--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- mkelkar2003 <smykelkar@...> wrote:
>
> > > > > GK: Your section 9.3 is insufficient to back
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > your claim. The Indo-Aryans could well
> > have been
> > > > > true
> > > > > > > nomads, and such populations are
> > exceedingly hard
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > track down (before and after settlement).
> > The case
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the Pechenegs in Ukraine is a perfect
> > example
> > > > > > (though
> > > > > > > the Huns would fit the bill almost as
> > easily). We
> > > > > > > know that the Pecheneg Confederacy was
> > dominant on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > steppes of southern Ukraine for a century
> > and a
> > > > > > half
> > > > > > > [ca. 890's- 1030's] (Constantine
> > Porphyrogenitus
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > much to say about it in his De
> > administrando
> > > > > > imperio).
> > > > > > > But they remain archaeologically elusive.
> > We know
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > most of those who stayed on the steppes
> > after
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > big defeat of 1036 were eventually invited
> > by
> > > > > > Prince
> > > > > > > Vasyl'ko Rostyslavych to settle in
> > Galicia. Upon
> > > > > > > settlement, they adopted the local culture
> > so
> > > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > and extensively that one cannot
> > differentiate them
> > > > > > > from the rest of the population in terms
> > of
> > > > > > > archaeological remains. All that we have
> > are some
> > > > > > > place names ("Pechenihy" "Pechenizhyn")and
> > > > > > possibly
> > > > > > > some family names ending in -yuk. And in
> > their
> > > > > > case we
> > > > > > > have to deal with a fairly large
> > population. So
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > conclusion as to the archaeological
> > argument is
> > > > > > > disputable at best. The Indo-Aryans may
> > well have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > integrated on the Pecheneg model, with one
> > > > > > admittedly
> > > > > > > major difference, viz., their language
> > became
> > > > > > dominant
> > > > > > > over that of the locals amongst which they
> > > > > > > settled.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > GK: Love it (:=)) Ideological thinking.
> > > > > Q.E.D.
> > > >
> > > > I am not the one asking people to believe in the
> > **IDEA** that a
> > > > small coterie of people speaking a language
> > called PIE (or its
> > > > dialects) spread it around from Northern Ireland
> > to Sri Lanka and
> > > > yet erase all identity of themselves. So who is
> > the IDEAlogue
> > > here?
> > > >
> > > > M. Kelkar
> > >
> > > GK: Let's see. Our ideologue 1- ignores the
> > main point about
> > > the difficulty of tracing archaeological remains
> > of nomadic cultures
> > > as applied to the arrival of Indo-Aryans in India,
> >
> > (Kelkar)A classic philologically tautological
> argument.
> > Because the
> > "Indo-Aryans" are nomads they are not traceable and
> > why are they
> > nomads? because they are not traceable.
>
> ****GK: No. The argument is rather this: because the
> Indo-Aryans are indeed in India, and because they
> indubitably arrived there from "outside" as indicated
> by genetic research,
I have already answered the genetic part in an earlier message. So let
us continue.
and because their connection to
> the other IE languages indicates an earlier
> "Indo-Iranian" phase in the steppes of Eurasia,
No it does not. The connection is not factual but is hypothesized. An
even that hypothesis could very well be LINGUSITICALLY wrong. It is
for the IEL to judge that. Please do not ignore the following links
this time:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/CPHL/
See Fig 12 (p. 22) and section 6 (p. 22) of the link below
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/Papers/81.2nakhleh.pdf
and section 7.7 (p. 52) of the following study
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/CPHL/RWT02.pdf
The IIr remains CLEAR fair and square of any Europepan languages. None
of the three contact edges shown in Fig 12 involve IIr. There is no
LINGUISTIC evidence that the so called IIr speaking nomads (assuming
they existed) were ever in any direct contact with other nomads
(presumably) that spoke Proto-Italco Celtic, Balto-Slavic etc. And
that is why this std tree divergence model may have to be
replaced/supplanted by a convergence model (Garrett) or punctuality
equilibrium model (R. M. Dixon) or an areal model (Nichols).
> deduced from a combination of archaeological,
> linguistic, and historical arguments, then the absence
> of conclusive archaeological proofs for the arrival
and settlement in India is more than likely due to
> their nomadic way of life,
Now if the connection iteself is *linguistically* tenuous then there
is hardly any point in tracing it in the archaeological record. May be
that is why such connections are NOT supported by archaeology. If you
are referring to Andronovo and BMAC the archaeologist have firmly
rejected their identifcation as IIr.
