I must apologise for the spasmodic nature of my writing.
Between the demands of my travel, and the close attention that has to be paid to my father's establishment in Calcutta, and the need to retain a foothold in Bangalore, it is difficult to snatch time on line. On top of that, the grip of the birthsign I was born under doesn't permit me to give incomplete or half-hearted answers. Even if someone is being sarcastic or ironic, I believe that he (or she) has the right to the same courtesy and full reply that any other supportive person would have; a greater right, in fact.
That last obviously doesn't apply to you; the other day, I was horrified to find one of the most sober and balanced posters taking umbrage at a phrase I used, which had nothing whatsoever to do with my high respect for him. I am now careful.
The fact that the Sutlej & the Yamuna flowed into the saraswathi? That would automatically lower the flow in the Indus, wouldn't it?
The Sutlej flowing into the Saraswati would certainly affect the flow in the Indus. The Yamuna wouldn't; it went off to join the Ganges at Allahabad anyway. All this assuming that they did in fact flow into the Saraswati.
Not quite correct.; What I said was that the river had dried up by then since there is evidence suggesting to that end.
"Painted Grey Ware sites (ca. 1000 BCE) have been found in the bed and not on the banks of the Ghaggar-Hakra river, suggesting that the river had dried up before this period"
I did not claim an exact date for the decline of the Saraswathi even though the links provided by me suggests a much earlier date for its drying up. Since I am not very clear about the veracity of such statements (& hidden agendas if any) I pointed out the date given as being most certain because of the evidence of inhabited sites on the bed of the river by about 1000 B.C. It is however unlikely that a river in the process of drying up would have been given as much importance as the Saraswathi was.
There is a gap of 300 years between the last settlements clearly ascribable to the IVC and the dried up PGW sites in the Ghaggra-Hakkra bed. Wouldn't you agree that this gap would give sufficient time for the Saraswati to dry up and leave the IVC settlements unsustainable?
We are on the same page, I hope, wrt the PGW settlements; those were little hamlets, in some cases, and have been assigned to the early incoming Indo-Aryan culture.
I also find your dismissal of the Goddess personification a bit troublesome. No other river(including Ganga) achieved the status as an independent Goddess(not just as a river Goddess) in the sub continent. Stories of the Saraswathi existing as an underground river finally meeting the Yamuna & the Ganga at Allahabad indicate the importance given to that river. This continued even when the focus had long shifted to the gangetic plains.
Frankly this is difficult to deal with; as you know, there is no other case of this sort.
I have to disagree, The Mitanni used many words which are similar to Sanskrit & not to an earlier Proto Indo-Iranian language. While accepting that your knowledge of history is probably greater, let me remind you that you admitted in an earlier thread that that particular part baffled you.
I take your general point, but it is still true that the Mitanni usages are consistent with a much earlier break-away than the Indo-Iranian, which was quite late, about 2000 BC. Linking it to Sanskrit is difficult; which variety of Sanskrit did you have in mind, Vedic or Classic? (pre- or post-Panini?). It is utterly impossible to synchronise it with post-Panini Sanskrit, as the codification by the great man lost several Proto-Indo-Iranian language features, which indicate clearly that the two were not in proximity.
What was puzzling was the sequence proposed for the break-away, that it separated out from PIE even earlier than Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranian. This was not a sequence I had expected, but my knowledge of the precise sequence of break-aways currently favoured by linguists is a little grey.
It is now time to rip off my false whiskers and stand revealed in public view as a mere historian with little knowledge of the current trends in linguistics. Contrary to your summation, this discussion is not within the boundaries of history, but of linguistics. So, quite honestly, we are quite on par in the matter.
What we are discussing is that awkward period that historians normally dread, that grey period before history started settling down into what it properly is, a period when it was necessary to resort to linguistic and literary interpretation - never an historian's first resort! - and more so, resort to it without the comfort of material culture to support any conclusions.
I was referring to your theory of absorption of Aryan tribes into a pre existing culture. My point was that if such an absorption did occur than ties based on tribal loyalties with those in the east would have suffered. Not disputing dates but just pointing out some of the problems caused by the newer theory.
It all depends on the question of absorption and of communications while the process of absorption goes on. We can consider parallel cases and see what happens in those. Some examples in Pakistan, on their Punjab/KP borders, are more appropriate to this discussion than any other. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to find a cooperative interlocutor who will lead the discussion at this point, since apparently the only things that are of interest are how quickly our nation will decay and vanish, and which weapons are likeliest to do the most damage.