Re: Hindu noise-makers, Elst and OIT -- a review of book by Harald

Controversial points are:
i) "Aryan" (vs. "Proto-Indo-European"; let's leave aside, for the sake
of simplicity, the opposition between "Proto-Aryan" =
"Proto-Indo-Iranian" and "Proto-Indo-Aryan");
ii) "Invasion" (vs. "Demic Expansion", itself in turn of "Farmers" vs.
"Hunters/Gatherers");
iii) "Into India" vs. "Out of India", i.e. whether (a part of) India
has been the starting point of the Expansion or simply comprised into
such area or, on the contrary, a secondarily reached territory.

All this yields a an amount of 18 Theories, viz.:
1) Aryan Invasion of India
2) Aryan Invasion from an area that comprised part of India
3) Aryan Invasion from India (and nowhere else)
4) Aryan Demic Expansion of Farmers into India
5) Aryan Demic Expansion of Farmers from an area that comprised part of India
6) Aryan Demic Expansion of Farmers from India (and nowhere else)
7) Aryan Demic Expansion of Hunters/Gatherers into India
8) Aryan Demic Expansion of Hunters/Gatherers from an area that
comprised part of India
9) Aryan Demic Expansion of Hunters/Gatherers from India (and nowhere else)
10) PIE Invasion of India
11) PIE Invasion from an area that comprised part of India
12) PIE Invasion from India (and nowhere else)
13) PIE Demic Expansion of Farmers into India
14) PIE Demic Expansion of Farmers from an area that comprised part of India
15) PIE Demic Expansion of Farmers from India (and nowhere else)
16) PIE Demic Expansion of Hunters/Gatherers into India
17) PIE Demic Expansion of Hunters/Gatherers from an area that
comprised part of India
18) PIE Demic Expansion of Hunters/Gatherers from India (and nowhere else).

Classical AIT is #1 (it would scarcely fit to #4 and still less to
#7, which are rather Aryan Expansion Theories, AET); OIT is normally
#3 or #6 or #9 (Kazanas, for instance, doesn't operate with the notion
of PIE), but could equally well be #12, #15, or #18.
##2-3, 5-6, 8-9 are at variance with the very concept of PIE, unless
they refer barely to dynamics of Aryan strictō sēnsū, leaving aside
all remaining IE linguistic classes (in this case they simply imply
either that [part of] India as the original Homeland of the
Indo-Europeans or that [part of] India was part of PIE Homeland, i.e.
##10-18).
Sir Colin Renfrew's original formulation of his Theory of Demic
Expansion envisaged scenarios ##4, 10 or 13; neither 10 nor 13 can be
labeled as AIT.
#7 or 16 correspond to classical Palaeolithic Continuity Theory (PCT)
or Palaeolithic Continuity Paradigm (PCP); PCP is approved by
OIT-Supporters, but #7 is after all an AET, while #16 is neither AIT
nor AET, but in no case they are OIT.
##11, 14, and 17 (Asiatic Homeland Theories, AHT) are neither AIT
nor, properly speaking, OIT, even less so Renfrew's Theory and not
part of classical PCT. 14 (Neolithic AHT) implies local origin of
agriculture in India.
If it can be argued (as I believe) for the presence of PIE
place-names outside India, ##3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 fall down, so that
the name "OIT" should be abandoned; as per above, ##2, 5, 8 ā fortiōrī
have to be ruled out unless they become part of ##10-18 or, better
said, ##10-11, 13-14, 16-17.
So we are left with ##1 (AIT), 4 (Renfrew's AET), 7 (Alinei's PCP
AET), 10 (Renfrew's preference), 11 (Late AHT), 13 (Renferw's first
choice), 14 (Neolithic AHT), 16 (Classical PCT), and 17 (PCP's AHT).
Note that the two extreme formulations are #1 (AIT) and #18, but the
exactly complementary one to #1 is #17 (moreover, #18 in any case
falls down), so the opposition should be primarily between these two,
with possible interplay of Renfrew's dilemmas (##4, 10, 13), late or
limited AHTs (#11, 14), and PCP variants (##7, 16).