Re: [tied] Re: New file uploaded to cybalist

----- Original Message -----
From: "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 3:22 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: New file uploaded to cybalist


> Hallstatt D archeological complex and the Celtic homeland question.
>
> The chaotic situation about the IE homeland search is well known, but
> even the various sub IE homelands like the Celtic are under scrutiny.
> Some quotes from "The Celts," John Davies, 2000, Cassell and
> Company, London, United Kingdom. The jacket says Dr. John Davies is
> an Honorary Professor at the University of Wales and a specialist in
> Celtic history.
<snip>

> "Invasionism lost favor from the 1950's onwards-the era, significantly
> perhaps of rapid desalinization. Instead, emphasis was placed upon the
> capacity of indigenous societies to innovate and develop (p. 26, 28).
>
> posted by M. Kelkar

***
Patrick:

It is truly sad to be forced to realize how much fashionable political
doctrines impinge on what purports to be true science.

Out of a legitimate feeling of respect for all peoples, gradually a doctrine
of exclusive indigenous development has been promoted to explain the
emergence of all higher cultures; and this doctrine is fascistically
enforced in our educational system, regardless of the evidence. All pretense
at freedom of speech has been sacrificed on the altar of feel-good
hypersaccharinity.

I have an open mind when it comes to the Indian situation; but in the case
of Egypt, with which I am quite familiar, indigenous development is the
forced explanation for the bloom of civilization in pre-dynastic Egypt when
the evidence is overwhelming that the arrival of an intrusive group with
Mesopotamian cultural connections coincided with the great advance.

There are a substantial number of academics who will support the truth only
when it does not offend. Unfortunately, some truths do offend - though, of
course, it never should.

Indian (or Bharati; I like that terminology) is especially interesting in
this regard. On the one hand, we have the Dravidian languages which preserve
the qualities of the Nostratic vowels but butcher the consonants; on the
other hand, Old Indian, which butchers the Nostratic vowels, but keeps the
consonant inventory fairly much intact.

My best guess is that a group of Dravidian-speakers migrated northward out
of Bharat, developed their language into Indo-Iranian, or adopted
Indo-Iranian, and then returned to Bharat. But, I am the first to admit, it
is only a guess.

Mr. Kelkar's idea (I think) that Old Indian and Dravidian (among others)
developed _concurrently_ in Bharat is linguistically unsupportable - unless
one is willing to postulated an intrusive presence among Dravidian-speakers
than pauperized the language. I support an ancient connection between the
two language families but one located 8-10,000 years ago.

***