Re: [tied] The insufficiency of OIT (was:Re: Of cows and living)

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

> >
> > GK: You don't seem to get it. Klejn assumes
> > nothing of the kind. He simply points out that the
> > affinities between the analyzed remnants of the
> > Catacomb culture and the civilization described in
> the
> > Rig Veda is not accidental.
>
> Just like Klejn (1984) you are over looking the fact
> that the text of
> the Rig Veda does not provide any evidence of
> presummed "invasions"
> "migrations," "trickles" what ever one choses to
> call them.

*****GK: Neither does the Scythian Foundation Legend
for the Scythians. So the absence of any such
reference in the Rig Veda does not prove that the
Indo-Aryans developed as an autochthonous group. We
have to use other indicators. Those mentioned by Klejn
are pretty good (a combination of indubitable
archaeological and linguistic facts).*****


The Rig

> Veda and Vedic civilization is *perfectly
> compatible* with Indus
> Sarasvati Civilization i.e "Harrapa."

*****GK: I don't think so. Where is the military
war-chariot Harappan aristocracy? Where are the
prototypes of latter-day temples for the worship of
Vedic deities? Harappa was a brilliant "middle class
type" civilization, speaking and writing an unknown
language (pehaps Dravidian, perhaps Munda, perhaps X)
which imploded for a variety of reasons. Its physical
heirs (the Late Harappans) were reorganized as a
"Vedic" society under the religious and political
influence of incoming Indo-Aryans. The notion of a
mass religious conversion (with political and
linguistic implications) seems quite plausible.*****

The geography

> of the Rig Veda
> has been firmly placed in the North West part of
> South Asia. See my
> review of McIntosh (2001), Whether or not the Rig
> Veda is compatible
> with any other culture is irrelavant. Occam's razor
> applies.

*****GK: Precisely. One cannot explain the emergence
of existing IE communities on the basis of pre-Harappa
or Harappa.*****

>
>
>
> (GK)There is sufficient
> > archaeological and linguistic evidence to indicate
> a
> > gradual movement of post-Catacombers towards the
> south
> > and southeast. That's good enough. And the "latest
> > archaeological research" happens to be that of
> > Kul'baka (described in his works of 1998, 2000,
> and
> > 2002). It strongly confirms Klejn's main
> > contention.
> > >
> > > "There is no archaeological or biological
> evidence
> > > for invasions or
> > > mass migrations into the Indus Valley between
> the
> > > end of the Harrpan
> > > phase , about 1900 B.C., and the beginning of
> the
> > > Early Historic
> > > period around 600 B.C. (Kenoyer 1998, p. 174)."
> >
> > GK: There doesn't have to be. If the
> Indo-Aryans
> > gradually moved towards India from the Eurasian
> > steppes, their appearance in the Indus valley is
> > hardly surprising.
>
> Typically scientist are bothered if their theoris
> are not backed up by
> evidence.
>
> The lack of archaeological evidence
> > only indicates there were very few "invaders". And
> > there is nothing demonstrably "Indo-European"
> about
> > Harappa...
>
> Would any one care to define what is
> "Indo-European." Every single
> flora and fauna mentioned in the Rig Veda occurs in
> the Indian
> Subcontinent (Lal 2005, 2002). River Sarasvati has
> been traced by
> the geologists as it once flowed from "moutains to
> the sea" just like
> the Rig Veda mentions. See my review of McIntosh
> (2001), p. 22 of
> proto vedic continuity.doc.

*****GK: The Rig Veda was "autochtonized", just as the
Scythian Foundation Legend, or the much later Kyivan
Foundation Legend. No one should deny that the
physical basis of the Vedic civilization was
overwhelmingly "local". But the key political ideas of
Vedic society were not. Just as those of later Muslims
were not.*****

>
>
>
> > > "There is, however, no compelling archaeological
> > > evidence that they
> > > (Andronovo and BMAC) had a common ancestor or
> that
> > > either is
> > > Indo-Iranian. Ethnicity and language are not
> easily
> > > linked with an
> > > archaeological signature, and the identity of
> the
> > > Indo-Iranians
> > > remains elusive, (Lamberg Karlovsky 2002,
> > > parenthesis added)."
> >
> > GK: As to BMAC, I agree.If the Andronovo
> horizon
> > is not fundamentally Indo-Iranian then the
> indubitable
> > Indo-Iranian characteristics of daughter cultures
> > becomes inexplicable.
>
> There is circular reasoning here.

****GK: The reasoning is not circular. It is
deductive. There is a difference.****

The fact is

> archaeologist are not
> able link any speific culture to "Indo-Iranians."
> This is a sobering
> reminder to the IEL community that their
> linguistically reconstructed
> families are hypothetical. If the data does not fit
> theories then the
> theories are wrong not the data.

*****GK: Much in humanistics is hypothetical. There
are excellent hypotheses (like that of Klejn for
instance) and there are very bad hypotheses, like
OIT.*****


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com