None

[Rajarshi Banerjee]

I've heard counterarguments like Arun Gupta's repeatedly, but
> they always overlook a glaring problem. Indo-European languages
> didn't just replace earlier languages in northern South Asia in
> the second and first millennia BCE. They also replaced earlier
> languages in vast portions of Eurasia, including of course
> Anatolia, Greece, and the Italian peninsula. The Indian problem
> is not as unique as chauvinistic writers make it out to be.
>
> Steve Farmer

They supposedly replaced laguages in vast portions in eurasia. But the model
used here is one of demic diffusion rather than elite dominance.
The IE speakers supposedly had an edge over older european populations
because they had greater affinity for agriculture and could sustain larger
populations. Also the language replacement is suposed to have been a slow
process.

The case does not hold for south asia of 1200 BC agriculture was hardly a
novel invention in india and the existing population must have been
sufficiently large.

Maybe we ought to look at the neolithic revolution for such a large scale
replacement and not recent times for both south asia and europe. Genetic
studies of mtdna as well as y polymorphisms support human migration
associated with the neolithic revolution

And about PIE break up etc. Is that really a hard date????

regards RB