--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, x99lynx@... wrote:...Not only does
paleolinguistics seek to > correlate archaeology with linguistics,
it actually attempts to correlate > particular words in unrecorded
languages with archaeology that is thousands > of years older than
any direct evidence of such languages. This is > specifically where
common sense would say any reasonable correlation between > language
and archaeology will be at its very worse. And of course where it
> will also be scientifically unverifiable.
Paleolinguistics.
Thanks, Steve, for putting the problem I have also been wrestling
with in a clear perspective. There are also many sites in Bharat
which are classified as palaeolithic, mesolithic, neolithic,
chalcolithic where archaeological artefacts point to a remarkable
level of material culture with ability to construct sizeable houses,
fortifications, gabarbands (check-dams), even rock-cut reservoirs
apart from lapidary crafts of exquisite beauty.
It will be a great day when linguists are part of archaeology teams
to try to 'name' each artefact unearthed in the lingua franca of the
times and the region wherefrom discoveries get reported.