From: mkelkar2003
Message: 41871
Date: 2005-11-07
>The question is not "what could have been?" The question is what
>
>
> --- 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
> nomads, and such populations are exceedingly hard toIrrelvant.
> 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.****
> > >The text themselves are placed firmly in the Indian subcontinent
> > > 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.
> 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
>