Re: Proving India is the Indian Homeland

> I still don't understand how
> linguistically you can argue that Vedic "nearly equals" *PIE and be
> respectfully mentioned by serious linguists.
>

I don't hold that position. *If* PIE was in India (and I'm not saying
it was -- only that we need to reconsider it) then it would be
similar to the existing reconstructed PIE. Vedic would still have to
be a descendent or something. Of course, it might be fruitful to re-
examine the old theories to see if Misra got the general idea correct
but was wrong on certain, rather crucial, details. But this would
involve a complete re-evaluation of the fundamentals of IE
linguistics which would involve quite a bit more time than I have
available right now. :-)

> <<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.>>
>
> So, there's no respect from linguists but there is a re-evaluation

by

> "mainstream scholars." What kind of scholars?
>

Indologists, archaeologists and anthropologists.

> And what specifically do they
> have to say about Vedic's linguistic relation to the other IE

languages?

>

Not much at this point. Where we stand now is the recognition that
something is wrong but no one is really clear what has to change.

> Or
> are you saying that these mainstream scholars have some other way

of knowing

> what language was spoken in pre-IA India? By the way, how does

Dravidian fit

> in all this? Did it have any hand in this Vedic civilization?
>

My personal theory (insert standard disclaimer that the whole
question of an Indian homeland is still speculative) is that the
Harappans were a multi-cultural, multi-religious and at least a
somewhat multi-lingual area similar to any metropolitan today and
also somewhat like Mesopotamia, etc. The predominant language *may*
have been IA but there were certainly Semitic traders and most likely
Dravidians as well.

> And what archaeological and geological discoveries specifically are

you

> talking about that tell you something specifically about the

origins of IE

> languages?
>

The wording of that question is a bit strong: there are no
universally-accepted archaeological matches for PIE anywhere in
Europe or Asia. But the Merhgarh > IVC > BMAC continuum is as likely
as any others like Sintashta or Andronovo proposed by others.

> I don't think that anyone recently arguing here against an Indian

origin on

> this list has mentioned horses. I guess you're talking about press

releases,

> Amazon breasts and the Great Flood and Atlantis-type acceptance.

The

> presence of horses has no effect on the comparative method, which

is where

> *PIE came from. Unless you're not talking about *PIE, but some

other kind of

> idea.
>

Now, now. No need to mention Atlantis, etc. Especially when it seems
you haven't read beyond this newgroup and found the arguments within
the discipline. Actually horses figure prominently in the debate by
people like Witzel, Meadows... well, actually the list is rather long
and consists of many of the mainstream scholars. It's a central
point. The best place to begin is with Witzel's article
called "Authochthonous Aryans" online at EJVS.

> What does "indigenous Vedic tradition" have to do with *PIE again?

Vedic

> civilization can be indigenous, but what does that have to do with

Danish,

> which is IE but not V-E-D-I-C?

Thanks for clarifying my terminology for me. Yes, actually there is
almost no disagreement that Vedic civilization was indigenous to
India. The question is when it arose. If it arose in Mehrgarh or even
the IVC then this early date directly impacts any theory of PIE. PIE
would then have to be much earlier than is commonly accepted or
possibly have originated in India if the current dates are accepted.

> And what the hell happened to the Dravidians
> - or did they not share in this glorious cultural continuity?
>

Apart from what I mentioned above, there seems to be no evidence that
the Dravidians were significantly impacted by the IVC.

> You start with language, then you suddenly switch to selling a

whole

> civilization. THAT IS WHY there is a credibility problem. IE has

been the

> language of many, many different "material cultures." Most of them

do not

> have "Vedic tradition" as a common denominator.
>

True. But many of the signifiers of an IE material culture are
borrowed from the Vedas or the Avestan texts because they are so old.
The journal articles refer to them quite freqently.

> *PIE on the other hand is a linguistic concept. It is a

comparatively

> derived construct that comes from the languages of a dozen or so

cultures,

> most of which share no clear cultural continuity with pre-Vedic or

Vedic, but

> do have cultural continuity with older local elements that are as

old as

> anything in India.

Surely you are aware of the attempts to link this linguistic concept
with material culture?

>So this "civilization/continuity" business says nothing.
>

I'm afraid your opinion does not seem to be shared by most of the
scholars writing about South Asia. I'm referring to Western scholars.
Jarrige, Possehl, Kenoyer, Allchin, et. al. seem to feel that it is
very important because of the dates involved.

> <<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.>>
>
> Well, Danish civilization is native to Denmark and Danish is an

Indo-European

> language and it CAN be shown to have cultural continuity back to

the

> neolithic times... so? I don't get it. What are you proving?
>

Does Danish culture show a clear pattern of IE material culture back
to neolithic times?

> And BTW whose dates? What dates are you talking about? There

isn't a damn

> culture on earth that can't be shown to have some cultural

continuity back to

> neolithic times. The only thing that interferes with cultural

continuity is

> innovation or disappearance. What does this have to do with IE

languages?

>

The existence of what seems to be IE material culture starting with
5000 B.C. (this is controversial) but becoming quite interesting by
3000-2500 B.C.

> <<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.>>
>
> Kept all their practices? What, they stayed in the stone age?
>

Fire sacrifice, horses, rathas (chariots), the IE pantheon,
tripartite division of society, etc.

> So this "archaeologically
> demonstrably overwhelmingly Vedic" evidence doesn't support a darn

thing

> regarding IE languages, UNLESS somewhere there's some IE writing on

any of

> it.

That is true of every other theory. None of them have IE writing
until the Greeks, I believe. So why aren't these other theories also
enjoying your vitriol?

In fact, I agree with you completely which is why my position that
we do not have enough evidence to accept an Indian Urheimat. I simply
propose keeping an open mind. Deciphering the Indus Script would
essentially end the debate, I think.

> And what actually takes extra-special pleading is leaving Dravidian

out of

> this whole scenario.
>

Dravidian influences can just as plausibly be shown to have been
through adstratum not substratum.

> Fine. Let's start with what you mean by IE.

I don't believe we differ in this. Why do you ask?

> If you mean anything more than a family of languages, then define

what that

> is. If not, take a little time to figure out why the Vedic

language is often

> placed so late in the development of the IE tree. Start your proof

there.

>

As I mentioned before, I know why Vedic is late and I don't disagree
with that at this time.

> If you mean by IE some bigger idea, well then you really need to

answer

> another big question. Which is how archaeology can be bent to

support an

> archaeologically unsupportable theory. Archaeology has no way of

identifying

> a pre-literate language.

Yes, this is a problem. But it sounds as if your criticism is best
addressed to the entire attempt to locate a PIE homeland and not to
this particular theory.

> Here's a dangerous thought. The neolithic revolution came to India

out of

> the middle east and far east and had nothing to do with IE

languages until

> thousands of years later, when IE served as a unifying trade

language among

> diverse Dravidian and other speakers who had already developed

advanced

> bronze age cultures.

So is this the theory you consider most likely?

>Try that one on the India "Urheimat" chat room if you
> want to know what dangerous is.

Hehe.

Btw, archaeologists like Jarrige seem to have convinced most of their
fellow South Asian archaeologists that Mehrgarh demonstrates an
indigenous neolithic revolution.