Re: [tied] Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian)

--- mkelkar2003 <smykelkar@...> wrote:

> > > > 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 would 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > GK: Love it (:=)) Ideological thinking.
> > > > Q.E.D.
> > >
> > > I am not the one asking people to believe in the
> **IDEA** that a
> > > small coterie of people speaking a language
> called PIE (or its
> > > dialects) spread it around from Northern Ireland
> to Sri Lanka and
> > > yet erase all identity of themselves. So who is
> the IDEAlogue
> > here?
> > >
> > > M. Kelkar
> >
> > GK: Let's see. Our ideologue 1- ignores the
> main point about
> > the difficulty of tracing archaeological remains
> of nomadic cultures
> > as applied to the arrival of Indo-Aryans in India,
>
> (Kelkar)A classic philologically tautological

argument.

> Because the
> "Indo-Aryans" are nomads they are not traceable and
> why are they
> nomads? because they are not traceable.

****GK: No. The argument is rather this: because the
Indo-Aryans are indeed in India, and because they
indubitably arrived there from "outside" as indicated
by genetic research, and because their connection to
the other IE languages indicates an earlier
"Indo-Iranian" phase in the steppes of Eurasia,
deduced from a combination of archaeological,
linguistic, and historical arguments, then the absence
of conclusive archaeological proofs for the arrival
and settlement in India is more than likely due to
their nomadic way of life, on the analogy of the
Pechenegs of the Ukrainian steppes. Were it not for
the other indicators, the nomadic hypothesis would
indeed be questionable. But in context, it is quite
plausible. ****






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com