The Indigenous Aryan Discussion on RISA-L: The Complete Text (to 10/28/96) submitted by Linda Hess --------------------------------------------------------- From Linda Hess to RISA-L on 9-28-96 Dear friends, (a) I just started teaching a course at Stanford, called "Religious Classics of Asia" (their title), which in this incarnation is limited to India. In my introductory lecture I mentioned standard dates for Vedas, and an Indian student came up during the break and asked if I was aware of the new discussions and argements concerning earlier dates for Vedas, theory that Vedic people were original inhabitants of the subcontinent, etc. I said yes I was aware, and was skeptical as most of those arguments seemed to be poltically motivated and associated with Hindu nationalist agendas. I'm not an expert on dating of Vedas, Aryans, pre-Aryans, etc. I've read basic stuff on archeology, textual history, in order to teach intro courses where students pretty much accept the information given. This particular challenge is not going to go away soon. I'd like to create a modest bibliography where students who are interested can examine the arguments and evidence in a serious way. Would any of you like to suggest what should be on that biblio? (For undergrads, short papers) There is a conference in Oct. at Michigan called "Aryan and Non-Aryan in S.Asia: Evidence, Interpretation, and Ideology," which should shed a lot of light. But those presentations won't be immediately/widely accessible I suppose. -------------------------------------------------------- LAURIE PATTON, 9-28 Hi Linda, My bibliographic file on the Aryan controversy is at home, but here is the announcement for the upcoming Michigan conference from the Indology list. The people who are presenting there all have published work that deal with the controversy. I myself have found Madhav Deshpande's work extremely helpful on the linguistic analysis of the material. Edwin Bryant, a doctoral student at Columbia, is writing his dissertation on the construction of Aryan identity. In addition to the Michigan conference, there is one happening here in Atlanta Oct. 4-6 sponsored by the Hindu University of America in Orlando, Fl, and the Greater Atlanta Vedic Temple Society, among many others. It is called "Re-visiting Indus-Sarasvati Age." Anything written by the archaeologist B.B. Lal should give you a sense of one side of the debate--the side being foregrounded at the conference in Atlanta. When I get home I can give you exact bibliographic titles, etc., as I'm sure many people on this list will be able to do. Warm regards, Laurie P. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 01:10:09 BST From: Madhav Deshpande Reply-To: indology@liverpool.ac.uk Subject: Michigan-Lausanne International Seminar Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia: Evidence, Interpretation and Ideology 25-27 October, 1996 The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan Organized by: Professor Johannes Bronkhorst (Lausanne) Professor Madhav M. Deshpande (Michigan) Professor Thomas R. Trautmann (Michigan) Oct 25, Friday, Morning Session 8:30 - 9:00 Registration 9:00 - 9:15 Welcome (Deshpande / Bronkhorst) Chair : Johannes Bronkhorst (University of Lausanne, Lausanne) 9:15 - 10:00 Thomas Trautmann (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) "Constructing the Racial Theory of Indian Civilization" 10:00 - 10:45 Hans H. Hock (University of Illinois, Urbana) "Through a glass darkly: Modern Colonialist Attitudes vs. Textual and General Prehistoric Evidence on 'Race' and 'Caste' in Vedic Indo-Aryan Society" 11:00 - 11:45 Nicholas Allen (Oxford University, U.K.) "Hinduism as an Indo-European Ideology: Cultural Comparativism and Political Sensitivities" October 25, Friday, Afternoon Session Chair : Michael Witzel (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA) 2:00 - 2:45 Asko Parpola (University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland) "Sanskrit kimpuru.sa and kinnara : An Early Mixture of Aryan and Dravidian" 2:45 - 3:30 Johannes Bronkhorst (University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland) "Is there an Inner Conflict of Tradition?" 3:45 - 4:30 Gernot Windfuhr (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) "A Note on Airyaman and Friendship" 5:30 - 6:30 Special Lecture (Buddhist Studies) by Professor Shoryu Katsura (Hiroshima University) "Naagaarjuna's Logic" October 26, Saturday, Morning Session Chair : Carla Sinopoli (University of Michigan) 9:00 - 9:45 Shereen Ratnagar (Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi) "Does archaeology hold the answers?" 9:45 - 10:30 Jim Shaffer (Case Western University, Cleveland) "Orientalism and cultural continuity in South Asian archaeology" 10 :45 - 11:30 Michael Witzel (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA) "The Linguistic Situation in Northern India during the Vedic Period" October 26, Saturday, Afternoon Session Chair : Walter Spink (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) 2:00 - 2:45 Pashaura Singh (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) "Revisiting the Arya-Samaj Movement" 2:45 - 3:30 Sarah Caldwell (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) "Whose Goddess? Kaalii as Cultural champion in Kerala oral narratives" 3:45 - 4:30 Luis Gomez (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) "Chinese Buddhist Understanding of 'Arya'" 4:30 - 5:15 Madhav M. Deshpande (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) "What to do with the Anaaryas? Dharmic discourses of inclusion and exclusion" ************************* October 27, Sunday, Morning Session Chair : Peter Hook (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) 9:00 - 9:45 Franklin C. Southworth (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia) "Dravidian Place-Names in Maharashtra" 9:45 - 10:30 Edwin Bryant (Columbia University, New York) "Linguistic Substrata and the Indo-Aryan Migration Debate" 10:45 - 11:30 Jayakumar Manickam (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) "The situation of Urdu speakers in the Tamil area" VASUDHA NARAYANAN, 9-28 Dear friends, I faced this issue in my class for the first time about 5 years back and a second generation Hindu student ended up doing a fairly detailed term paper with some interesting resources. Many diaspora Hindus seem to hold the "aryans are original inhabitants of India" theory and feel *strongly* about it. However, what surprised me was that an unknown reviewer (asked by Prentice Hall) for my intro chapter on the Hindu tradition chided me for not taking this issue seriously. S/He even suggested the articles I should read for starters and I found them very, very useful. Like Laurie, I don't have references on hand-- that file is in my office-- but the two articles were by Frawley (one of the two main gurus of this theory, along with Sudhir (?) Kak of LSU) and the other one was by a the archaeologist Colin Renfrew. Frawley's arguments (it's three - four years since I read this stuff, so I'm a bit hazy) were based on (a) Descriptions of the river Saraswati which he thought were conclusive about the long-term residency of the Aryans in India, (b) the absurdity of gaggles of Indo aryans trooping over the high altitude passes in such numbers as to cream the civilization around the Sindhu. Obviously I'm simplyfing the stuff in a drastic way, but the article is very accessible for undergrads-- (enough to convert the second generation Hindus to that line of thinking anyway, so be warned). Obviously zillions of other invaders have used the trusted Khyber/Bolan passes since, but Frawley is quite persuasive. Renfrew's article is different; it is scholarly but accessible. He argues that Turkey is the origin point of this "migration" which was accomplished not through invasion, but principally through pushing farming frontiers; I think he advocates something like 15-20 miles each generation. Kak's recent books including In Search of the cradle of civilization (co authored with Frawley and Feuerstein) has a chapter on "Why the Aryan Invasion never Happened: Seventeen Arguments." Hinduism Today had several articles, I believe; my "pre-med-Hindu-diaspora student" who did the paper several years ago was big on the theory that Max Mueller and cohorts dated the Vedas solely on the basis of when they believed the Bible to be written. LANCE NELSON On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Vasudha Narayanan wrote: > references on hand-- that file is in my office-- but the two articles were > by Frawley (one of the two main gurus of this theory, along with Sudhir (?) > Kak of LSU) and the other one was by a the archaeologist Colin Renfrew. Has anyone written a reliable critique of these articles? I'd love to find one, and perhaps even post the reference on the RISA-L web page. From: dhudson@smith.smith.edu Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 12:44:45 EDT In response to Linda's request for books on the Aryan and pre-Aryan discussion, I find the Allchin's "Birth of Indian Civilization" quite good, because it summarizes the archeological evidence for six different waves of migration by Indo-Europeans, one of which settled in Harappa and probably interacted in some way with Harappan culture and religion. The sixth and strongest wave was the one that produced the Rig Veda; so we have no information about the nature of the religions and cultures of the other five waves, one of which appears to have moved along the Himalayan foothills, to ermerge later as the Sakya and other tribes in the Gangetic east (that idea was developed by Sharma, whose book I will dig out if you want it).. Asko Parpola suggests those early Indo-Aryans were the "Dasas" who worshiped Varuna and are the opponents in the Rig Veda. H. S. Converse's "The Agnicayana Rite: Indigenous Origin?" in History of Religions IV.2 ( Nov. 1974), pp.81-95 is good for introducing the kind of thinking that has to be done with the archeological data at hand. Also, the problems of interpreting the Indus Valley script introduce the issues of interpretation of visual data, and reveal possible continuities in terms of calendar and weight measurements that may lie behind the Rig Veda poems. See John E. Mitchiner, "Studies in the Indus Valley Inscription: (New Delhi: Oxford, 1978). Probably the most reliable "speculator" about the relation of Rig Veda and non-Aryan peoples to my mind is Asko Parpola in Helsinki. His works are not easy, but he has details at hand that few others do, and is not afraid to think out loud, in print, and with discipline about them. Students should also be aware, not only of the political issue in the North stimulated by the Hindu right, but also about the political issue in the South stimulated by the Dravidian "nationalists," who I suspect do not agree with the Hindu right--Dennis PATRICK OLIVELLE (Message from PO to Linda Hess, in reply to LH’s question about his ethnic/national origins. The same student whose question started this whole discussion had asked me why the texts I had picked all had western translators instead of Indian. Since Patrick was one of the translators, I asked him if he was Indian or what.) This may not help, but I am actually from Sri Lanka!! But the problem you are facing is not the ethnicity of the scholars but their ideology. The aryan problem is the latest one. My approach to it is--yes, the Aryan theories of the 19th century say a lot about the concerns of Europeans, especially Germans. They were searching for origins, much the same way as the hindu nationalists of today. But, when everything is said and done, the immigration theory (into India) has greater support than the emigration theory (out of India); but these are always hypotheses, as any historical reconstruction, and the whole point of scholarship is to openly discuss the pros and cons, and to learn how to argue within rational principles. This is the casualty of the hindu nationalist debate--not the theory of the aryans. Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:41:23 -0700 From: "Frank J. Korom" Someone requested a critique about the evidence reassessing the Aryan invasion theory. That person would be Mark Kenoyer at U. of Wisconsin, although I don't have the reference at my fingertips. Second point is that the Kak at LSU is Subhash, not Sudhir, and he teaches computer science, dabbling in Vedic studies on occasion. Lastly, the work of Frawley is now published in completed, book form by World Heritage Press. Controversial, but read it and judge for yourselves... Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:44:06 -0700 From: vasu@religion.ufl.edu (Vasudha Narayanan) Thanks for the great suggestions by Fred, Nancy, Laurie, Dennis and others. Here's a *short* biblio for the non-traditional theories. Please remember what Dennis Hudson said last weekend-- there are different theories in Tamilnadu. We guys believe we're from someplace else- (okay, it's Lemuria, if you *really* want to know.) And there we lived in casteless bliss through three poetic Sangam ages until the naughty little Aryans came and messed it all up. This was, of course, after The Flood that sunk Lemuria. The Tamilnadu govt. did a neat video for Doordarshan on this whole issue, quite touching. I was sobbing at the end of it when the Tamil king clutched the Tamil classics to prevent them from being covered by the ocean. (biblio follows, see separate biblio) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 08:48:55 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) While the impressive list of books and articles on this topic continues to grow, well beyond my competence and interest, it has occurrred to me to add my two cents to the pot. It seems to me that in both substance and in style the Rgveda probably has more in common with its Old Iranian kin [Gathic Avestan] than with anything else in Vedic. I agree with Renou that the RV in some ways seems hardly Vedic at all, and with Elizarenkova that it is probably rather "the last representative of the Indo-European tradition." My picture of the Aryan migration is this: it was no invasion; it was more like a backward looking, or perhaps rather a walking backward, out of Iran [true land of the Aryans] into a strange new land, now called India. There is in my picture of the RV no trace whatsoever of any contact with Harappa, etc. Perhaps someone can relieve me of my ignorance. My impression is that the horse is a latecomer to the Indian sub-continent [e.g., no horses, no signs of them in the Indus script or iconography, no burials before say 1200 BCE?]. If this is true, then the matter is simple. No horses, no Aryans. Tell me, am I missing something? Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 10:37:06 -0700 From: nancy.falk@wmich.edu Dear George, Right. Horses and the very close links between Rg-Vedic Sanskrit and Avestan have certainly been the deciding factors for me--along with bricks, which were used to construct Harappan towns and cities, but which the Rg Veda Aryas seem not to have known. (As I recall, Staal pointed this out somewhere in ALTARS OF FIRE). The man with the most convincing (to me) theory of Indo- European origins is an expert in the archaeology of the horse. As I recall, he is the same Anthony to whom Vasu referred at an earlier point in this conversation. Unfortunately all my references to this stuff is in files at home, and my Email access goes through my office, but I will pull out the references and put them on line. He seems to publish mostly through science magazines--it was my philosopher of science husband who picked up the initial article for me. Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 16:42:08 -0700 From: Edwin F Bryant If anyone wants any more biblio on what I call the 'Indigenous Aryan' school of historians, I have collected everything I could find in this regard over the last few years (since this is the topic of my Ph.D diss.), and would be happy to share any specific info that might be useful. In general terms, however, the two books that I think do the best credit to the position of this school, have not been mentioned on this list. They are: K.D.Sethna's 'The problem of Aryan Origins (from an Indian point of view) & Shrikant Talageri's "Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism' One might want to skip the first three chapters of the latter (which spout familiar Hindu nationalistic formulas), since the rest of the book, which deals with the 'evidence' is surprisingly well argued in places. Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:55:32 -0700 From: NAME BRIAN SMITH I've been following the bibliographic exchanges on the origins of the ARyans with great interest, and thank all who have contributed. I do hope Linda (or someone) will collate all this stuff and send it out for us. But I am somewhat puzzled that in all this flurry no one has opened up the real and pressing political ramifications of all this. It has been noted in passing that the Hindutva/Hindu nationalist movement has a great stake in claiming that the Aryans have indigenous origins in India. Why? Because this argument is directly correlated to the argument that Muslims, historically and at present, are "foreigners" and therefore not "real" Indians. It seems to me that how we, as scholars of India, treat this question of Aryan origins matters a great deal, and has repurcussions we should at least be aware of. Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:48:54 -0700 From: Joanne Waghorne Brian has an important point but equally important for us to remember is that many members within the British Raj also had an important stake in the Aryan theory as we know it: establishing a "natural" connection between fellow Aryans that at points made colonialism look like an modern meeting of two long lost brothers and thus a natural events in the course of history. The Ayran theory from its inception has been "political". It is not as if politics enters the picture only now. In presenting all aspects of this debate the political implications must be made clear to our students on all counts. Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:43:19 -0700 From: Edwin F Bryant Thanks for putting me on the list, Lance, and my apologies for the incomplete ref's. The two books I had mentioned which I beleive best represent the position of the Indigenous Aryan school are: 1)Sethna, K.D. 'The Problem of Aryan Origins (from an Indian Point of View) Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1992. This 1992 ed (as opposed to the 1980 one), has a 200 pg. supplement which meticulously critiques Asko Parpola's speculations on the coming of the Aryans into India. Sethna's book is generally well written and provocative. It is also free from Nationalistic undertones. I think Brian's comment is very well taken, but it concerns me that all the scholarship of the Indigenous Aryan school is stereotyped as being Hindutva orientated. There is no doubt a vociferous Hindutva element in some of this type of scholarship, but by no means all of it can be dismissed summarily on this ground. Outside of JNU and Delhi University, I was surprised to find almost all the faculty members in the ancient history dept's of the other 20 or so campuses I visited in India were highly suspicious of the Aryan migration theory. Many of these professors were more likely to vote Congress than BJP (though I'm not sure how professional it is to query a person's political position unless it explicitly or implicitly pervades his/her scholarship). But Brian raises a real concern and I think it is our job, as scholars, to distinguish between politically motivated revisionist history, and 'genuine' scholarly attempts to reconsider an aspect of ancient Indian history that, as Joanne points out, was very much the creation of 19th cent. European political and religious ideology. My research suggests to me that much of the material of the Indigenous Aryan school is of the latter category. 2) Talageri, Shrikant 'Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism' New Delhi: Voice of India, 1993. Talageri is explicitly of the Hindutva camp, and the first part of his book can be critiqued accordingly. The rest of his work, though, reveals a very keen mind examining the 'evidence' upon which the Aryan invasion theory was put together and merits a response in kind (he is at his worst, I should note, when he tries to propose Maharashtra as the IE homeland). A third publication of papers (of varying worth) from a Seminar on this topic is: Deo, S, B & Kamath Surynath eds, 'The Aryan Problem' Pune: Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, 1993. If nothing else, this publication gives an idea of how widespread the reconsideration of the external origin of the Aryans has become in India. Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 13:28:20 -0700 From: mgansten@sbbs.se (Martin Gansten) Brian Smith wrote: >It seems to me that how we, as scholars of India, treat this question >of Aryan origins matters a great deal, and has repurcussions we should at >least be aware of. I hope=A0that this is not a hint that we should try to keep facts under our hat out of fear that they may be misused. If scholars are under any obligation, it is -- in my opinion -- to total honesty, without regard to political or other consequences.=20 (Sorry if I seem to overreact; I've just had enough politically motivated, slanted teaching myself to last me a few lifetimes.) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:55:00 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) I find Brian Smith's observations about "the real and pressing political ramifications of all this" rather intriguing, particularly in light of the responses of Martin Gansten and Joanne Waghorne. I myself have refrained from bringing up these ramifications, not because I am unaware of them, but because I find them repulsive. That is, nationalism is repulsive. Re Joanne Waghorne's remarks: pointing out the repulsive colonialism and nationalism of members of the British Raj does not make Hindu nationalism any less repulsive. They're both repulsive, just as American nationalism is also repulsive. [I hope the repetition is clear: I mean *really* repulsive, as well as racist, etc.]. If the activity in which we are now engaged on this list is inevitably political, then indeed we should face that fact: What one studies is, of course, one's own business, and I don't see any more value in one field of study than in any other. These indigenous Aryans are in themselevs deserving of the perceptive attention that has been given to them by Edwin Bryant, But, as a Vedicist, I don't believe that these indigenous Aryans have anything useful to say to me *about Vedic*, until they have demonstrated that they are reasonably informed about that otherwise very unimportant field of study [the same applies to archeologists who don't seem to know much about Vedic or Indo-European, but who nevertheless, looking at their broken pots, decide that this or that shard represents Vedic, or non-Vedic, or IE culture. I don't know about indigenous Aryans and I don't know about pots, but I know an uninformed opinion about Vedic when I see one. Such are Frawley's opinions, and also Renfrew's, and many many others. An "indigenous Aryan" [itself an interesting construct having as little to do with reality as the "Aryan Nation"] is not *by nature* an authority on Vedic Aryans [separated as they are -- just as we are -- by not much more than 3000 yrs.]. I think students, and their teachers too, should be reminded of this distinction. Ultimately, I may not be capable of being objective about these matters, but at least I am trying. Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:05:48 -0700 From: "Laurie L. Patton" A two-fold response to recent discussion: 1) Brian is right to point the political element out (I don't think anyone would deny or ignore it). But my experience has been the same as Edwin's far more extensive one: the political reality is far more complex than the simple Hindutva agenda. The issue has political ramifications not only in terms of Hindu nationalism, but also in terms of how scholars talk to each other (or don't talk to each other). For example: My experience in India is the same as Edwin's: ordinary, Congress-I middle class people find the I-E theories of any kind highly suspicious. One Maharastrian high school teacher I had a long conversation with said that the I-E hypothesis was simply laughed at, not taken seriously at all in her high school history curriculum. What disturbs me about this is not that the I-E "invasion" hypothesis is being challenged, but that while the Indigenous Aryan school is having its say, the field of Indo-European studies is blithely continuing on its way, and there is very little conversation between the two (actually, multiple) worlds of scholarship. THe problem with this lack of communication is that it doesn't allow for serious consideration of evidence. Those who suggest (as I have in the past) that it might not be time to give up on the I-E connection yet, whatever we might think about evidence for an "invasion", are suspected of neo-colonialism--just as those who are suspicious of the Aryan invasion hypothesis are suspected of Hindu nationalism. But many who still hold to the possibility of an I-E connection are NOT neo-colonialists, and many who are suspicious of it are NOT Hindu nationalists (Romila Thapar being the most obvious example). George points to the very important question of ownership of evidence, and this is where the scholarly miscommunication on the subject is so depressing: the discussion between qualified people stops as soon as the right to own evidence is asserted. 2) It seems to me that we have to distinguish, analytically, between several different categories here: a) Questioning the evidence of Aryan "invasion," and posing some other alternatives for a symbiotic relationship between Aryan and indigenous peoples. (this seems to me to be the most reasoned and reasonable stance of archaeologists on the topic) b) Denying the evidence of Aryan invasion altogether and posing instead an indigenous Aryan population. c) Posing #2 as a proven historical reality, and adding to that the political agenda of Hindutva. d) Posing (as David Anthony does) the possibility of I-E migration, not necessarily "invasion". e) Asserting #4 as a proven historical reality and adding to that the political agenda of anti-Hindutva. There are, of course, lots of other variations on this theme, but my own experience discussing these matters in some depth with people in India has given me this sense of the landscape. (My vote is: Edwin, you're our hope for continuing communication between scholarly worlds. Go for it.) I have a long biblio for Renfrew and more on David Anthony (this time not on horses per se but on I-E migration etc.) but I have taken up too much screen space and will post it later. Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 19:00:36 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) I have been reading Gavin Flood's "An Introduction to Hinduism" and it does seem to me to be a good intro. to Hinduism [I will probably use it]. But it is very interesting. He treats the "aryan question" with great delicacy, as do the members of this list in general. By "great delicacy" I mean that [like Edwin Bryant and Laurie Patton, among others] he seems motivated by a conciliatory desire to keep open lines of communication between "two (actually,multiple) worlds of scholarship" [to quote Laurie]. This is an admirable motive, to be sure. I was struck by the "balanced view" that Flood took of the controversy re theories of the aryan migration. Frawley,, Kak, Renfrew,et al., are all cited alongside Allchin, Parpola, Mallory, et al., as if all of these were equally competent authorities. This surprises me, because Frawley is in my view a quack, Kak is, I confess, a complete unknown, and Renfrew is a good archaeologist who has blatantly overstepped his competence [VERY presumptuous to write a book about "Archaeology & Language" and NOT know very much about the latter!], whereas the others ARE authorities in their given fields [who don't go drifting strangely into exotic fields beyond their control]. Frankly, I am a Vedicist who is suffering from "cognitive dissonance" upon recently joining this list. How widespread is this view [astonishing to me] that IVC is IE? How many of you *really* think that it is reasonable to suppose that the IE homeland is the Punjab, or whatever? How do you reconcile the fact [I HOPE we agree on this at least!] that Skt. is IE, and that it cannot be "indigenous" to India if it is attested in the Near East [e.g., in the infamous Mitanni texts] well before any datable Indic traces of it? I can understand why Maharastrian high school teachers and "almost all the faculty members in the ancient history dept's of the other 20 or so campuses [Edwin] visited in India were highly suspicious of the Aryan migration theory." To be sure, Europeans have not earned, and do not deserve, their trust. But we are scholars, and we are supposed to be seeking the truth, or at least viable models of such a thing. The history of our culture's repulsive behavior toward others of all sorts cannot and should not be forgotten. But it seems to me that when you know that something is not true you should say so. Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 02:08:12 -0700 From: mgansten@sbbs.se (Martin Gansten) George Thompson writes: >Frawley,, Kak, Renfrew,et al., are all cited alongside Allchin, >Parpola, Mallory, et al., as if all of these were equally competent >authorities. This surprises me, because Frawley is in my view a quack (...) >whereas the others ARE authorities in their given fields I'm sorry if I sound presumptuous, but I've learnt to call this line of argument "argumentum ad hominem" and to avoid it in scholarly debate. Is it a given fact that Frawley et al. are "quacks" (because they may not hold formal degrees, or whatever), and that for this reason we should not pay any attention to their views? Should not their arguments be considered on their own strength, just like the arguments of those we name "authorities"? In my view, Frawley does have a few good and valid points, although there certainly are flaws in his theories as well. Sometimes the academic community is rather too much like freemasonry for my tastes... As George says, we ought to be searching for truth. Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 04:14:11 -0700 From: phijag@zelacom.com (john grimes) >George Thompson writes: > >>Frawley,, Kak, Renfrew,et al., are all cited alongside Allchin, >>Parpola, Mallory, et al., as if all of these were equally competent >>authorities. This surprises me, because Frawley is in my view a quack (...) >>whereas the others ARE authorities in their given fields > >I'm sorry if I sound presumptuous, but I've learnt to call this line of >argument "argumentum ad hominem" and to avoid it in scholarly debate. Is it a given fact that Frawley et al. are "quacks" (because they may not hold >formal degrees, or whatever), and that for this reason we should not pay any >attention to their views? Should not their arguments be considered on their >own strength, just like the arguments of those we name "authorities"? In my view, Frawley does have a few good and valid points, although there >certainly are flaws in his theories as well. Sometimes the academic >community is rather too much like freemasonry for my tastes... As George >says, we ought to be searching for truth. > >Martin Gansten > For those who may not know, Sri Aurobindo proposed this theory long before Frawley, et al. Was he a quack too? He did have, besides other less academic credentials, a great linguistic background (King's College, Cambridge -English, Latin, Greek, French, Italian, German). In invoking Sri Aurobindo I am not siding with the quacks but merely advancing one more "straw" for their side of the discussion. I, for one, am amazed that there are some who are absolutely certain about a topic wherein certainty is intrinsically impossible (i.e., review what a pramana can and cannot give). Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 06:30:37 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) Dear Martin, Calling Frawley a quack is an assertion. I could go on to explain why I think so, if you really want to hear it. He lacks authority in my eyes not because he lacks degrees [they are irrelevant], but because he lacks basic information. I suspect that we all basically know that this is true, but we just aren't saying it. I choose to waste my time doing Vedic. I don't have enough of it to waste on Frawley's fantasies as well, though I do think that others might find this an interesting research project for whatever reasons. I have no trouble with that, nor with Freemasonry, whatever that is. I'd be interested to talk to Freemasons about Freemasonry. But if they started making assertions about Vedic that I happen to know are fantasy, I would say so. Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 09:14:53 -0700 From: mgansten@sbbs.se (Martin Gansten) >Calling Frawley a quack is an assertion. I could go on to explain why I >think so, if you really want to hear it. Oh, I would. Hearing people defining their terms is often terribly enlightening. Like John, I'm amazed at the degree of certainty evinced by both camps on this issue, and their opinions on what constitutes evidence. Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 17:34:09 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) Sri Aurobindo may well have been a profound philosopher and an enlightened human being in his own right. I don't wish to challenge that view of him. But I do believe that his translations and interpretatations of the RV are anachronistic. [If the list doesn't like blunt assertions, then please, put "I believe" before all of my previous assertions, and before all of those to follow]. I believe that you might well study his translations and interpretations in order to understand Sri Aurobindo, but I don't think that you will get an accurate picture of the RV from him. Since this list is devoted to religion, maybe an analogy would be useful. As a scholar [since we are also that too], why would one wish to study the commentaries of St Bernard on the Song of Songs? Isn't it to understand Bernard, rather than the Song itself? Regardless of Bernard's insights into that text, we would be obliged to study the original Hebrew text too, wouldn't we? And wouldn't we have to recognize that his commentaries have no more authority [perhaps less from a certain point of view] than Rabbinic commentaries? To put this more polemically and crudely [since crudity is at least clear], if you wanted to understand the early years of Christian hegemony in Europe, would you resort to Pat Robertson, or a genuine scholar like Peter Brown [who by the way has no advanced degrees]? I have said privately to several members of this list that I am entirely sceptical about the IE homeland debate, and I now publicly confess that I don't know where it was, nor do I much care. But I'm pretty confident [that is, less than 100% certain] that it wasn't India. I have already made some suggestions as to why I am so offensively confident about this. Recall mention of Avestan, and horses, and the Mitanni texts. Nancy Falk has mentioned bricks, etc. More globally, I would invite you to look at the Rgveda. It is *nothing* like what Frawley or Sri Aurobindo say it is. It is a strange, exotic text, which *I do not claim* to understand [and that is why I study it: in order to understand]. Let me ask Martin Gansten and John Grimes a question or two: do you agree with Frawley's claims that the RV is older than the oldest Sumerian or Egyptian texts? Do you agree that the Indus Valley is the true cradle of civilization? How do *you* explain the evident relationship between Sanskrit and other IE languages? Should we return to the view that Sanskrit is the mother of all languages? And widow-burning? Are you more offended by my "certainty" than by overt racism? Linguistic reconstruction is hypothetical *by definition*. There is a reason for that "land to the east of the asterisk" cited by Laurie Patton. I *know* that there is uncertainty in what I am saying and in what I believe. But some things are more uncertain than others, and some things are just simply wrong. And among these I place any view of Vedic that places it at the center of the universe, and that manifestly distorts everything that we can be said to know about that language and that culture. Look, I have deep admiration for that culture's real achievements. But I also know that it was involved in other habits and behaviors that are deeply disturbing [have you looked at the Vedic horse sacrifice lately?]