Non-moving Indo-Aryans, organically cohesive Vedic

I had posted earlier a note on Preservation Principle enunciated by
Kazanas in the context of autochthonous Indo-Aryans.

I am citing from Kazanas' article in the Journal of Indo-European
Studies, Vol. 30, Number 3 and 4, Fall/Winter, 2002, p. 27:

[quote] Burrow, whose The Sanskrit Language (1973) is still the
authority in this field, says: "Vedic is a language which in most
respects is more archaic and less altered from original Indo-
European than any other member of the family"(34); he also states
that root nouns, "very much in decline in the earliest recorded Indo-
European languages", are preserved better in Sanskrit, and later
adds, "Chiefly owing to its antiquity the Sanskrit language is more
readily analyzable, and its roots more easily separable from
accretionary elements than… any other IE language" (123, 289).
Nobody, as far as I know, has even attempted to dispute this and the
presence of dialectal variants and innovations or erosions and
losses in Vedic (and Sanskrit) does not invalidate Burrow's
judgement. Vedic is superior also in respect of its inner organic
cohesion: from roots dha_tu by simple and fairly regular processes
are generated primary (kr.t-) and secondary (taddhita-) derivatives
in nominal and verbal forms. This organic cohesion of Sanskrit is
another example of the Preservation Principle, confirming that the
Indo-Aryans moved very little or not at all.[unquote]

Can Vedic be accepted as one of the more archaic forms of PIE?