Autor(es): Silva, Marina ; Koch, John T. ; Pala, Maria ; Edwards, Ceiridwen J. ; Soares, Pedro ; Richards, Martin B.
Data: 2019
Identificador Persistente: https://hdl.handle.net/1822/80159
Origem: RepositóriUM - Universidade do Minho
Assunto(s): Archaeogenetics; Aryan; Harappa; Harappan; Indo-Aryan; Indo-European
[Excerpt] The prehistories of the population and languages of India are scientific questions (Majumder 2018). Unlike questions decided in mathematics or a court of law, scientific questions cannot lead to definitive proof. Rather, new evidence and advances in methods will bring a succession of improved models that account better for wider ranges of more accurately documented evidence. There will always be doubts about aspects of the prevailing model and data that it accounts for imperfectly. If this were not the case, there would be no room for scientific progress. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the prevailing theoretical model is simply wrong, though these loose ends can be selectively pulled together to build a convincing-looking case for non-scientists that it must be wrong. Our argument here is not that Michel Danino’s argument lacks learning or points worthy of consideration, but that it is unscientific. Danino covers, in the erudite and scholarly way one would expect from a heritage enthusiast, a lot of old ground. What he documents is that the subject of Indo-European and Indo-Iranian languages has been debated by some great minds for a long time without clear resolution.
