Re: [tied] Out of Bharat Theory (OBT)

From: george knysh
Message: 17693
Date: 2003-01-16

--- "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>"
<kalyan97@...> wrote:
> I would prefer to call it Bharat (that is India,
> circa 3000 BCE).
> Hence, I adopt the following arguments of Kazanas to
> suggest an OBT
> and suggest further that more researches should be
> done on the
> origins of Indo-Aryan and the waves of migrations
> out of Bharat.
> Kalyanaraman
> (p.46). The `Out of India' Theory (OIT). Even more
> important is
> Hock's article which discusses the possibility of
> Old Indo-Aryan
> being the PIE language and the possibility of IEs
> emigrating out of
> India (1999). Hock rightly rejects the notion that
> PIE was Vedic,
> but he is wrong in ascribing this view to Misra, who
> makes no such
> claim as far as I know�he is careful throughout his
> study (1992) to
> keep Sanskrit quite distinct from PIE�Then Hock,
> unaware of J.
> Nichols's evidence which requires a locus of
> dispersal at Bactria-
> Sogdiana (unlike his own vague "vast area from East
> central Europe
> to Eastern Russia", p. 17), nonetheless indicates
> that there are no
> substantial linguistic arguments against the
> proposition that IE
> branches moved out of India. He states that apart
> from the gypsy
> emigration, there are "three more IA languages
> moving out of India:
> Gandhari Prakrit (in medieval Khotan and farther
> east), and Parya
> (in modern Uzbekistan)�and Dumaki (close to
> present-day Shina)�to
> the outer northwestern edge of south Asia" (also in
> Hock 1996: 82).
> He states also that the PIE could `a priori' have
> been `originally
> spoken in India' (p. 11) and rejects the idea not on
> linguistic but
> archaeological (!) grounds (p. 13) of the kind
> usually employed by
> invasionists (horse and chariot). This, as we saw
> (sect. VII) is no
> real difficulty�He then invokes the `principle of
> simplicity' as an
> additional difficulty (p. 16): one migration into
> India as against
> many out of it. But he ignores the fundamental fact
> that there is
> plenty of evidence of IE branches invading the areas
> they occupy but
> there is none for India: this makes considerable
> difference, surely.
> What is more, this `simplicity' applies equally to
> all proposed
> homelands�
> Bactria is not far from Saptasindhu and could be a
> first
> concentration point for out-of-India travelers and
> subsequent
> dispersals�

******GK: How would OBT proponents explain the origin
of the Scythians of Ukraine (I mean those of
Herodotus' time)? Their self-consciousness was
(erroneously) "autochtonic" [not going back beyond ca.
1500 BC] and assumed that they emerged on the banks of
the Lower Dnipro as a result of the mating of Papai
(Zeus) and Tirgata (the Viper-maiden, "daughter of the
river Borysthenes").=== The dominant group amongst
them, the Paralata (Para-Arya) did not in fact arrive
in the area until 650 BC, so what we have in the
Scythian Foundation Legend is a pretty obvious fusion
of heterogeneous elements. The "autochtons" of ca.
1500 BC were representatives of the Zrubna culture,
which was formed not on the Dnipro but on the Volga.
So even at this level the "autochtonism" was a
borrowed one (from groups in place even earlier,
groups practicing an agricultural economy [whence the
"golden gifts" to the "sons of Targitaos"].=== Now as
far as the Scythians are concerned (both the nomads
and the agriculturalists of 450 BC) they can be traced
back archaeologically without any difficulty as far
back as the 6th millennium BC, with clearcut genetic
links to cultures [Zrubna, Poltavkinska, Catacomb,
Yamna, Serednyj Stih etc.]prevalent on the Eurasian
steppes. We know of no linkages of any significant
kind to cultures further south, especially to those of
the Indian (Bharat) subcontinent of the period
6000-2000 BC.== I appreciate the fact that the
archaeological argument for a north-south movement
into India (Bharat) is not conclusive at this point.
But at least there is an argument, and some evidence.
For the OBT theory there is not even the beginning of
an argument which would explain the Scythians, let
alone the Indo-Europeans of the European Continent.
How would the OBT scholars propose to overcome this?==
Note also that the work of the linguist Trubachov has
established beyond any doubt the existence of "Pontic
Indo-Aryans". Archaeologically, these Sindo-Maeotians
and others belong to and develop out of "local"
cultures: there is no evidence at all for an invasion
or intrusion from the Bharat subcontinent. The Zrubna
culture is now seen as having both "Indic" and
"Iranic" components (with the latter

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.