Re: OIT and Atlantis

> I'm afraid maybe you don't realize that the latter can effectively

pretend to

> be the former, especially in connection with such ideas as

the "Indian

> Urheimat." And I'm also afraid that you don't realize that some of

the

> things you are saying seem to cross the line between the two.

I'm very aware of it. It's one of the major challenges in talking
about this since the waters have become very muddied by those who
ignore the scientific evidence.

> I'm sorry. Once again, you haven't explained in the least how it is
>any more "an option" than it was before.

Yes, sorry. This whole thread is a bit premature for me. I'm the guy
that Mike mentioned earlier. I was hesitant for him to bring my ideas
up in this forum because they are still in a formative stage. He also
put a few of his own ideas in -- for example, I don't have any firm
ideas about some of the paths taken out of India.

I hope you'll excuse me if I don't spend too much time elaborating on
my theory at this time since that would be time spent away from
preparing it. I hope to have something more solid and with
substantial scholarly references in a few weeks. At that time, I'd be
very open to answering your criticisms in depth.

> The problem seems to be that you don't under
> stand what "PIE" and "Urheimat" mean.

I believe I understand that quite well. What gives you the impression
that I don't?

> This may surprise you, but within the framework of comparative

linguistic

> analysis, if "the Vedas" were 15,000 years old, it would not change

Vedic's

> relationship to *PIE.

You're absolutely correct that it does not change it in a purely
linguistic way but since the theories of the spread of the IE
languages are related to archaeology and to attempts to date the
spread, any major change in the dates will cascade through all of the
other language groups.

> That is because there is nothing ABSOLUTE about the dating that

this analysis

> provides. The relative chronology provided by the comparative

method however

> is a matter of mathematical necessity, much in the manner that

biological

> genetic descent or chemical reactions are.

I would respectfully suggest that the dates are more than "a
mathematical necessity" for many of us. For an Indologist, the dates
are *more* important than the linguistic analysis. Different
disciplines have different priorities.

> Now there ARE valid ways to challenge the application of the

comparative

> method to particular data that could yield different results. But

NOTHING

> you have mentioned does this in anyway.

I would be interested to hear you expatiate on this.

> So, when you assert the "re-evaluation of the India Urheimat Theory

by

> mainstream scholars... primarily due to the recent archaeological

and

> geological discoveries,..." you are simply advertising something

that has

> little scientific validity.

I think that the archaeologists Shaffer, Kenoyer, Possehl, Jarrige,
et al. would disagree with you.

> Your "new data" is largely scientifically
> irrelevant and therefore advances nothing and does not justify the

importance

> you attach to it.

In what way is it irrelevant? Perhaps the problem here is that we
have different definitions of relevance.

>And if you inform yourself, you will
> realize why little or nothing you are saying justifies any more re-

evaluation

> than should be routine in any truly scientific discipline, with or

without

> the "discoveries" you mention.

While its true that science routinely re-evaluates its paradigms, it
is not always done in a smooth fashion. Often, as in this case, a new
paradigm experiences some resistance in its early stages. There is
nothing unscientific in postulating that we *might* be about to see
another paradigm shift. There is also nothing wrong with this
resistance since it forces new ideas to prove their worth.