Joe, I take it you have had tiple or two fueling the burst of wax lyrical.
LOL.
What I wrote was NOT due to the ingenious theory that is being bandied around now, although that too demonstrated the superiority of that mind; it was due to reading a paper sent to me privately (meaning, outside the forum) that nearly blew me away. Nothing original, just a methodical and painstaking ethnographic monograph that covered every relevant aspect of the situation and answered questions that had not yet been asked.
No civilization that I know or very few were ever limited to specific boundaries or certainly not conforming to modern borders. However all had a pivot or foci from which point in irregular waves they spread out, gradually fading away on the edges. It was not like any had a precise border with a Trumpian wall.
Before going on to the excellent point that you make subsequently, inverting an existing situation to make your point, let me explain: my annoyance is to the jejune and thoroughly amateur note with which the thread started. If you read it and understand my objections, we shall make no more of it; however, if you believe, sight unseen, or after deliberate scrutiny, that it is defensible, I should like the opportunity to change your mind. Not the basic theme, not in the form that you had presented it, but in terms of what is now presented, and the ineptitude and bigotry of which it reeks.
Let's look at Ancient Egyptian civilization which had the Nile as it's foci [analogous to IVC having River Indus] but it spread south into modern Sudan and it's influence extended as far south as modern Eritrea and Somalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_pyramids
In fact the Ancient Egytians civilizations spread out from it's foci and permeated south along the Nile to Sudan, Ethopia, Somalia, Eritrea etc. This has given fuel to
Afrocentrism wherein Ancient Egypt is seen as a attempt by Europeans to undo a African civilization by corralling it to the mouth the Nile on the Mediteranean. In other words carving a African civilization into a region and branding it as 'Egyptian' or as a entirely separate entity from rest of the continent.
Your basic point about 'Afrocentrism' is well taken; I have been reading and viewing a lot of these speculations and the racism is palpable.
My point is quite different.
You mentioned that there are not usually precise physical boundaries of a culture or a civilisation; there are, instead, foci. It is these foci that determine the cultural centre, not necessarily geography; for one thing, as you point out, the geographical and the cultural features rarely coincide.
What I have to say is not a denial of what you see as the foci; it is a reminder of the slender logical thread on which the logical argument proceeds.
It is mistaken to view the Indus River as the focus, and to visualise the IVC as having been locked into a tight embrace with that valley.
THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THE RELATIVE AGE OF THE SETTLEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED. MOHENJODARO IS NOT THE OLDEST LOCATION; NEITHER WAS HARAPPA. THESE WERE THE SITES THAT WERE DISCOVERED FIRST.
Without denying the Pakistani perception, I would like to recommend very strongly a study of the archaeological evidence and a report on the history of Iron Age archaeological finds, not just in co-terminous Pakistan, but outside as well. This will show in stark terms the situation as it extended then.
To my eyes I regard the Indian attempt at diffusing IVC into a sub-continental civilization [I term it Gangacentrism] no differant to Afrpcentrism. Both are attempts to diffuse a regional civilization to a wider geography. If some IVC sites lap over into Afghanistan or India this is no differant from AE sites spilling into Sudan,Ethopia,Eritrea, Somalia etc.
Not my tree, not my marking of my territory. The IVC was a unique civilisation and was never reproduced anywhere else on the sub-continent or elsewhere. It is NOT my claim that it was a sub-continental civilisation; not at all.
That, again, was NOT my point.
Indeed I would argue that IVC 'fits' into Pakistan far better then Ancient Egypt or even Ancient Greece do with the the modern states mostly associated with them - Egypt and Greece. Note. Macedonia, Turkey and even Albania lay claim to aspects of Ancient Greece. I digress but compared to the 'fit' of Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, IVC fits better in Pakistan. 93% of the Indus Valley is within Pakistan. The foci is Pakistan. One look at IVC on a map of India clearly shows that IVC is hanging on the edge with most of India distal. Whereas almost of all of Pakistan sits on the foci of IVC with no location being more then hundred mile from large OVC site.
It is not necessary to deny that the IVC was co-terminous with Pakistan; your assertion that the IVC was indeed largely centred on the same geographical features of modern day Pakistan is noted, but there are very strong archaeological reasons to review our assumptions. It will diffuse focus to suddenly float alternative views of the IVC, and I would prefer that we stick to the current views for the duration of this argument.
Pakistan today is entirely centred on territories to which the IVC extended; the question is, was the IVC entirely centred on territories that constitute Pakistan today?
TO BE CONTINUED.
That was a conspicious example to make my point. It's as obtuse as me asking why would somebody want to look like their summer iterations? And I must add here that people I have seen in UK who tan themselves [tan shops are everywhere] recreate a complexion that is not their normal summer tan but goes well beyond that. Or it would be the colour you would get by sprawling outside almost full on naked day after day in the summer. That is not natural.
And I must reiterate. Lying naked under intense tanning lights in a crazy looking contraption with eye shields, slowly being toasted is, all in a attempt to look like they have been living on sun drenched beaches of Mediteranean is far, far from natural.
