Pardon me for jumping in here but this statement got my attention:
>
Unless the Indian origins theory throws some radically new light on
this big question (rather than concentrate on purely local affairs),
it has nothing attractive to offer from the point of view of IE
studies.... I'm afraid that no-one would buy such a theory in the
first place unless it offered a visible explanatory advantage
vis-à-
vis other current proposals.
>
Why should this theory be required to show a higher standard of
evidence than any other theory? In order to be considered, it is not
necessary for it to be a better theory, simply an equally plausible
explanation. It really does seem to be true that the concern about
Hindutva propaganda has caused Western scholars to be excessively
sceptical about Indian claims. No linguist that I know of takes
Renfrew's claims at all seriously, but he is still respectfully
mentioned in almost every survey of IE origins.
The OIT is worthy of consideration simply because "it really might be
true." The re-evaluation of the India Urheimat Theory by mainstream
scholars is primarily due to the recent archaeological and geological
discoveries, not to the Hindutva agenda. In fact, the Hindutvavadis
have probably hindered this process with their wild claims and
disregard for scientific procedure more than they've helped it.
> Even if the Indus Valley Civilisation (I leave aside the 5000 BC
dating) were "Vedic" in the sense that many elements of its culture
were eventually inherited by the Vedic Indo-Aryans, that would not
mean it was _linguistically_ Indo-Aryan. Anti-migrationism (as a
reaction to migrationism) is a common attitude among archaeologists,
not only those working in South Asia; and yet the linguistic evidence
shows unambiguously that languages must have migrated in the past.
>
I think his 5000 BC date refers to the widely accepted continuity
between Merhgarh and the IVC not other "less verifiable" theories.
No one denies migration of languages, just which direction they
migrated. In fact, I think it is undeniable that there were
migrations both into and out of India during most of its history.
> Even if they find a whole horse there, that still won't prove that
Harappa was Indo-Aryan speaking.
>
True. But the absence of horses is a major strike against the OIT. So
the presence of horses is a central obstacle that must be cleared
before most people would begin to consider the theory.
> > 5) All of the 'negative evidence' can be refuted.
>
> I was asking about "positive evidence" ("Why India?", not "Why not
India?"), without which you can't make your point even if you were
really able to refute all the negative evidence.
>
At a certain point, you reach a critical mass of "Vedic" artifacts in
the region where you have to ask yourself: is it not more reasonable
to postulate that the Vedic tradition is native to South Asia? An
increasing number of people in the field are starting to think that
that critical mass has been reached. All of the evidence, with the
exception of linguistics, seems to point to the likelihood of an
indigenous origin of Vedic civilization in India. If that is the
case, then perhaps linguistics should be re-examined.
> A valid alternative to what? Any discussion of India as a possible
homeland turns into discussing the relative merits of "Out of India"
versus "Into India" (a.k.a. AMT), as if the Indian question were
central to the understanding of the general problem of the spread of
Indo-European. Well, it isn't.
>
Of course it is. If the Vedic civilization is native to India and
Vedic is an Indo-European language and it can be shown
archaeologically to have cultural continuity back to neolithic
Mehrgarh, then this completely changes both the dates (and the
possible origin) of the IE languages. To postulate that you have a
civilization that is archaeologically demonstrably overwhelmingly
Vedic and that they kept all of their practices but suddenly and
completely changed their language without any convincing
archaeological evidence is special pleading indeed.
> "Out of India" is put forward as a theory of IE origins, but "Into
India" is no such thing. It refers to just one event in the spread of
the family -- a marginal one, in fact.
>
It is marginal only if you don't accept its likelihood. Otherwise it
is central.
>What we really have to explain is how the IE languages managed to
spread all over Europe and much of Central Asia, the Middle East,
Anatolia and (without special emphasis) the Indian subcontinent.
>
Academic progress, especially in modern times, is usually made by a
community of scholars each working in their area of specialization
and then meeting to coordinate their understanding. The pursuit of an
Indian origin of IE is a valid contribution to IE studies without
having to answer all of the questions of the entire field. No one
denies the relevance of Leakey's work on human origins just because
he was focused "only on Africa." Why should language be different?
Besides, it is widely accepted that the bulk of the work in
lingistics has focused on Europe. Why is that?
> > The only problem is linguistics. No western linguists have
seriously tried to investigate this.
>
> They have, back in the nineteenth century.
>
Precisely. And that nineteenth century worldview is seriously
vitiated by Biblical, colonialist, missionary and racist assumptions.
I don't agree with the Hindutvavadis that this still predominates in
the minds of most scholars (although I can name a few that are guilty
of it), but there is nevertheless great validity to the Orientalist
critique.
Perhaps more to the point (or at least less controversial), there has
been great progress since the nineteenth century which at that time
did not widely accept the theory of evolution but sought the origins
of mankind in the Middle Eastern Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark, knew
nothing of the existence of the IVC and considered the Saraswati
river to be mythical.
>Are you suggesting that instead of the most natural and generally
accepted interpretation of the facts we need to "rethink" them so as
to make them fit your favourite hypothesis? That would be self-
defeating in the long run, since it would mean that the facts can
be "rethought" once again in order to please someone else.
>
I think we should always be willing to rethink things if we have
evidence that it would be fruitful to do so.
>Those who advocate other homeland proposals at least accept the
standard model of IE linguistics and don't manipulate it to suit
their needs. Well, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov do something of the sort,
but they have been criticised for that. The linguistic question is
autonomous: we use only _linguistic_ data, not genetic or
archaeological evidence, to determine the structure of the family
tree.
>
Yes, I agree completely. No qualified person has yet re-evaluated the
linguistic evidence. Perhaps it is overdue.
While the linguistic question may be autonomous, the search for truth
about the origins of IE is not. This is something that will only be
resolved through a multi-disciplinary approach. I know this is not
what you meant to say, but linguists should not pull back and
say "we're only going to consider the linguistic evidence". At least
I hope that is not what you meant to say, although the words could be
construed that way.
> > How would you rewrite linguistics to deal with this? This is not
an improbable scenario. Just as a hypothesis, I'd like to hear your
thinking on this.
>
> For the moment, I have no reason to worry, since the Indus Valley
script has not been found to be Indo-Aryan yet. I think it _highly_
improbable that it will ever be found to be Indo-Aryan, so I'm not
rewriting linguistics yet. I'm not concerned with "ifs". Questions
like "What would you say if tomorrow demonstrably PIE inscriptions
were discovered in Mexico?" are not conducive to a sound discussion.
>
My greatest concern in this issue is the unwillingness for linguists
to consider *even for a moment* that the OIT *might* be true. He
wasn't asking you to defend the OIT, just to engage in some
brainstorming. Given Dr. Donne's fondness for going out on a limb
(sorry Mike!), I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate for a moment in
considering what it would mean to find PIE inscriptions in Mexico. :)
Even if he didn't believe it likely. This is an internet chat room
not a refereed journal. Let down your hair! Think dangerous thoughts!