>>>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? .... 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.
>
> Precisely. It is respectfully mentioned, and then they add that it
fails on linguistic grounds. I don't take it seriously either.
>
My point is that it deserves to be at least considered. But its rarely
given even equal coverage with Renfrew. I don't necessarily believe in
OIT but I think we need to really look into it. You and Hock have done
a great job in taking the time to do this. Witzel has also although he
is a bit biased. Nevertheless he does an excellent job of presenting
the pro-AMT position.
> > 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.
>
> If. It hasn't been shown that the IVC, let alone Mehrgarh, was
IE-speaking.
>
This is not my 'if.' This is the increasingly accepted position of
many South Asian archaeologists. It's because of them that I'm now
willing to even consider rethinking things.
> The "cultural continuity" was not all that continuous in
archaeological terms. The collapse of the IVC is a discontinuity,
isn't it?
>
Not nearly as much as was previously thought. There was an urban
collapse, yes, but the underlying culture is now accepted to have
survived in a more rural setting. Of course, this is all relatively
new and is still being researched but the consensus among
archaeologists is pretty strong, I think.
>The usual theory is that the Indo-Aryans appeared during the
post-collapse period, combining the local traditions with their own
inherited ones, and that their language came to be used as lingua
franca.
>
This theory is now being questioned.
> > ... 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?
>
> The "Out of Africa" theory of human origins is very strongly
supported by pelaeontological and molecular genetic evidence. There is
no serious alternative to it at present.
>
Yes, but that was not my point. I used that to illustrate that a local
focus can nevertheless have wider ramifications even if the
investigating scientist did not directly address them. Therefore, it
is not valid to dismiss OIT theorists simply because they don't
discuss the entire PIE issue.
>considered the Saraswati river to be mythical.
>
> It is still kinda mythical, isn't it? ;)
Hehe. But no. It is still flowing in North India and water crops to
this day.
>But please note that it was the 19th-century linguists who did away
with...
I'm not one of those who accuse linguists and Indologists of living in
the 19th century but I think there may still be a few vestiges of old
theories that were never properly re-examined. You know that this
often happens in academia. You build upon an old theory and after some
time it just becomes accepted.
> Brilliant. So how about that Mexico thing? :)
It was obviously done by UFOs who landed there after they accidentally
sunk Atlantis on their way to building the Great Pyramids and
Stonehenge 100,000 years ago. But this was long before they taught the
Indo-European-speaking Tibetans at Shangri-la how to build spoked
wheels and tame horses and then teleported them to the Danube. It's
really all quite obvious.