Re: Archaeologists and OIT

> I was trained in scientific methodology, the history of
> technology and economics and evaluating evidence, including

archaeological

> evidence.

I've also had training in this as a researcher and graduate student
in biochemistry, neuroscience and psychology. This was before
Indology became my profession.

> There's just one measuring stick.

I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Biologists ask different
questions than chemists. Indologists have different interests than
linguists. While the general principles of scientific procedure are
the same, the approaches are different. I'd be interested in hearing
you elaborate on why this is invalid.

> I'm pretty sure you DON'T understand why
> archaeologists "are ignoring linguists."

Why do you insist on phrasing every disagreement in terms of "I
understand it and you don't"? It would be more conducive to mutual
understanding if you could leave out the value judgements and simply
explain *why* you think you understand it all.

If you have read Shaffer's articles where he refers to "linguistic
tyranny" you would have a pretty good idea where I get the idea that
he and others are "ignoring" linguists. I don't agree with his
position, by the way. And I don't question the validity of the
linguistic method, either.

>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.)

I'm aware of the contributions of linguists and I value them highly.
That's why I'm here. :)

> It would pay to learn about the "processual" movement in

archaeology

> (sometimes unfortunately termed "anglo-american".)

Sort of like the Germans referring to IE as Indo-Germanic? :) Sure,
and what language are the Irish lads speaking then?

> 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.

Can you refer me to a good archaeology list? Not a soft-headed one
either -- I'm not afraid of criticism and although I do prefer a more
gentlemanly tone, I'm willing to sacrifice it for well-informed
discussion.

> 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."

I can give you a list of articles by South Asian archaeologists who
refer to RV verses in their journal articles. Uh, on second thought,
ask Vishal to do that -- he's the master of that area. :)

> 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."

Sorry, he's the only one we've got. :)

>Lord only knows where Lord Renfrew
> stands on any of this as of ten minutes ago

LOL!

>> 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.

That's assuming that the neolithic was connected with the spread of
IE which is not universally accepted.

> I noticed that you guessed that the earliest evidence of IE writing

was

> "Greek."

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it is Anatolian.