved are highlighted in that genetics study.
Also you are guilt of swaying from the logic you encouraged in your post.
That being of credible and best current proofs.
The 40,000BCE+ migration into India was superseded by subsequent more
significant migrations and their implications.
In fact your example of this 40,000 years is more akin to my hypothetical
example whereby Indian Civilization is IN REALITY 60 years old.
But that is clearly not so.
Linguistics, Genetics, Archeology gives enough credible support to lean on a
5000 year old or near about narrative. Its not without reason.
And one goes by what one has not with what one assumes or likes to have.
Chinese 2nd Dynasty, The Shang was for a long time assumed to be Mythical
and not real, but then archeology and written records confirmed what the
Chinese already knew based on Linguistics, cultural trends and oral history.
Then the focus shifted to 1st dynasty Xia and it was also assumed to be
Mythical and not real and then in the recent decades even this was
corroborated.
There wasn't even genetics involved for the Chinese discoveries.
Social historians have a very odd relationship with Genetic scientists
because Geneticists don't care for culture or traditions, they throw out data
and then that data has to be interpreted and put into the bigger picture.
Bottomline being, there is never going to be a video selfies from 3000 BCE
showing what was going on. Everything is retrospective and from all that we
know, its not a stretch to use the 5000 year old narrative. Just because
oral history is a weak argument doesn't mean its redundant argument, and
when combined with the other metrics the overall argument is decent enough if
not totally/universally convincing one.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
