Archaeological Sciences Centre, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Palaj, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382 355, India,
J Biosci. 2019 Jul;44(3).
The Indo-European debate has been going on for a century and a half. Initially confined to linguistics, race-based anthropology and comparative mythology, it soon extended to archaeology, especially with the discovery of the Harappan civilization, and peripheral disciplines such as agriculture, archaeometallurgy or archaeoastronomy. The latest entrant in the field, archaeogenetics, is currently all but claiming that it has finally laid to rest the whole issue of a hypothetical migration of Indo-Aryan speakers to the Indian subcontinent in the second millennium BCE. This paper questions the finality of this claim by pointing to inherent limitations, methodological issues and occasional biases in current studies as well as in the interpretation of archaeological evidence.
印欧语系的争论已经持续了一个半世纪。最初局限于语言学、基于种族的人类学和比较神话学,它很快扩展到考古学,特别是随着哈拉帕文明的发现,以及农业、考古冶金学或考古天文学等边缘学科。该领域的最新成员考古遗传学,目前几乎声称它最终解决了假设的印欧语系使用者在公元前 2000 年迁移到印度次大陆的整个问题。本文通过指出当前研究以及对考古证据的解释中固有的局限性、方法问题和偶尔的偏见,对这一主张的终结性提出质疑。