> > There really does seem to be nothing to support
> the Aryan invasion theory, and
> > what is surprising is that the folks who howl for
> "objectivity" are the ones
> > who are the most upset at discovering that their
> "established" knowledge
> > lacks objectivity
I dont think that this simplification of the state of
research into the spread of Proto-Indo-Iranian peoples
before and after the linguistic split and the
migration of various Indo-European groups into India
holds much water. There are few established opionions
at the moment, except those that certain parties
choose to make political capital of.
>
> I agree that the scientific method needs to be
> applied to history as
> well. The evidence for a Aryan migration to India
> comes from fields as
> diverse as linguistics, genetics and archeology.
> What is the evidence
> for non-migration?
What do you mean by non-migration? I hope you dont
think that Indoeuropean languages all came from
india:) Seriously - you have any particular theory in
mind?
-Frank
>
> Thaths
> --
> "Bart! With $10,000 we'd be millionaires! We could
> buy all kinds of
> useful things... like love." -- Homer J.
> Simpson
>
>
___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars
online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/
