--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
wrote: On the other hand, the _linguistic_ > evidence is clear and
incontrovertible: the Indo-Aryan languages > cannot
be "autochthonous" in the sense of having been spoken in India
> since the end of the last Ice Age, but must have been brought
there > from the Middle East during the 2nd millennium BC. (Message
No. 8884).
See the map of Last Glacial Maximum 18000 c14 years ago at:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html
The area of Indo-Aryan languages was NOT covered with ice. This
explains that continuous vegetation, hence continuous habitation of
animals and people was possible in the area of Indo-Aryan language
speakers and also in South-East Asia. So, why couldn't the languages
be 'autochthonous' since the end of the last Ice Age which seems to
have affected the environment of only northern Asia and most of
Eastern Europe? The Himalayas had been formed by then and the
related glacial rivers could have supported domesticated farming and
of course, the use of waterways to travel far into the Persian Gulf
and upstream Tigris-Euphrates to Anatolia.
A related web page:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/Indo2.html
Did Indo-European Languages spread before farming?
It seems to me that the Proto-Indo-Aryan languages (including
Language 'x' and Munda) + Uralic-Elamite linke can explain the
linguistic evidence.
Why did the Indo-Aryans move through Anatolia, the deserts of
Afghanistan and eastern Iran? In search of tin, after they had
graduated from pastoral wanderings.