[tied] The adequacy of modified AIT (Was:Re: The physical type of p

> >
> > > --- mkelkar2003 <smykelkar@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> > > > <gknysh@> wrote:
> > > > The OIT is a total non-starter in this
> > > > > respect. It's not even headed towards the
> > > > ballpark. It
> > > > > is a complete and utter waste of time.
> > > >
> > > > The OIT may not be a non starter. See below
> > > > (Kalyanaraman and Kelkar
> > > > 2005).
> > >
> > > GK: There's nothing to see.
> >
> > > (GK)OIT cannot demonstrate any archaeological
> > continuity
> > > leading from India to Europe,
> >
> > There is no archaeological continity the other way
> > round either, as I
> > have shown by quoting Kenoyer a leading expert in
> > South Asian
> > archaeology.
>
> ****GK: There is evidence of an eastward and southward
> movement of Catacomb cultures elements, which reaches
> areas where Indo-Aryan linguistic substrata of Iranian
> have been postulated. This brings us very close to
> India. A minute trickle in + a conversion scenario
> does the rest. To paraphrase Conan Doyle "once all
> possible hypotheses have been examined, what remains,
> however unlikely, must be the solution".*****
> >
> > (GK) (OIT) has no equivalent to
> > > the Klejn approach (no pre-"historical Aryans"
> > culture
> > > in India has any affinities to European ones of
> > the
> > > relevant time frame).Hence, a complete
> > > non-starter.
> >
> > There is no archaeological evidence to confirm any
> > of the massive
> > migrations hypothesized by IEL.
>
> ****GK: The Klejn (ad other) theories are not
> dependent on "massive migrations".*****

More on the Catacomb culture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture

"The linguistic composition of the Catacomb culture is unclear. Within
the context of the Kurgan hypothesis expounded by Marija Gimbutas, an
Indo-European component is hard to deny, particularly in the later
stages. Placing the ancestors of the Greek, Armenian and Paleo-Balkan
dialects here is tempting,"

a. The linguistic composition of Catacomb is "unclear" thus may not
even be "Indo-Euoprean."

b. Even if one relies on the rejected Gimbutas theory (Kawami 2005),
the above list does not even include "Indo-Iranain."

To add more confusion to the matter, the same archaeological data has
been used by Grigoryev (n.d, after 1997) to locate the IE homeland in
the Near East.

<http://csc.ac.ru/news/1998_2/2-11-1.pdf>


M. Kelkar

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