"Dean_Anderson" <dean_anderson@...> wrote:
<<As I mentioned in another post: as an Indologist I have a different agenda
than you do as a linguist.>>
I'm not a linguist. I was trained in scientific methodology, the history of
technology and economics and evaluating evidence, including archaeological
evidence. So, when it came to linguistics, I HAD to learn enough linguistics
to understand what linguists were talking about, in terms of scientific
methodology. So, my "agenda" applies equally to Indologists, linguists and
bacteriologists. There's just one measuring stick.
"Dean_Anderson" <dean_anderson@...> wrote:
<<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.">>
Whoa! Easy there, Dean. I'm pretty sure you DON'T understand why
archaeologists "are ignoring linguists." (And that's not accurate phrasing,
of course. Linguists are critical to the current archaeology of regions like
the Near East, Mexico and the Aegean. It was not archaeologists who broke
the codes of Hittite, Mayan and Linear B scripts - all outstanding scientific
acheivements and major contributions to "the big picture" historically.)
It would pay to learn about the "processual" movement in archaeology
(sometimes unfortunately termed "anglo-american".) It's motivating theme has
been to focus on nothing but what was in front of it. It can be credited
with everything from the first use of C-14 dating to the modern "discovery"
of the neolithic Europe.
This movement was NOT a reaction to linguistics. It was actually a reaction
to "Kossina"-style archaeology - that is, ethnic-oriented archaeology. The
idea that differences in material remains equated to differences in ethnic
groups.
If you really want to test how friendly these "main-stream" archaeologists
are to your India as PIE homeland theory, you might try it out on a list
mentioned on this one, where you'll encounter this type of archaeologist.
George Knysh and I can tell you that mentioning RV should have the same
effect as smothering yourself in ground meat in front of a pack of dobermans.
Let's just say they are not big fans of "ancient texts."
"Dean_Anderson" <dean_anderson@...> wrote:
<<Witzel is the reigning champion of the anti-OIT camp...>>
Yes, well, Witzel also seems to know what single language was spoken across
all of Asia Minor in 7000BC. So, he may not be the best "champion."
Actually, thinking about it, it's not interim linguistics that is the real
stopper on any IE-Out-of-India theory. Lord only knows where Lord Renfrew
stands on any of this as of ten minutes ago, but the basic neolithic
hypothesis really is where the wall is. Because as old as the reports may
make the neolithic seem to be in northern India, it's still thousands of
years older in the Near East. In fact, it's older in Greece and the Balkans,
and that's where it quickly spreads from to across Europe. It would take a
mega-major "revision" in the established archaeology to show any reverse flow
of the neolithic "out-of-India" and into Europe. And there's really nothing
else unitary we know of in the material culture that comes after the
neolithic that can connect the geographical range of IE languages to India.
Anyway, I wouldn't lean too much on archaeology to support "OIT." Renfrew's
approach is good for back-dating Vedic, but definitely not good for making it
an IE homeland. If there's another serious archaeological-based scenario,
I'd love to hear it.
"Dean_Anderson" <dean_anderson@...> wrote (to Piotr):
<<Specialization tends to create this which is why its valuable for us
to get out of the ivory tower and talk to the neighbors some times.
The solutions to the big questions in this field involve several
disciplines with quite disparate world-views and data sets.>>
I noticed that you guessed that the earliest evidence of IE writing was
"Greek." I'd suggest that kind of subject matter is where you might start
getting to know your neighbors.
S. Long