08-02-2009, 10:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-HareKrishna+Aug 2 2009, 01:43 AM-->QUOTE(HareKrishna @ Aug 2 2009, 01:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Paleolithic Indo-EuropeansÂ
By the 1980's, it was also becoming clear that the conventional date for the Indo-European migration had to be off by not merely a few centuries, but thousands of years. The earliest known Indo-European languages -- Mycenaean Greek, Hittite, and Sanskrit -- were already far more divergent in the second millennium BC than the offshoots of Latin, such as French and Italian, are today. This suggested that their common ancestor must have been spoken not around 3000 BC, as formerly assumed, but well back in the Neolithic.
Such a radical redating suggested an equally radical solution to the problem of Indo-European dispersion. The central premise of this new hypothesis, as presented by Colin Renfrew in Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (1988), was that the secret of the Indo-Europeans was agriculture. They were, he argued, the people who originally brought the Neolithic to Europe from Anatolia. It was not force of arms but rather the ability of farming to support a greater population that had enabled them to outbreed and eventually absorb the small Mesolithic hunting bands.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the secret of the Indo-Europeans was agriculture then the AIT theory becomes bogus since Indus valley civilization was already agriculture in nature and the "Aryans" never contributed anything.
<b>
The earliest known Indo-European languages -- Mycenaean Greek, Hittite, and Sanskrit </b>
This whole concept of Indo European languages and linking of Sanskrit with other languages is really without any facts. If these languages had distinct markers from the time of the Ice Age then they had no connection.
Heritage of Sanskrit and most of the Indian tribes are clear and well known even before the Ice age.
It is the history of the European languages, their tribal history and migration is still under confusion. There is no need to include sanskrit and Indian tribe into this confusion.
By the 1980's, it was also becoming clear that the conventional date for the Indo-European migration had to be off by not merely a few centuries, but thousands of years. The earliest known Indo-European languages -- Mycenaean Greek, Hittite, and Sanskrit -- were already far more divergent in the second millennium BC than the offshoots of Latin, such as French and Italian, are today. This suggested that their common ancestor must have been spoken not around 3000 BC, as formerly assumed, but well back in the Neolithic.
Such a radical redating suggested an equally radical solution to the problem of Indo-European dispersion. The central premise of this new hypothesis, as presented by Colin Renfrew in Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (1988), was that the secret of the Indo-Europeans was agriculture. They were, he argued, the people who originally brought the Neolithic to Europe from Anatolia. It was not force of arms but rather the ability of farming to support a greater population that had enabled them to outbreed and eventually absorb the small Mesolithic hunting bands.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the secret of the Indo-Europeans was agriculture then the AIT theory becomes bogus since Indus valley civilization was already agriculture in nature and the "Aryans" never contributed anything.
<b>
The earliest known Indo-European languages -- Mycenaean Greek, Hittite, and Sanskrit </b>
This whole concept of Indo European languages and linking of Sanskrit with other languages is really without any facts. If these languages had distinct markers from the time of the Ice Age then they had no connection.
Heritage of Sanskrit and most of the Indian tribes are clear and well known even before the Ice age.
It is the history of the European languages, their tribal history and migration is still under confusion. There is no need to include sanskrit and Indian tribe into this confusion.