Re: OIT and Atlantis

> A heck of a lot of "news" about "OIT" and the ancientness of Indian

culture

> are almost as overenthused as that press release on the Amazons

that was on

> this list. And to the extent you are repeating these things it's

you who may

> be fanning the conflagration. But maybe you aren't aware of that.
>

I think its important to separate critical examination of these
issues based on informed research and the past work of reputable
scholars from the wild, unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable!)
claims that predominate among the Hindutvavadi apologists who
basically believe that the Vedas are literally true and scientific
fact must be somehow "corrected" to fit them. To lump these two
together only hurts objective scholarship. Just because Von Daniken
was wrong (to put it politely) doesn't invalidate the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence done by NASA.

> But when you claim that you know of discoveries that are going to

revamp

> fundamental linguistic theory, you might be prepared for being

categorized by

> some as something like Atlantean.

I don't believe I ever claimed that. I "know" of nothing. I simply
think we need to rethink a few things. I don't know where it will
lead us. We should do the research and let the data determine the
truth. I think I understand now why so many Indologists are unwilling
to discuss this subject in public and why many archaeologists are
ignoring linguists in order to just "focus on archaeology."

> First you claim:
> "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."
>
> Come on. There's no basis for this. These big new discoveries

appear to

> have little or no logical link to India as the "IE Urheimat."

In that they show evidence that South Asian civilization is much
older than previously thought, it is now considered *possible* that
the Vedas are also much older. If so, then certain PIE theories need
to be revised and an Indian Urheimat once again becomes an option.
None of this is anywhere near proven; it is all just in the very
beginning stages of investigation.

> Which is why I asked:
> <<And what specifically do they have to say about Vedic's

linguistic relation

> to the other IE languages?>>
>
> And you answer:
> <<Not much at this point.>>

It is too early to make any claims either way.

> Well then what the heck could these big discoveries have to do with

an IE

> homeland? What cause is there for saying there's some need for

such a

> dramatic "re-evaluation"?

I think you are adding the drama here. Well, and those who are
committed to an Indian Urheimat for other reasons.

> Recognition by whom. This is uncalled for.

Well frankly, the strong negative emotions that this topic has
brought up both here and on the old Indology listserv has caused many
scholars (Indology and Anthropology professors at the major US
universities whom I know) to keep their suspicions to themselves but
in private they will express their doubts. Shaffer's articles cover
some of this though.

> You keep citing Witzel, but
> there is nothing I've seen by him that suggests he sees any need

for either

> "re-evaluation" or "that anything is wrong" with comparative IE

linguistics,

> at least as far as this Indian issue goes.

Certainly not. Witzel is the reigning champion of the anti-OIT camp.
And he is doing very good work at deflating the specious claims of
the other side. But not all of the issues have been presented by him -
- see Edwin Bryant's book for a more balanced discussion.

> Even if Harrapan spoke Vedic, that only screws up Mallory-Gimbutas

datings

> and the Aryan invasion theory.

For an Indologist, that is earthshaking indeed. As I mentioned in
another post: as an Indologist I have a different agenda than you do
as a linguist. While I'm personally interested in PIE, my
professional interest stops at the Aryan Migration Theory whereas for
a historical linguist the AMT is just a side issue.

> BUT it logically has NO effect on the linguistic statement that

Vedic cannot

> be *PIE. Or in making it more likely that India was the IE

homeland. All it

> would do is push back the dates in Asia, and really not far

enough. It does

> not change the fact that Vedic is a daughter language that is quite

distant

> from *PIE.

I am not contesting this. I agree. Barring a major revision of
linguistic thinking which is unlikely at this time. :-)

> Well, however central it is to Indologists and Indological

literature, it is

> NOT central to India as the IE homeland. In fact, linguistically,

it is

> unrelated.

Exactly. I think we need to separate which issues are central to
which discipline. Horses are only central to any proposed Indian
Urheimat or AMT discussion.

> The fact that horses can be even be brought up in connection with

the

> India/PIE issue is reflective of the same thing I see in Dinesh

Agrawal's

> charming "Demise of the Aryan Invasion Theory"

Again you are lumping disciplined academic research with amateur
writings and journalistic vaporings. Cremo???? LOL! If I may quote
you: "Pleeze."

> So forgive my mistake if you thought I meant Micheal Witzel was

Atlantean.

I think you know what I meant.

It's unfortunate all of your very insightful comments are mixed with
this kind of rhetoric. It doesn't really add much to the debate. Well
actually some of it is amusing but it does tend to obscure the issues.