Tampering with history

[Sn. Subrahmanya]

At 10:49 AM 6/19/98 +0200, LArs Martin Fosse wrote:
>
>The reason for the "removal" of the Aryans from India to
>Europe, was the insight that there were far more Indo-European languages in
>Europe than in India, which, among other things, would suggest that Europe
>or Eurasia would be the starting point of the Indo-European expansion. Thus,
>your retrofitting hypothesis does not really stick.
>
This is very debatable. It is not right to say that India does not have
linguistic diversity !!. The range of languages in India is mind boggling.
Actually, the presence of Kentum traces in some of the Indian languages,
that has been suggested by Zoller isnt much of a surprise to Indigenists.
Also, it wouldnt be surprising at all if more Kentum traces are found in
the Dardic, Kafir and other languages in N.India.
> From Tarim Basin to Baluchistan you find tremendous variety of languages -
Tocharian, Dardic,so called "Kafir", Bangani, Brahui etc...

Also migrationists typically tend to regard the language of the Rgveda as
indicative of all Arya presence in the subcontinent. This is not correct.
The Rgveda mostly represents a Puru dialect. There were most definitely
other people in the area who  considered themselves "Arya" as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Retroflexion may be both. Modern Norwegian and Swedish both have
>retroflexion, which developed quite independently of Dravidian languages!
>
You are right. That is why it is not correct to say that migration into
India caused the development of retroflexion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Archaeology: There is some evidence (see Parpola). Textual: See Witzel's
>reconstruction of early Indo-Aryan history based on Vedic. Genetic:
>According to the genetic studies I have read, there is genetic evidence. I
>believe a book on the subject is forthcoming in India with a contribution by
>Cavalli-Sforza.
>
Witzels reconstruction of Vedic Textual history demands all kinds
of reminiscences !!.  Let us not get into that again.
None of the archeologists seem to think that there is any evidence
of a migration.
As for the genetic evidence, let us wait for the book.
----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Thus the original evidence on which invasion/migration was postulated
>>doesnt exist !...So - the linguistic evidence  which relied on such
>>archeological confirmation is also suspect !!.
>
>Not true. SOME of the supposed evidence has been discarded. But certainly
>not all. And new evidence has emerged.
>
Please give details, as to what has not been discarded and what the new
evidence is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Corroborative evidence is always an advantage. But I know of no historical
>example where a language family has spread over a large part of a continent
>simply by dint of example. If the Aryan languages didn't come from India,
>they would have to have entered the subcontinent, and to be carried there by
>a group of people large enough to make a real impact.
>
You make an excellent point here !..Is central asia been capable of producing
the population needed to go all around Asia and Europe to make such an impact
as the Indo-Europeans have done. Nomads who generally do not have such surplus
food cannot be expected to produce the population needed to colonize such a
large
 area !!. Is Ukraine capable of producing the population neeeded to go out and
populate the whole area form India to Ireland so thorougly as the
Indo-Europeans have ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I suspect that by the
>year 1000 BCE, Northern India was a bit like Latin America 300 years ago:
>Lots of Europeans streaming in, mostly Spanish speaking, and confronting the
>local populations.
>
Wrong!. First you have to prove that whatever area in Central Asia could produce
the population needed to overwhelm all of North India and impose its own culture
and language on a more advanced civilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I am afraid you are right. It is a bit sad that you don't want to discuss
>the methodical problems involved in the study of ancient history. Discussing
>proofs when we don't even agree upon what would constitute a proof is a bit
>futile.
>
I am willing to discuss the methodical problem - but did not want to
get into a rhetoric match.

Regards,
Subrahmanya