Indo-Aryan migration vs Indigenous origin - scholarly debate

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

"Dominique.Thillaud" <thillaud at UNICE.FR> wrote:

>        But I'm strictly unable to understand:
>        - why such "contacts are incompatible with both the Southern
>Russian steppe-model AND the Indi-genous model". The broad and ancient
>diffusion of neolithical technics is well known and probably earlier than
>an Eurindian dispersion.

"Incompatible" was probably too strong a word.  Johanna Nichols, in
her article "The Epicentre of the Indo-European Linguistic Spread"
[in: Archaeology and Language I", Blench/Spriggs eds., 1997]  actually
uses these numerals and some other words like "bull" etc. to prove a
Central Asian origin of Indo-European (and Kartvelian).  I strongly
disagree, but there you have it.  The question is: why do we find
these (possible) borrowings between IE, Kartvelian, Semitic, and why
do we not find them in, say, Dravidian, NW and NE Caucasian, Altaic
etc.?  The diffusion may have been broad, but it wasn't that broad!
And, again, why do we (possibly) find them in Basque (sei "6", zazpi
"7") and Etruscan (s'a "6", semph "7")?  And are the Berber words
(sd.is "6", sa "7") borrowings as well, or inherited from
Afro-Asiatic?  Questions, questions...

Another question (out of curiosity): why "Eurindian" instead of
Indo-European?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam