From: Rick McCallister
Message: 53312
Date: 2008-02-15
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
> <swatimkelkar@...>
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco
> Brighenti" <frabrig@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 1. the early habitat of Proto-Indo-Iranians was
> in an area close
> > > to the Central Asian steppe-taiga interface,
> e.g., near the
> > > Urals;
> > >
> > > 2. these Proto-Indo-Iranians called themselves
> *arya-.
> >
> > "Indo-Iranian" is a linguistic idea. It does not
> refer to any
> > actual people who can be traced back into history.
> See Lamberg-
> > Karlovsky 2005.pdf and Proto-Indo-European Reality
> and
> > reconstruction.pdf
>
>
> I've read for the nth timesince 2005 the conclusions
> of LK's paper
> linked to above, and this is, in short, what I think
> of his
> arguments:
>
> 1) The BMAC and the cultures of the Andronovo
> archaeol. horizon may
> have shared common ancestors: NO.
>
> 2) The BMAC people(s) may have been Indo-Iranian
> speakers: NO -- the
> languages of the BMAC, at least some of them, may
> have belonged to
> the Macro-Caucasian super-phylum as the present-day
> Burushos of
> Northern Pakistan.
>
> 3) Absence of Andronovo-type artifacts in Iran and
> NW South Asia
> versus presence of BMAC-type artifacts in the same
> areas (2nd mill.
> BCE): this can be explained if one accepts Mallory's
> Kulturkugel
> model.
>
> 4) The Andronovans and/or the BMAC folks may have
> spoken Dravidian
> and/or Altaic and/or Uralic languages: HARDLY SO!!
>
> 5) Trubetskoy's and Dixon's "innovative" models
> based on linguistic
> convergence, linguistic areas, and equilibrium
> versus the "old-
> fashioned" comparativist model based on linguistic
> divergence,
> family trees, and migrations: BULLSHIT!
>
> 5) "Anti-migrationist" comparison between Henning's
> attempt to
> identify the Guti of ancient Mesopotamia with the
> Yuezhi of Chinese
> chronicles and the ongoing scholarly attempts to
> identify the
> Andronovans with the Indo-Iranians: MORE BULLSHIT!
>
> The truth is that, in spite of his claims, LK
> largely neglects
> linguistic evidence from 2nd mill. BCE Central Asia
> and the
> steppe/taiga belt of Eurasia. He, for instance,
> doesn't see the
> layering and distribution of the oldest Indo-Iranian
> languages and
> their overlap with Uralic, insisting on the idea
> that "language and
> archaeology do not corrlate" insted.
>
> Rehards,
> Francesco
>
>
>
>
>