From: Rick McCallister
Message: 58825
Date: 2008-05-24
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "FrancescoHe's citing Elst. Out of India and Punjab as the
> Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
> wrote:
> > << 6.3. THE NON-INVASIONIST MODEL
> >
> > The emerging alternative to the Aryan Invasion
> Theory may be
> > summarized as follows. In the 6th millennium BC,
> the Proto-Indo-
> > Europeans were living in what is now Panjab,
> Haryana and western
> > Uttar Pradesh, speaking a variety of mutually
> comprehensible
> > dialects, and tending cattle as well as practising
> agriculture.
> >
> > The group which separated
> > earliest from the rest was the one which took the
> oldest form of the
> > IE language along: we encounter them by 2,000 BC
> in Anatolia.
> >
> > >
> > This model will certainly need amendments and
> corrections, but it is
> > better able to explain the data than the dominant
> Kurgan-to-India
> > invasionist model. >>
> >
>
> So in effect you are a supporter of the idea of NW
> India being the
> urheimat of PIE? What proportion of linguists,
> archaeologists, and
> geneticists agree with you? Should I now change my
> belief in the
> central-to-west/central-to-east migration theories
> which I basically
> took for granted since they have been the only ones
> that have been
> published, as far as I know? Also, according to
> this theory, which
> are more original, centum or satem; if the centum
> velars are the more
> original sounds, why did all languages nearest to
> the urheimat
> (excluding Tocharian) participate in a shift
> velar>palatal; if the
> satem palatals are more original, why did all the
> most western
> languages participate in a shift palatal>velar,
> which I personally
> find rather implausible? Isn't it easier to suggest
> that the velars
> are the more original, and in like fashion the
> original homeland was
> (much) nearer than India to those languages that had
> the velars rather
> than the palatals?
>
> Andrew
>
>