"The archaeological record in SSC only shows continuity. The
Lamberg-Karlovsky and coauthors articles states in the abstract:
"
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/324130"
"There is, however, no compelling archaeological evidence that they
(Andronovo and BMAC) had a common ancestor or that either is
Indo-Iranian. Ethnicity and language are not easily linked with an
archaeological signature, and the identity of the Indo-Iranians
remains elusive, (parenthesis added)."
The same is true about the Hittite, Greeks, Celtic, Slavic etc
migrations. They are not supported by any hard evidence.
About the Hittites and the Greeks:
"That a proto-Anatolian or Hittite nation invaded central Asia Minor
ca. 2000 B.C. seems to be a scholarly construct, encouraged by the
belief that the Greek nation invaded Greece at about the same time.
Eighty years ago, scholars were already curious about the "racial"
affinities of what were then the "mysterious Hittites," and various
anthropological arguments were advanced about the physiognomy
(especially the prominent nose and the physical traits of Hittites
portrayed by ancient artists. When Hrozny and Sommer showed that the
Hittite language had Indo-European affiliations, the immediate and
undisputed inference was that the Hittites were invaders, who had come
to Asia Minor from afar. Where they had come from was less clear, and
the answer depended on one's belief about the Indo-European homeland.
In his 1928 revision of Geschichte des Alterums, Meyer declared it
virtually certain they had come across the Caucasus from a homeland in
Central Asia, and had done so around the middle of the third
millennium. On the other hand, Louis Delaporte and Eugene Cavaignac
routed them via the Bosporus from a "patrie septentrionale." NO
EVIDENCE-ARCHAEOLOGOCAL. LINGUISTIC OR DOCUMENTARY-WAS ADVANCED IN
BEHALF OF EITHER VIEW, AND NO HISTORIAN EVER SUGGESTED THAT SUCH
EVIDENCE WAS NECESSARY. That nothing Indo-European could have been
indigenous to Asia minor was simply assumed by the scholars, whether
orientalist, Indo-Europeanist, or historians. If the Hittites were
Indo-European, at some time and some place the Hittite nation must
have invaded Asia Minor (Drews 1989, p. 53-54, emphasis added)."
"The `Hittite Nation' turns out, upon inspection, to be as illusory as
the `Hittite invasion,' of central Anatolia (Drews 1989, p. 72)."
About the Celts:
John Davies, 2000, Cassell and Company, London, United Kingdom. The
jacket says Dr. John Davies is an Honorary Professor at the University
of Wales and a specialist in Celtic history.
"Thus the core area of the Hallstat D sites has been seen as the area
in which a Celtic koine or lingua franca developed. Such ideas are
highly speculative. They owe much to early twentieth century thinking,
which assumed that an archeological complex is equivalent of a culture
and that a culture is a product of a specific people-indeed, in the
opinion of some writers, a specific race. The concept of a people
carried with it the presumption that they had a specific language and
thus the territory of the Hallstatt archeological complex became the
territory of the speakers of Celtic; in turn the territory of the
speakers of Celtic became the territory of the Hallstat archeological
complex. There was more than a tacit assumption that all "Celtic'
artifacts were produced by Celtic-speakers, and that all Celtic
speakers produced "Celtic" artifacts. It therefore followed that the
Celtic language must have evolved in the Hallstatt zone-the "Celtic
Heartland." Later evidence of its presence in regions beyond the
boundaries of that zone was interpreted as the result of the invasion
of those regions by people from the "heartland."
Such theories are now viewed with suspicion. There is a realization
that they involve a considerable degree of circular argument.;
archeologist have taken on trust notions from linguists, as have
linguists from archeologist, causing each to build on the other's
myths (p. 26)."
"Invasionism lost favor from the 1950's onwards-the era, significantly
perhaps of rapid decolonization. Instead, emphasis was placed upon the
capacity of indigenous societies to innovate and develop (p. 26, 28).
Alinei's challgenge regarding the Slavs:
"
"And I (Alinei) challenge Slavic specialist to find any indication of
a recent arrival of the Slavs in their area in other (other than those
mentioned by him already) medieval sources (parentheses added, Alinei
2003)."
http://www.continuitas.com/interdisciplinary.pdf page 26
If I were an IE linguist I would really be worried.
M. kelkar
on the analogy of the
> Pechenegs of the Ukrainian steppes. Were it not for
> the other indicators, the nomadic hypothesis would
> indeed be questionable. But in context, it is quite
> plausible. ****
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>