. Trusting in your good intentions, I "believe" that we can reach some sort of agreement about these things. Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 00:22:48 -0700 From: mgansten@sbbs.se (Martin Gansten) George writes: >Let me ask Martin Gansten and John Grimes a question or two: do you agree >with Frawley's claims that the RV is older than the oldest Sumerian or >Egyptian texts? Do you agree that the Indus Valley is the true cradle of >civilization? How do *you* explain the evident relationship between >Sanskrit and other IE languages? Should we return to the view that >Sanskrit is the mother of all languages? Presented with these direct questions, let me say at once that I am not a 'born again Hindu' (if you'll excuse the pun) with a fundamentalist view of the Veda. I do believe that present dating of the RV and other texts is extremely shaky, and that some of Frawley's points about astronomical references (not necessarily in the RV itself, but in later Vedic/Brahmanic texts) and Sarasvati, etc, are at least worthy of consideration. As for the relative dating of the RV as against non-Vedic texts, that is really outside my field of knowledge or interest. I'm not sure that I believe in one 'cradle of civilization' at all, and I have no theory as to how the Indo-European languages (of which Sanskrit is cetrainly one) spread across the earth in prehistoric times. In short, I don't feel I need certain answers to these questions, where certainty (as I am happy to see you agree) is not possible. I have no need or wish to turn ideas about ancient India into religious dogma, either a la Frawley or in any other way. And I do find that many indologists, etc, believe in the Aryan invasion theory with an almost religious fervour which I find quite disturbing. >And widow-burning? Are you more >offended by my "certainty" than by overt racism? With respect, I think you are diverting from the subject under discussion here. Charging someone with racism or tolerance of racism today is rather like charging someone with witchcraft or devil-worship a few centuries ago. For the record, I do not applaude racism; I agree that it is wrong. But what if I didn't? Would that affect the quality of my scholarly work any more than the opposite view? Letting what is 'politically correct' influence scholarship is, in my view, always a mistake, and so is making value judgments on the beliefs and practices one is studying. I am not offended by your views at all; I just disagree -- in part. But as we are on the subject of racism, and as you are a Vedicist, perhaps we could discuss the alleged racist references in the RV. Frawley claims that the dasyus referred to as enemies of the gods are not humans at all, but mythical serpent-like creatures, and quotes descriptions of them as 'noseless' (anaasa, which he says has been mistranslated as 'snub-nosed') and 'footless' (apaada, which he reminds the reader is also an epithet of Vritra, the dragon: apaada-hasta). Now, I don't have the text of the RV available and cannot examine these references myself. But you ought to know straight away if Frawley is twisting the facts. Are there unambiguous racist statements in the RV, and if so, which and where? I'm looking forward to hearing your views on these more tangible issues. Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 06:14:10 -0700 From: phijag@zelacom.com (john grimes) The issue began: Sources on the Aryan and pre-Aryan question. Then came quacks and scholars. Now, tumbling down a slippery slope, we have quacks, profound philosophers, enlightened human beings, real scholars, AND anachronistic scholars (should they or should they not be given a seat at the table, even if they won every award Cambridge gives for Latin and Greek). >Sri Aurobindo may well have been a profound philosopher and an enlightened human being in his own right. I don't wish to challenge that view of him. But I do believe that his translations and interpretatations of the RV are anachronistic. To cut to the chase, >Let me ask Martin Gansten and John Grimes a question or two: do you agree >with Frawley's claims that the RV is older than the oldest Sumerian or >Egyptian texts? Do you agree that the Indus Valley is the true cradle of >civilization? How do *you* explain the evident relationship between >Sanskrit and other IE languages? Should we return to the view that >Sanskrit is the mother of all languages? the issue is not whether I agree with Frawley or Aurobindo or that there really is a cradle of civilization, or the idea of Vedamata and the language of the gods and the mother of all languages etc. - or, that I disagree. The point is that, in the classroom, all material pertaining to the topic at hand should be put on the table. Then, and only then, after all sides have been given their due, does one begin to point out strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, in any given theory. Then, after laying it all out, impartially, let the questions begin. The Veda is ancient. Agendas are many. Omniscience is lacking. Students (and teachers) are enquiring . . . Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 09:23:22 -0700 From: mgansten@sbbs.se (Martin Gansten) Linda says: >Is the migration >supposed to have taken place westward from Indus Valley AND Iran (since >Aryans were demonstrably in Iran before Punjab, right) into Europe? I'm just curious; no malice intended: how is this demonstrable? I may have missed some important argument here. Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 05:16:45 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) I remain impressed by the fact that Martin Gansten can be so disturbed by my "certainty" and by the so-called "religious fervor" of Indologists, and at the same time turn a blind eye to *real* [I mean murderous] "religious fervor", and racism, not just in the RV, but, much more pertinently, in contemporary India. And Frawley's distorted views are fanning its flames! If political correctness is influencing my scholarship here, then so be it. In fact, I'd like to see more of it. As for certainty, let me repeat. To say that certainty is not possible re the IE homeland is one thing. To conclude that Frawley's views therefore are as reasonable as, say, Allchin's, is to display, I think, astonishingly little respect for real scholarship. I'm also impressed by the use that is being made here of "the uncertainty principle": you will not answer the hard questions about Aryans and pre-Aryans, out of humble respect for this principle, but you are somehow certain nevertheless that the Indo-Europeanists and Indologists who are actively working on a coherent and viable model of the I-A migration are all deeply invested in some imperialist conspiracy to promote some invasion theory [which is in fact a straw man...]. It might be appropriate to call it "the selective uncertainty principle," I suppose. As for John's slippery slopes, I have no idea what you are talking about. Why did you invoke Sri Aurobindo? "In invoking Sri Aurobindo I am not siding with the quacks but merely advancing one more 'straw' for their side of the discussion." But you *are* siding with the quacks! You are also attempting to goad me into calling Sri Aurobindo a quack! You seem very disappointed that I have refrained from doing so. I won't even comment about his irrelevant academic prizes [do you *really* think he would deign to come to my table if I invited him? Oh, but I am not worthy...]. I will however repeat, so that it is clear, that his approach, like allegorical approaches in general, is clearly anachronistic. The language of the RV is highly problematic for a number of reasons. It is rich in double sense, puns, cryptic and riddling allusions to notions hidden beneath the surface. But this does not mean that the Rishis were alluding to hidden, higher planes of consciousness, as Sri Aurobindu believes [this is *not* an unreasonable view, by the way, but it is, in my view, wrong]. Not all secrets are high, sublime, or spiritual. Some are low, crass, and materialistic. The RV is a mix of both sorts of motives, and much else in between. There is, I agree, a sort of Agni mysticism that could be considered sublime [if we actually understood it]. There is also blatant angling after material gain [cows], vicious curses directed at one's enemies, and enormous quantities of sheer bluster and self-aggrandizement [speaking of "shamelessly self-serving announcements", I have published a few articles on such things]. p.s. to Martin [re: "how is this demonstrable? I may have missed some important argument here"]. You really have. Read Witzel, read Erdosy, read Allchin, read Mallory, et al., et al., et al. Please, don't make Linda and the rest of us do this all over again. Also, I don't want to go culling passages illustrating Vedic racism for you [though they are there]. I could also cull passages revealing sexism, voodoo magic against one's enemies, human sacrifice [never mind the ordinary sacrifice of other pa'sus!], I don't want to exaggerate Vedic sordidness, though it is there, alongside of Vedic nobility and compassion. Look, they are human, like us, flawed like us, capable like us of great- as well as of very small-minded things. However, the really interesting thing about them is that in some fundamental way they are *not* like us, and we do not understand them. Remaining in [deepening] cognitive dissonance [for I truly expected more flack for having challenged Renfrew than Frawley!]. Where am I? Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 08:32:17 -0700 From: mgansten@sbbs.se (Martin Gansten) Just a few short notes in reply to George Thompson, and I will say nothing further on the subject, as I am not interested in this aggressive form of debate (talk about "fanning the flames"): 1. I do have an indological background and have read most of the authors you refer to. My question to Linda did not, therefore, spring from ignorance as you imply, but (probably) from a difference in our criteria of demonstrability. 2. My application of the "uncertainty principle" is, as you ought to have seen from my previous messages, by no means selective, although you apparently wish it to be so -- slanted against those you call quacks. 3. We obviously differ on what constitutes proper scholarship (which in my view should be non-political) and proper argumentation (I still do not approve of personal attacks). I also find it interesting that you, as a professed Vedicist, refuse to give even one unambiguous reference to racism in the RV. Still, that's your prerogative. Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 09:05:07 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) Dear Martin, You and I disagree about many things, but the only person I called a quack was David Frawley. I'll stop now too. Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 05:15:30 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) To the list in general, The coals have grown cold. The fire is out. There is just a little smoke now, and perhaps the faint scent of the flesh of a pa'su in the air. That was a lively little brahmodya which we have just engaged in, on quacks and real scholars. I am sorry if there is a little taste of bitterness remaining in the air as a result of my uncouth attacks on my rivals. But you all now know what Vedic discourse was *really* like. Rather nasty sometimes? Recall the Upanishadic atipra'sna, the "questioning-too-far", after which on occasion a head would explode. Perhaps my vitriol is inexcusable, and I apologize if I have offended. But I see us as fighting over the hide [or perhaps the soul] of a very sacred cow. satyam eva jayate, as they say. I don't know what you think of my version of satyam, but at least you now know that one member of this list is prepared and willing to defend the IE migration theory [which is still evolving by the way], for what it's worth. Please note that besides fanning the flames, I also resorted to references to what are uncontested facts [that Skt. is IE], to strong circumstantial evidence [late appearance of horses on the sub-continent and the absence of representations of it in IVC; the clearly Indo-Aryan Mitanni texts], and to analogies [Sri Aurobindo is to the Vedas as St Bernard is to the Song of Songs]. I could also have added the point that there is very little resemblance between the culture represented in early Vedic and what we know of IVC. Not one of these points has been addressed, nor have Linda's recent questions been answered. Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:13:57 -0700 From: Edwin F Bryant I just returned from a conference in Atlanta to find, upon checking my email, that there is still some interest, on the list, in the Indig. Aryan school. I mention this because the conference, organized by various Hindu groups and organizations, was called 'Indus-Sarasvati Age and Ancient India'. The theme was precisely this reconsideration of ancient history, and the official conclusion of the conference was that the present evidence does not support the theory of Aryan migrations/ invasions into the Indian subcontinent in the proto-historic period. The papers were delivered by a wide variety of people ranging from professional scholars/historians/archaeologists to dilettantes (quacks?) that I would prefer to describe as intellectuals on the fringe/outside mainstream academic circles (Yes, David Frawley was very much there). The quality of the presentations accordingly ranged from well-researched, provocative and subtly suggestive papers, to emotional harangues on the greatness of ancient India which could only have served to satisfy psychological, as opposed to intellectual, needs. Responding to some of the comments raised, over the weekend, on this list, I should say that most sobre supporters of the Indig. Ar. school are concerned with arguing that there is no compelling evidence supporting the idea of an external origin of the Aryan language and culture but they do do not all seriously try to propose India as the homeland of all the IE. They are quite prepared to acknowledge that any proposals on the IE homeland can only be highly speculative and that proposing an Indian homeland is as open to the same critiques as they have brought to bear on the positions they oppose. If they do offer arguments in this regard, it is often as an intellectual exercise to show that the same data can often be reconstrued to support an Indian homeland, but this is done just to show the elusiveness of this whole endeavor (obviously, there are lots of dif. positions within the Ind. Ar. school, I am just trying to articulate what I consider to be the most sensible and likely to be of interest to the list). With regard some of the specific comments. George Thompson mentions the Mittani, the Avestha and the evidence of horse bones. There have been four positions taken on the Mittani that I know of: 1)They were the whole group of Indo-Ar's en route to India (a possibility not presently considered by most scholars) 2) They were a group of Indo-Ar's who peeled off from the main body en route to India (generally accepted by most scholars) 3) they were the I-A's who reached India and somehow decided to retrace their steps back (suggested by Sten Konow a century ago) 4)They are Indo-Ar's indig to the subcontinent who left for greener pastures bringing their gods with them (as held by the Indig. Aryan school). Some evidence has been put forward to support the latter case. S.S. Misra has analyzed the language and found linguistic features common to MIA (Middle Indo-Aryan) and even NIA. For example, he notes dissimilar plosives have been assimilated (sapta>satta); anaptyxis (Indra>Indara); Initial v>b (virya>birya) and other features which I won't burden the list with. Kenneth Norman noted the same thing (I will dig out these ref's, if required). George would be in a better position than I to critique such claims. A German archaeologist, Brentjes, has also suggested the Mittani came from India based on the peacock motif in Mittani art which can only be Indian, and on the absence of any central Asian (Andronovo etc.) motifs therein. As for the Avestha, Iranian scholars have as little to work on for the higher date as Vedic scholars for the Veda. The Avestha is relevant for our theme, as I'm sure everyone knows, because it is linguistically so near the Veda that if a date for the Avestha can be established, the date of the VEDA cannot be too far off. Boyce and Gnoli (two of the foremost Iranian authorities) agree that it cannot be later than 1100 BCE on internal evidence, but when it comes to establishing the upper bracket, they propose a 1500 BCE (Gnoli, end of 2nd mill) date based on such evidence as the date of the supposed Indo-ARYAN invasion, and the supposed date of the Vedas, both of which, from the point of the Indig. Ar. school are under major reconsideration. The Avestha, then, simply becomes an extension of the same chronological problem. As for horse, bones, they have been found in several places in the Indus valley dating to at least 2100 BCE. Granted, this cannot compete with the Volga Valley, but the horse was definately present in the Indus Valley. Regarding the supposed disparity between the Vedic landscape and the Indus one, the majority of Indian archaeologists do not seem to feel there is one, or else, they are prepared to consider the Veda to be pre-Indus. I won't burden the list with details unless requested to (anyone interested in this or any other arguments--linguistic, philological, archaeological, astronomical, etc of the Indig. Ar school can contact me either on the list, if there is general interest, or through my personal email). My main point, here, is that the arguments of the Indig. Ar. school is not based on fantasy, but on alternative interpretations of the same evidence brought forward to insist on an external origin of the Aryans. Having done my bit for the Ind. Aryan school, I would be interested in a response to two questions that have been asked recently on this list. Linda Hess mentioned something about demonstrable evidence that the Indo-Iranians were in Iran before the Punjab and I am curious as to what she is refering to. Also a request was made for references to explicit racial references occuring in the Rig, or other, Vedas. I apologise if I've taken up more space than appropriate. Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:40:47 -0700 From: "Frank J. Korom" I would like to thank Dr. Bryant for his insightful report. It seems to add a needed balance to the debates that have ensued over the Aryan issue during the last few weeks, which many of us silently follow. Thanks. Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:40:35 -0700 From: Guy Beck dear multiple recipients interested in recent work on the aryan question, For the record, David Frawley began his studies of Vedic tradition at the Aurobindo Ashram (also at Ramana Maharsi) and continues to cite Aurobindo in his writings. I reviewed In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India in the recent Yoga Journal, written by Georg Feuerstein, Subhash Kak, and Frawley. The first half of the book (by Feuerstein) does a pretty good job of summarizing much of the current research on the Indus/Vedic issue for the layman; the latter portions deal with Vedic astrology (Frawleys forte along with Ayurved) and Vedic astronomy and the origins of science (Kak). Subhash Kak, though a professor of electrical engineering at LSU, has published a considerable amount relative to Vedic studies, particularly in astronomy, linguistics, and ancient science, which I am not qualified to assess. Frawley, who started his own American Institute for Vedic Studies in Santa Fe, is understandably a Hindu advocate, but writes well in places despite his reliance on neo-Vedanta or advaitic perspectives derived probably from Aurobindo et al. Yes, I also heard about the conference on Indus-Sarasvati Revisited in Atlanta Oct 4-6, and was even supposed to attend but was unable. Both Frawley and Kak were featured speakers, along with archaeologist Jim Schaffer and Klaus Klostermaeir, in a program that also included E. Bryant and B.B.Lal from India. If anyone attended, please communicate some of the deliberations for the benefit of us who might apply some of these issues and findings in our teaching or research.Yours in the masonic lodge of academia---Guy L. Beck, Loyola University New Orleans Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 13:15:56 -0700 From: rgupta@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu In response to Ed Bryant's report on the recent conference, to me a key point is that it was "sponsored by various Hindu groups and organizations." Years ago I attended a Hindu Visva Parishad conference where the members were arguing that Rama was a historical figure. We have, in the past few years, seen the consequences of such Hindu chauvinism===Ram Janmabhoomi. Perhaps all scholarship is ultimately political. I wonder if the choice is that we all be prostitutes for the various groups that are sponsoring our research or be willing to adhere toling to adhere to within disciplines. At the very least, I have to look suspiciously upon conferences that are organized with particular "agendas" written into their very titles. We have to ask what is at stake in coming to a particular conclusion--who serves to gain? While Ed Bryant reported on the more sane and sensible (most conservative) views of the Indigenous Aryan proponents, perhaps what would be more interesting to me (as a social scientist) to hear would be the more radical voices--it is there that the real agenda is laid bare. I think that is what Brian Smith was alluding to and his point was well taken. For the sake of not appearing to be "politically correct" (I would personally prefer to be politically correct than blind) to entertain jingoistic interpretations seems to be a safe road only when you first embark on it. It can be dangerous down the line. Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 14:40:20 -0700 From: Brian Smith Bravo, Roxanne! The real agenda re: the Indian origins of the Aryans is, indeed and in fact, the buttressing of modern Hindu nationalistic notions regarding who is (and is not) a "real" Indian; and this agenda is either supported or contested by those who would believe themselves innocent of politics and "merely" doing "objective" scholarship. I would have thought that the Ayodhya tragedy would have taught us all once and for all that scholarship about India and Hinduism has become politicized, whether we like it or not. As Eliade once said, questions about the origins of things are ultimately religious questions, and no one is going to ever "prove" definitively where there was (or if there was) "an Aryan homeland." And nationalism is, in many respects, a religious phenomenon. We should be studying claims to the Indian origins of the Aryans as data, as religious claims with very real political consequences. Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 17:04:00 -0700 From: Laurie Patton This msg is divided into three parts: 1) beginnings of an answer to Linda, 2) beginnings of an answer to Edwin, and 3) further thoughts on the politics of the Indigenous Aryan debate (reply to George, Brian, Roxanne, etc). I think Linda's question was referring to the classical I-E position that there were 2 waves of migration, the first of which constituted the steppe Bronze-Age cultures in Iran in the second millenium BCE, and the second of which moved from Iran into India. Part of the archaeological record that gives evidence for this formulation are findings in Central Asia (Tadzhikistan as easternmost point) that involve male burials with small rectangular hearths, reminiscent of Vedic ahavaniya, and females with round hearths, comparable to vedic garhapatya. In addition, settlements like that of Sintashta show large quantities of sacrificed animals such as horses and dogs, other evidence of chariots, and other forms of I-E "ritual markers." Sintashta and other sites give rise to what is called the "Androvono culture". There is a huge amount of debate about these findings: they are corroborated by textual sources of Avestan and Vedas, but these textual sources are geographically remote from the sites of the burials--one in eastern Iran and the other in northwestern India. (There is also the problem of how to assess the Painted Grey Ware that seems to span from the south of the Caspian across Central Asia, and whether this is a reliable form of archaeological evidence for I-E migration.) SO: How would the Indigenous Aryanists respond to this, asks Linda: The response is two-fold: 1) Given this problem of a lack of IMMEDIATE textual evidence for these I-E burial sites in Central Asia, there is great deal of scope for interpretation as to the chronology of migration patterns. 