> I have always thought that the idea of a single migration from India
> to be absurd, and that a number of migrations to be much more
> likely. Why would this scenario be a problem ?
This has been discussed on the list quite aggressively before - and fairly
recently - so the best answer will be found in the archives. In brief, it
does not explain the evidence as readily as the alternative view, and it
means we have to reconnect groups which depart from India at different
times. You don't have to do this if IE moves into India. It is also
remarkable that the geographic spread of the dialects roughly corresponds to
their inter-relationships. This makes more sense if the groups simply
expanded as they spread.
The out-of-India theory survives (1) because certain scholars want to
prioritise India, and (2) because there is no absolutely crushing evidence
against it. It is a question of balancing likelihoods - and the India
theory is rather more complex and much less believable than the other.
Peter