01.06.09
AIT versus OIT
More on AIT versus OIT (Aryan Invasion theory and Out of India theory), with a link to a review of a new book on defending OIT. (thanks to James for link)
The idea that Indo-European begins in India, as opposed to the idea that it is the result of an invasion, would seem hopelessly implausible, but the thesis has gained some traction, and the new book discussed at the links, which has just come out, is said to make the case, January 2009 pub date, so we shall see.
There is one key piece of argumentation, that noone seems to discuss (at least in public), which is that with the evidence of the Shiva Seal (check that out on Google) we have evidence of yogis from around 2000 BC.
In the AIT argumentation there is a problem: Indians were doing yoga before the appearance of Indo-European. So who were these people doing yoga, where did yoga come from, and how did the whole thing get put into Sanskrit? Thus the implication is that the great yogas don’t emerge from the Vedas, its seems. It is small wonder an Indian traditionalist would seek evidence that Indo-European was more ancient in India than thought.
nemo said,
January 6, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I left a comment here, http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2009/01/06/ait-versus-oit/#comment-30006
on one problem with the OIT hypothesis, which is the ornery case of Anatolian Indo-European, Hittie, Luwian, and Palaic. The pre-Anatolian Indo-Hittite at the source of these is one of the oldest either daughter languages of proto-Indo-European, or else a parallel older than this to archaic proto-Indo-European, sometime very early indeed, creating problems for the OIT.
Not being a close student of these issues, I say all this with some temerity, and remain open to the various hypotheses now current.