Re: Meaning of Aryan: now, "white people"?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

>
> What Kelkar has done would get him blackballed from
> academia, if he were a professor instead of a bean
> counter or whatever he does. Not only is it loathsome
> and dishonest, but he does himself a disservice
> because it drives a stake through the heart of his
> idea. Any theory built upon mistruth and sustained by
> lies is destined to the dustbin of history. This kind
> of nonsense is what sustained the nazis.

I don't if you noticed the following article I posted earlier.

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

"Catacomb and Pit-grave cultures have no genetic connection.
Timber-grave and Andronovo cultures have
no such connection with Catacomb culture too. Cultures of Scithian and
Sarmatian world were not forming on
the basis of the Late Bronze Age cultures placed from Dnieper river to
the Altai. So called "Andronovo culture"
is an archaeological myth. There are no features of "Steppe cultures"
in cultures of India and Iran. And there are
no Finno-Ugric borrowings in languages of Avesta and Rig Veda."


"CONCLUSION:
Let's sum up. As a result of my study, I (Grigoryev) worked out a new
historical model of origins and migrations of
Indo-European peoples, which I have tried to show in this article. The
conformity of my archaeological model to
the linguistic one, proposed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, permits to say
that Indo-European problem is solved,
but in general outline only. The detailed description of early
Indo-European history could done in some years, in
case of closely concerted actions of archaeologists and linguists."

The exact same archaelogical evidence is pressed into service to prove
a migration in a direction opposite to that of the prevalent
Indo-Eureaponists' view. Why can't that be done for an Indian homeland
scenerio?

M. Kelkar

>
> --- Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
> > <swatimkelkar@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hock's (1996) work summarized and quoted by
> > Kazanas (2002)
> >
> > You always quote from summaries of linguistic works
> > made by your
> > favourite 2-3 "out-of-India" authors (Elst,
> > Talageri, now Kazanas:
> > always the same restricted group of authors, which
> > are also
> > profusely quoted in the numerous Wikipedia articles
> > you -- I am
> > almost sure of that -- contribute to compile and
> > edit under fake
> > IDs). Why don't you read the originals?
> >
> > >
> >
> http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/IIR.pdf
> >
> > > "Then Hock, unaware of J. Nichols's evidence which
> > requires a locus
> > > of dispersal at Bactria Sogdiana (unlike his own
> > vague vast area
> > > from "East Central Europe to Eastern Russia," p.
> > 17), nonetheless
> > > indicated that there are no substantial linguistic
> > arguments
> > > against the proposition that IE branches moved out
> > of India...
> > > He states also that PIE could be "a priori" have
> > been originally
> > > spoken in India (p. 11)..."
> >
> > Since you continue to cite this single passage from
> > H.H. Hock's
> > article as if that author considered the AMT and the
> > OIT equally
> > legitimate, I will quote the conclusions of that
> > same article, which
> > I have here on my desk:
> >
> > "Neither the 'Sanskrit-origin' variant [S.S. Misra's
> > theory positing
> > that Vedic Sanskrit represents PIE] nor the 'PIE in
> > India' variant,
> > thus, turns out to provide credible support for the
> > 'Out-of-India'
> > hypothesis.Rather, the linguistic evidence still
> > favors the
> > prevailing Indo-Europeanist perspective that the
> > speakers of Indo-
> > Aryan migrated into India."
> >
> > Period. Stop misrepresenting Hock's position,
> > please.
> >
> > FB
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

>