I can't understand some of these fellows. Even though they clearly see some of the pieces, their resistance to an Indian origin is epic and unforgiving. One fellow is trying to prove that Sarasvati Nadi has nonglacial origin which somehow validates AIT. Here is another fellow who clearly sees the genetic evidence as well as kentum transformation into satem in Greater India yet predictably relies on backmigration to usher in the Aryans. No distinction is drawn between the formative and the derivative and the formative never has cultural significance. Minor eddies are mistaken for a cyclone and a tea cup for an ocean. Pure Madness.
Quote:I had summarized a theory here http://[..] from Madhya-Asia ki Itihas, Vol 1, pgs57-73
1. The ancestors of indo-europeans (IE) and munda-dravids come out of south asia and/or south east asia in the paleolithic.
2. Both IE and munda-dravids are in central asia but the former under pressure from the latter, or of natural causes, leave central asia towards west eurasia in the neolithic. These IE are kentum. (between 12,000 to 10,000bc). You could call them IE or proto IE or preproto IE. [Edit: This is would be Anathony's forragers]
3. In Europe there is split around the Danube between the Shatam and Kentum branches. In the upper chalcolithic the Shatam branch separates and starts moving east. He says this separation is prior to agriculture since agricultural terms are not common, but animal husbandry, relationships, fauna, etc are. [Corded Ware, on the other hand, though mainly pastoral does show evidence of agriculture. They must have domesticated the horse sometime in this period in the eastern European steppe. ] [Edit: This split would be close to Anthony's Farmers meet Foragers period]
4. The Shatam branch he calls Shakaraya, who, by the late chalcolithic, divide into two - the nomadic Shak between the Danube & the Altai and the settled Arya, the line of division is the latitude near Syr-darya/aral. The Arya are in Bactria, Khorasan, etc and move over time to east iran and the indo-gangetic plains.
The Shak nomads that are spread from the Danube to the Altai he calls the ancestor of the Slavs.
5. The Shak, starting in the iron age, steadily move into south-asia under Hunnic pressure, and leave an cultural imprint over the Aryas. (900BC)
Most of the material has been drawn from primary Russian sources. In the introduction Rahul writes: "I undertook this arduous task as a challenge as no such history of Central Asia was available. Moreover, this history is intimately connected with the history of India. I collected major documentation for this work during my stay in Soviet Russia, from 1945 to 1947." Although he did not have any formal education, the University of Leningrad appointed him Professor of Indology in 1937-38 and again in 1947-48.
In Sankrtyayan's book on central asia - he does not say the languages - IE, Munda, Dravid, developed in the paleolithic, just theorizes that people speaking these languages in the neolithic are descended of paleolithic south-asians and/or southeast Asians. He mentions cave-shadow mummies that had been procured by the Russians for anthropological research. He relies on linguistics to develop separation nodes. Even today there are remnants of Kentum in the Himalayas, and the Kentum Tukhara existed as late as a 1000 years ago in the trans-Himalaya.