--- mkelkar2003 <
smykelkar@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > archaeological,
> >
> > GK:The migration scenario does not conflict
> with
> > archaeology. There are a few "soft spots", but
> they
> > are not in the same class as your odd theory.
> >
>
> The "Indo-Aryan" migration scenerio conflicts
> completely with the
> archaeological data in the Indian subcontinent.
> Please see section 9.3
> p. 49 of proto vedic continuity theory.doc in the
> files section of
> Cybalist. The Bryant/Patton volume contains papers
> by Lal, Schaffer,
> Lichenstein leading experts in South Asian
> archaeology.
****GK: Your section 9.3 is insufficient to back up
your claim. The Indo-Aryans could well have been true
nomads, and such populations are exceedingly hard to
track down (before and after settlement). The case of
the Pechenegs in Ukraine is a perfect example (though
the Huns woulod fit the bill almost as easily). We
know that the Pecheneg Confederacy was dominant on the
steppes of southern Ukraine for a century and a half
[ca. 890's- 1030's] (Constantine Porphyrogenitus has
much to say about it in his De administrando imperio).
But they remain archaeologically elusive. We know that
most of those who stayed on the steppes after their
big defeat of 1036 were eventually invited by Prince
Vasyl'ko Rostyslavych to settle in Galicia. Upon
settlement, they adopted the local culture so quickly
and extensively that one cannot differentiate them
from the rest of the population in terms of
archaeological remains. All that we have are some
place names ("Pechenihy" "Pechenizhyn")and possibly
some family names ending in -yuk. And in their case we
have to deal with a fairly large population. So your
conclusion as to the archaeological argument is
disputable at best. The Indo-Aryans may well have been
integrated on the Pecheneg model, with one admittedly
major difference, viz., their language became dominant
over that of the locals amongst which they
settled.****
> >
> > textual,
> >
> > *****GK: Such as?****
>
>
> The internal chronology and geogrpahy of the Rig
> Veda do not provide
> evidence of "Indo-Aryan" migrations. Rig Veda and
> the Avesta taken
> together show know evidence of any contact between
> these people
> outside of the Indian Subcontinent.
*****GK: I'm afraid this also is insufficient. The
Scythian Foundation Legend in Herodotus likewise
presents the Scythians as autochtons (some 200 years
only after their arrival!), but we know this is not
true.*****
> > All I can say is
> > > that
> > > > > > > genetic evidence
> > > > > > > points to a flow of humans from the
> Indian
> > > > > > > subcontinent to the north
> > > > > > > not the other way round.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > GK: So "genetic evidence" as you
> understand
> > > > > it
> > > > > > contradicts the verifiable "flow of
> humans"
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > north into the Indian subcontinent in
> > > historical
> > > > > > times?...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That it DEFINITELY does.
****GK: Since you claim that there is no genetic
evidence of the Saka, Kushan, and Turco-Mongol
invasions et sim., all of which clearly occurred, you
cannot argue that the lack of genetic evidence for an
Indo-Aryan invasion "proves" that such an invasion did
not occur. This is elementary logic.*****
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com