2) The other one of the "gaps" in the archaeological record involves the fact that most of the archaeological research has focused on the Indus valley or in Central asia, and therefore there is only a little bit of evidence that has emerged from the intervening borderlands, where the migration might have occured. The more sophisticated arguments I have heard (B B Lal, etc) take advantage of these two gaps (as Edwin said) simply to poke holes in the idea that Aryan invasion happened in a series of linear waves from West to East. Their argument is that there is not enough evidence to conclude historically that this was the case. The zanier of the arguments (Shriram Sathe and others) argue that the migration was from Indus-Sarasvati back into Persia, using the hypothesis that there was a religious split in earliest Indus-Sarasvati times and the followers of Zarathustra fell out with the Vedic people and migrated to Iran from India. This is backed by the convoluted logic that in earlier portions of the Rg-Veda the word 'asura' is used reverentially, but in later portions it designates the enemies of the gods, and that the Avesta uses the word "deva" in a negative sense. (!?!) Hope that answers your question, Linda. ************************************** Edwin, the specific "racial" Rg-Vedic passages that are usually debated are the following: RV 1.101.1 1.130.8 2.20.7 4.16.13 6.42.21 7.5.3 (Indra slayer of Dasyus) RV 4.16.13 and 1.102.1 also have the usage of the term krsna-- which has been interpreted by Western Indologists as "dark-skinned" peoples. The term Dasa varna occurring in RV 2.12.4 has also been interpreted as meaning the dark-skinned class. Debate usually focuses around the fact that it's not only dasas that are described as black, but other more elevated figures, such as the god indra who is sometimes described as a black cloud, and Vedic rsis who are described as black, such as Krsna Angirasa and and Kanva. The more serious discussion of this you would already know from Deshpande's edited volume: **Aryan and non-Aryan in India.** He has later works as well which deal with this issue. ****************************************************** On the question of politics: 1) Both sides of the debate have elements of racial motivation. The I-E school has had deep racist and political proponents, as Indigenous Aryan school now has. We should study BOTH theories of origins with this view in mind. 2) I think issue #1 is extremely important. (So interesting that I am going to present at the AAR on the relationship between this debate and the issue of feminist constructions of the goddess). BUT I'm not sure there needs to be such a breach between those who would see the political motivations behind this debate, and those who insist on analyzing evidence. Of course we should study these discourses; many of them are politically/religiously motivated and interesting as such. But we can and should also assess them. Just as we come to any assessment of evidence with presumptions about politics, we also come to any assessment of politics with presumptions about evidence! So, here are my cards on the table: I am not an expert in these matters. But I think on the basis of mostof the evidence I have read about, the Indigenous Aryan school is a weaker explanation of the data than the Indo- European school. The I-A school can indeed construct alternative arguments based on the holes in the I-E invasion theory. However, in the ultimate analysis there is more **positive evidence** for the I-E hypothesis than there is for the I-A hypothesis. However, following Allchin, Dyson, Thapar, and others, I think the I-E hypothesis of migration and co-existence is more likely than a hypothesis of invasion. 3) My emphasis on communication between scholars was not simply an attempt to be "balanced." I like balance, this is true. But my posting was also a plea to prevent the presentation of Indus-Sarasvati civilization as if it were a historical fact, when it is still hotly contested. Moreover, in parts of the Indian and South-Asian American community, one gets clobbered over the head as either unconsciously or consciously neo-colonialist or racist if one mildly suggests the reasonableness of SOME VERSION of the I-E connection. This is as annoying as the Indo-Europeanists who refuse to acknowledge the racial implications of the debate going on within the confines of their own field. 4) The MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE, to me, is that we are now in a situation where we can't simply "study" politically motivated historians. If we are honest, we also have to argue with them. And we haven't really thought about the question of how one argues across cultures. And when it comes to I-E/I-A debates, it's not simply a matter of communication across cultures, but of argument. We do not have the vocabulary in place yet to assess evidence when one member of the debate is from a colonized culture and the other member of the debate is from a colonizing culture. THIS IS NOT A PLEA FOR "pure objectivity." It is simply a plea for developing a discourse where participants in a debate can learn how to persuade each other without retreating to accusations of political motivation OR naively apolitical empiricism. Yours hopelessly in the middle path, and I need to get back to work now, Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 19:18:47 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) This posting was begun this morning, but like everybody else I had to drop it and run off to teach. Upon returning to my desk I now see the postings from Roxanne Gupta, Brian Smith, and Laurie Patton. Thank you all very much for moving this discussion forward [I had thought that I was a lone voice in the wilderness]. Special thanks to Laurie for providing the RV data for Vedic racism [I did not want to seem too eager to trash Vedic culture]. So, much of what I wanted to say has been said already, but here is some of what I have written in response to Edwin. I hope that it contributes a few points left untouched [sorry, list, if it taxes your attention]: Like Frank J. Korom, I would also like to thank Edwin for presenting us with an articulate and informed report of the Indigenous Aryan model. He and I have already discussed these issues, and he already knows that I respect and admire his presentation. However, he also knows that we still disagree. Perhaps something good can come from more discussion. [Let me say, though, that I am sure that there are many out there more qualified and more capable than I am to present the IE view, but I'll start the ball rolling, since I'm responsible for some of the flames]. First of all, I agree with Edwin that it is probably wisest to focus our attention on the best, most informed, and [indeed!] the most sober representatives of the Indg. Aryan model, but to be honest I have not read them, so in responding I will have to rely on Edwin's presentation of their views [I trust that his presentation is accurate]. As for substantive issues: I do not see how one can *consistently* assert the Indg. Ar. model and skirt the issue raised by that basic linguistic fact: that Skt. is an IE language. If the Aryans are indigenous and if their language is IE, then doesn't it have to follow that India is the IE homeland? I know that this is a complicated issue, and that it may require distinguishing the diffusion of language from the diffusion of peoples. It is possible that a lang. could spread without a corresponding spread of population [this is discussed in the literature, isn't it, Edwin?]. But even when it is abstracted in this way, the problem, it seems to me, remains: either the lang. is indigenous or it came from someplace else [and of course, the carriers of this lang. also had to get it from one place to the next *somehow*]. It appears that the Indg. Ar. school defers this issue, probably to some very remote period of time, at which point all is [conveniently] more or less unsupportable speculation [this is, by the way, what I think Renfrew also does]. Okay, maybe horse bones have been found at 2100 BCE [though this surprises me: references?], but certainly such findings must have been *very* sporadic [i.e., rare], since the animal seems utterly alien to IVC in general. On the other hand, it is such a central figure in Vedic that, in my opinion, a huge problem arises for the Ing. Ar. hypothesis. There is, as far as I can see, a huge chasm standing between the Vedic *cultural* landscape and what I know of the IVC landscape. If IVC were IE linguistically and culturally, it is inconceivable to me that the horse would be absent [or, if not entirely absent, clearly rare]. I'm not simply thinking of the a'sva, aspO [O = long o], hippos, equus, etc. equations resulting in IE *ekwos [I trust that I will be permitted to ignore laryngeals and other diacritics that I cannot reproduce here in any case]. No, it is not a matter of a series of lexical equations that you could cull from any handbook of IE. Horse-lore is a *fundamental and central* feature of IE culture, and in Vedic culture in particular. Its essential absence in IVC cannot be explained away by reference to a few isolated burials. Think of all the horsy names in Vedic [and in IE in general], as well as the A'svins, the myths in which horses are fundamental, the horse sacrifice, etc., etc., etc. Archaeologists can explain away many things, but they can't seriously deal with ideology, except through language. That's a basic fact of life. Archaeologists cannot see material evidence of an IA migration? Well, look at what they are looking at. The mute stones can speak *only* insofar as we can tie them to words. Otherwise they are signs of concepts which themselves we do not have access to. In my view that's not true "speech." It is speculation. When it comes to saying truly significant things about a culture, it is crucial to have access to its language. We do not [yet] have access to the lang. of IVC. That is why it is so easy to say anything about it. We don't know the code. We don't know the culture. Anything goes. On the other hand, Vedic culture presents another. in my view, very serious problem to archaeologists, since it has left behind so little in terms of material remains. W. Rau, eminent historian of Vedic material culture, wonders whether a "Vedic archaeology" is even possible. This is why bricks are so important in their essential absence from early Vedic. The Vedic Aryans clearly lack a hunger for monumental art [i.e., immortality expressed in stone] such as we see in the Near East and in fact in IVC too. Their immortality was transmitted verbally ['sravas ak.sitam = Grk. kleos aphthiton]. Elizarenkova talks about "the material asceticism" of early Vedic culture. Of course, archaeologists who do not attend to the RV itself are not going to see any trace of this discrepancy. As for the Mitanni evidence: of course the only position that contradicts the IE migration theory is Edwin's # 4: these Indg Aryans left the Indian sub-continent "for greener pastures." But this is not viable because the Mitanni evidence is, once again, very horse-centered evidence. These mercenary Indo-Aryans in the land of the Mitanni were horse-trainers, imported to do a job. It is a job that didn't even exist in IVC, as far as we can tell. So they must have learned their skills elsewhere. My preference, by the way, is for the unpopular # 1, but I don't claim to have strong arguments for it. Finally, to Edwin in particular: I don't quite understand S.S. Misra's point. If he means that the lang. of the Mitanni IA texts have features in common with MIA and NIA and therefore must have come from India, then I think it is a weak point. This sort of assimilation [sapta > satta] is typologically very common [so not necessarily an IA feature]. Besides, the Indra > Indara anaptyxis can be explained in two ways [at least]. One possible explanation, if I recall correctly [somebody, help!] is that cuneiform cannot represent consonant clusters clearly. Thus Indra > Indara may simply be a transcription problem, rather than a purely linguistic one. More compelling to me is the fact that this feature is evident not only in Vedic [Indra frequently has to be read metrically as three syllables, at least in the RV], but also in Avestan [though there, too, it might be a transcription problem]. Edwin, just a few more innocent obstacles thrown in your way. I trust that you'll find a way to get around them. Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 19:20:07 -0700 From: nancy.falk@wmich.edu Bravo to Roxanne, Brian, and Laurie (and for that matter, all others who have given their time to comtributing to the IV\Aryan discussion). We are a part of this argument whether we wish to be or not, and must not only recognize it for what it is--an argument heavily laced with politics--but must also figure out how best to sift through it, and what to say to students or other people who ask for our best judgment upon it. Like it or not, I think we must also become far more familiar with the political agendas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries-- both in Europe and in India--that shaped the paradigms with which many of us were trained to work. We have been awfully naive in our suppositions about the innocence of our undertakings. Sorry, I had more to say, but my machine is acting up again. Must go before it eats everything. Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 11:35:47 -0700 From: lhess@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Linda Hess) Well, a lot has come up in this exchange. In answer to Ed's question about why I proposed (a question mark that should have been there was left out) that Aryans in Iran were demonstrably earlier than in Punjab--it was strictly an amateur query. One day about six years ago when I was teaching Intro to Indian Civ, I walked into Jaini's office and asked, how do we know about dates of Aryan migrations? He mentioned Mittani and (in my memory of it) suggested there's a thin line of evidence that these people and their gods had reached certain places by certain times, and that in that line, Punjab was later than Iran. My notes on this conversation are now about 40 miles from here, but I'm sure there wasn't much to them. Re Roxanne's and Brian's latest comments. In trying to listen and open our minds to all sides of this controversy, I don't think we're trying to deny or ignore the political realities, the dangerous, inflammatory extremes of religious nationalism that put the quest for Hindu/Indian origins high on the agenda of their "ministry of culture." But what is going on here seems to be more complex than that. The political/scholarly/religious turfs that people are fighting over at this point, and the historical conditions out of which their positions arise, are multiple. If we open our minds, are we in danger of supporting religious nationalism? I hope not. I was just reading the Katha Upanisad (in Patrick's new translation): "A razor's edge is hard to cross--/that, poets say, is the difficulty of the path." Should we be more interested in the "radical voices" than in the "sane and sensible" ones, as Roxanne says she is? Or vice versa? Or, with different concerns at different moments (current political realities,less politically involved historical investigation), should we recognize when and why we focus sometimes on one, sometimes on the other? "The real agenda re: the Indian origins of the Aryans is, indeed and in fact, the buttressing of modern Hindu nationalistic notions regarding who is (and is not) a 'real' Indian; and this agenda is either supported or contested by those who would believe themselves innocent of politics and 'merely' doing 'objective' scholarship" (Brian). I have no doubt that that's the "real agenda" of many who started and fomented this kind of thinking in the last 15 years. Does it mean that everybody who sits at the conference with them is dragged into this agenda, whether they mean to be or not? I'm good at asking questions, not so good at taking a strong position and advocating it with clarity and conviction. I admit, the "razor's edge" image can hide a lot of confusion and fear. L P.S. I wrote this before looking at today's new batch of postings. Excellent, excellent. If I were King Janaka evaluating today's contributions, I'd give Laurie Patton 1000 cows with gold pieces on their horns. Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 17:35:04 -0700 From: Edwin F Bryant Okay, so I'll act as a mouthpiece (which is not the same as a representative) for the Indig. Aryan school, since this is, after all, the topic of my dissertation, but only on the condition that I don't get stereotyped or lumped into the Hindutva camp. I agree with whoever said, on this list, that Hindu nationalism and, indeed, any type of nationalism is ultimately disgusting. Theorists like Hobsbawm and Anderson use terms like 'illusion' and 'imagination' to describe the concept of nationalism, terms, interestingly, that are very similar to those used in Vedantic and Puranic discourses to describe the identification and attachment to the land of birth. Ironically, the Hindutva school tends to ignore such admonitions from their 'tradition'. Some comments on Brian Smith's statement. My research suggests that the undertones in this debate are more nuanced than an exclusively Hindutva one. Brian and Roxanne serve us well by reminding us of very real, and quite troubling political agendas underlying much of these discourses (lest George Thompson and I drift off into a probably irrelevant, but very interesting world of anaptyxis and equus caballus Linn phalanges). I would, however, have to insist that not all participants in this debate are Hindutva advocates, and many find the anti-Muslim subtext of Hindutva as troubling as we all, hopefully, do. One problem with, stereotyping all the Indig. Aryan school into a Hindutva category is that it invites counter-stereotypification. This is exactly what happens in India. Virulent opponents of the Indig. Aryan school are labeled secular Marxists whose underlying political agenda is to ignore the historical 'evidence' (or lack thereof) by insisting on the external origin of the Aryans in order to support the position that Aryans, Christians, Muslims have all equally intruded into the subcontinent and that a secular state is the only way to best represent such an amalgamation of immigrants. Their position is thus viewed as being permeated with political bias and the dialogue breaks down even further. I must say that I have met one or two anti- Indig. Ar scholars in India who are as dogmatic and rigid in their views as some Hindutva scholars can be. Anyway, if all historical reconstruction has to be motivated by politics or the quest for self-definition, then I would say that the bulk of the scholarship of the Indig. Ar school is more permeated with an anti-colonial/imperial flavour. After all, it is Western scholars who introduced archaeology, linguistics, philology, etc. into India and reconstructed her history. Most of the scholars I am dealing with are motivated by a desire to reclaim control over the historical reconstructions of ancient India, and reconsider the basic historical infrastructure established in the colonial period by using the same methods and disciplines that had created it in the first place. I don't see anything sinister about this motive. But there are lots of other ingredients too. Aryan vs Dravidian, colonial vs colonized, Genesis testimony vs Puranic narrative, secular Marxist vs Hindu (and Muslim vs Hindu to be sure). There is also an epistemological dimension-- shabda pramaa.na vs pratyak.sa pramaana. I believe we shold be sensitive to the fact that many Hindus do believe that the Vedas are divinely inspired. The Vedas make no mention of an external origin and many will put more faith in that as pramaa.na than in horse bones dug up in the Volga Valley by Russian archaeologists. Also, how do we categorize Western archaeologists, like Jim Shafer, who also dismiss claims of Aryan migrations /invasions by pointing out that there is no West to East innovation whatsoever in the South Asian arch. record any time in the pre- or proto-historic period? So the situation is much more complex than an easily identified and demonized Hindutva one. I'll make some comments on George and Laurie's specific points re. the 'evidence' as soon as I get the time to pull out some references, and will try to keep my postings much shorter in future. Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:40:56 -0700 From: ORR@vax2.concordia.ca I have been following with great interest the discussion and debate about "indigenous Aryans" and related issues, and I find that the points being raised are helping me (or forcing me) to come to terms with a number of things. I found Edwin Bryant's latest post useful in pointing out that "indigenous Aryan" theorizing may be motivated by a desire on the part of Indians to reclaim their history as much or more than it is fueled by the Hindutva agenda. This desire to deconstruct the colonial formulation of India's history is understandable, is in many ways commendable, and is shared by many Western scholars. If it were a question, instead of Indian historians, of women historians' call for a reconsideration of the standard androcentric history of women, we would not hesitate to applaud such an initiative. In either case, of course, we would like the resulting revised histories to be based on good scholarship, rather than wishful thinking. In both cases, it is easy to find examples of the latter (imagined histories), but it doesn't mean that the whole project is meaningless or misguided. I would echo Cynthia Talbot's words: "Rather than summarily dismissing the revisionist historiography [concerned with the medieval Hindu-Muslim encounter and the question of India's protohistory]...I urge professional historians to seize this opportunity to ressess the premises of the standard historiography." ("History, Ethnicity, and Identity: Who is Indian?" paper presented at Univ of Texas South Asia Seminar, March 28, 1996--maybe, Patrick, you could persuade her to put it up on the U of Texas Asian Studies website. I think only the abstract is there now.) So, we cannot condemn the desire to reclaim, recover, and reconstruct ones own history. But, in this case, such an impulse is virtually by definition a "nationalist" one. A number of people, in the course of this discussion, have condemned nationalism. I happen to be among those who have very little nationalist feeling, but I don't believe that positions me on any moral high ground--I think it's an accident of fate, a product of my circumstances. The child of Canadians, growing up in the U.S. in a culture where it was unfashionable to be patriotic, it is natural that I feel as I do. On the other hand, living in Quebec, I am surrounded by people with a very strong nationalist feeling. Although I do not share their nationalism (how can I? it is basically an ethnic nationalism), I certainly have to take it seriously. I can't say: oh, nationalism--that's outdated, you don't need that, it really doesn't get you far, you know. In the same way, I think we are out of place, as Western scholars, in asking our Indian colleagues to dispense with their nationalist sentiments. Again, one could draw a parallel with the situation of women. I, for one, would be enraged if someone were to suggest to me that, if my work was shaped by feminist feelings, that its foundations were shaky, and that, anyway, feminism is passe'. Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:12:51 -0700 From: chumes@BENSON.MCKENNA.EDU I am gratified someone (Lelie Orr) has brought into the discussion of the Aryan question the Western example of re-assessing history from a feminist perspective and the politics/self-reflection in the discipline that such ventures spawn, including issues of nationalism and identity. These sets of imbricated issues will be addressed in a panel I organized for the upcoming AAR, and which will be sponsored by both RISA and Women and Religion sections. Last February I recruited Laurie Patton to address methodological problems in interpreting the Veda-s, archaeological data, and theories of goddess worship as "indigenous" and "matriarchal," in opposition to a masculine theism of patriarchal "Aryan invaders." I think from the communications you have all read, that hers will be an interesting and exciting viewpoint, and I hope people will make an attempt to attend our session on Monday afternoon. (Ok, yes, this is a plug and promotion, but I am only presiding.) Leslie Orr will engage prevailing paradigms of race, culture and goddess worship in her focus on Jains and Hindus in early medieval Tamil Nadu, particularly categories such as popular/elite, local/cosmopolitan, dangerous/benign, Hindu/heterodox, urban/rural and Aryan/Dravidian. Bo Sax will be flying in from New Zealand to reflect on methodology and current fieldwork on goddesses and gender, focusing especially on the propriety and potentials of applying Western psychoanalytic models to Asian contexts, and the need for self-conscious, explicit analytical models to ward off imposing implicit, uninterrogated cultural assumptions onto non- Western phenomena. June McDaniel will illustrate the value of a more experiential method of research by drawing on her recent fieldwork in Bengal, which shows some of the limitations of standard scholarship which has tended to emphasize masculine-centered, textually based and high-caste experiences of Tantra and Shaktism, as well as Western constructions of Tantra which have tended to sensationalize. Rachel McDermott will share her wonderful work on Hindu goddesses and the West; anyone who has seen her work on Kali and the internet can attest to it as fascinating research. She will address issues of cross-cultural appropriation and translation. The last three panelists will directly engage a book many of you may now be familiar with, Jack Hawley's and Donna Wulff's _Devi: Goddesses of India. The commentator will be Rita Gross, and the editors will respond to her and any comments from the floor. We hope by this panel to engage not just the panelists but the audience in a sort of free-form methodological discussion, allowing RISA people to meet the Women and Religion persons interested in Asia and Hindu goddesses specifically, and hopefully come up with the types of insights we have seen on the Aryan question via this list. Given the great and impassioned interest this thread of discussion has occasioned (I admit a guilty pleasure in the passionate arguments and fiery shots across the ethereal RISA-L bow . . . sometimes I regret that scholarship can be so damn tame) and I hope our panel might be of parallel interest and draw a good audience with helpful -- and even fiery -- suggestions. See you in November. Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:35:27 -0700 From: rgupta@eckert.acadcomp.monroecc.edu I would like to clafify a few points to avoid being placed in a particular "anti-Hindutva" camp. I don't think that anyone who is arguing for keeping the political issues in the forefront is "summararily dismissing" the revisionist attempts. On the contrary, as a social scientist, this phenomena is too interesting and important to be dismissed. In raising issues of politics and nationalism, neither am I "demonizing" the proponents of such a theory. Also, I am not categorically opposed to nationalism, which comes in various shapes and sizes. I am rather more critical of so-called "multinationalism" in its current corporate context. But if the agenda of the Indian historical revisionists is to construct an "imaginary" history in reaction to the old colonialist agenda, that (for me) only further undermines their position unless they have pretty compelling evidence for doing so. Otherwise it is like tearing down an old house to build a new one on the sand. Even though I consider myself a "feminist" (passe or not, who cares?) I don't applaud anything and everything that is done in the name of feminist revisionism. Obviously within the community of those who study matters South Asian, some of us will be more interested in the contemporary political and social issues raised by this movement while others will want to deal with the issue itself--in all its minute details. Not having read the sources mentioned so far, I feel dependent upon the "experts" who do work in Vedic studies to present evidence for and against. I myself wouldn't hesitate to attend a conference on the subject--even if it were sponsored by Hindu groups, but neither could I forget for a minute who the sponsors were and how the outcome would (not surprisingly) be effected by that sponsorship. Just on what I have read (of these discussions) so far, I have not been swayed by any compelling argument FOR the revisionist position. Perhaps it can never be proven one way or the other, but that doesn't mean one should give up on studying the question, it just brings us back to the (to me) more compelling question of what the whole issues says about power relations today. I just wanted to address these issues so as not to have my position characterized as being one of having a "closed mind" about any of these issues. I am not afraid to hear anyone's views, no matter how extreme they are not because as a scholar I am not supposed to take sides, but because I am confident that in either case (pro or con) I will be able to resist the attempt to use academic arguments to justify repressive political agendas. Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:42:34 -0700 From: Laurie Patton Hi there everyone, and thanks, Cynthia and Leslie, for your plug of our panel and bringing up the all-important issue of representing gender and women in the ancient world. May I have official permission from this list to stick to the Indus-Sarasvati debate for now, a debate which is far from exhausted? Otherwise all the things I am going to say in my paper about feminism, goddess representations, and the politics of this debate concerning early India will be unnecessary, and no-one will need to come and talk about it at the AAR! :-) (My goodness we didn't know what we were starting... this is a kind of mini-AAR via e-mail already.) Edwin, two questions for you: 1) In your last message, why did you put "evidence" in quotes? Would you put "politics" in quotes too? 2) Have you yourself come to an assessment of the materials in terms of whether the I-A school has an adequate representation of the data at hand? I think we should be intensely attuned toward the political in our reading of this data, but for more reasons than the detection of Hindutva agendas. An example: The recent turn in I-E studies in this regard is a whole set of fasinating political issues about what constitutes "migration" and "invasion." The I-A school is not the only one struggling with the politicization of its discourse. (Relatedly, and to lend a specific example to Edwin's more general remarks, the anti-colonialist politics of the I-A school is in part an objection to the term "invasion" for its triumphalist overtones. And, in its extreme form, the I-A school is therefore able to trump any claims of prior indigenous status, because it never "invaded," and can therefore demonize subsequent "invaders" all the more vehemently.) HOWEVER: I do think *some* (not all) forms of the academic turn towards politics (the kinds of claims which ignore our dual responsibility toward evidence AND politics) is a form of Romantic epistemology. It is a rhetorical invocation of the "really real" which, despite its attempt to distance itself from theology, is EXACTLY analogous in form to many theological claims about ancient texts and archaeological data. (How's that for a flame-thrower...) More later, and gratefully to all of you for this wonderful thread of discussion. Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:20:31 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) Once again others [Roxanne and Laurie] have beaten me to the Reply button, and have said all the right things, and better than I could have. But I can't resist adding fuel to the fire: Leslie Orr's recent remarks are well taken, particularly her observation about the culturally driven reasons for the anti-nationalist feelings of some of us [like me]. But I think a few points need comment. First, as Roxanne has suggested, there are many sorts of nationalism. There may be a sort of benign nationalism which is concerned to reclaim history, regain a voice, etc. Fine. No objections from me. But there is clearly also a kind of nationalism that results in things like ethnic cleansing, and, in India, violent animosities between Hindus and Muslims. My own impulses toward cultural relativism just don't go so far as to accept this kind of nationalism. Also, Leslie implies that, as Americans and Canadians, we are relatively free of these nationalist impulses. Maybe. But there is of course a kind of unpleasant nationalism in at least the USA [which, by the way, I have already condemned as much as any other: think not only of the Aryan Nation but also of Pat Bucchanan's recent campaign; I noticed this, because I live in Pat Bucchanan country: it is a virulent, angry nationalism that easily could lead to bad things in this country, a crude and dangerous "blame the U.N.", and everybody else, rant]. As for scholarship: as far as I am concerned, one can rightly reclaim one's history [as a Hindu, as a woman, as a Quebecois, etc.]. But can't I argue with such historians about what I think are the facts, without being accused of being elitist or reactionary? Can't I call a quack a quack, if that is what I see? I'm prepared to listen to any sort of view about anything. But I'm not prepared to give up my judgement. Look. There was a book review not long ago in "Hinduism Today" [July 1996] of the book recently cited by Guy Beck. "A lot of fine scholars of Indian history are going to detest this book," it begins. "The reason can be traced to their urge not just to report history, but to speculate 'why' events happened as they did." The review goes on to trash "the steely dedication and true scholarly acumen" of "generations of PhD's" who have concocted this absurd theory ["now discredited"] of an Aryan invasion. But all of this is now gratefully corrected by Feuerstein, Kak, and Frawley, "three determined researchers of Indian history." The review closes with this warning: "This book is not suitable reading for the closed-minded." So, *I* am close-minded because I *know* that Feuerstein and Frawley are quacks, flakes, frauds [I'll give Kak the benefit of the doubt, since I have not read him]?!? I am no elitist, pedantic, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, Ivy League professor [talk about stereotypes!] claiming ownership of, say, the Rgveda. But I have given an inordinate amount of time to studying that text, and I think that I can truthfully say that my opinions about it are *not* motivated by personal or nationalist gain. I've gained *nothing* from studying the RV. And yet I can confidently say that I * know* that the RV is not anything like what Feuerstein and Frawley say it is. That represents *my* testimony against *theirs*. Take *my* word for it, or take *theirs*, or, better yet, read the thing for yourselves. So, Leslie, I reject the suggestion that I cannot criticize Hindu nationalism and still be politically correct [which in fact I desire to be]. Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:18:42 -0700 From: Edwin Bryant The political ramifications of the Aryan debate have had some airing on this list, and there have been requests for more on the evidence so here goes...(those not interested in this aspect might want to hit the 'next message' button). Before I start, in response to Laurie: I put 'evidence' in quotes in my last message to emphasize that we are recreating scenario's of 4, 5 or 6 millenium ago both on the basis of mute archaeological artifacts open to a myriad of interpretations that, for the most part, cannot be indisputably connected with a language family. We are also dependent on linguistic features in cognate languages (separated by several millenium from the hypothesized proto-forms) which, in turn, cannot be uncontroversially correlated with an archaeological culture. These problems are well known, and I do not mean to suggest the endeavor is useless, merely that we should not be too dedicated to promoting one particular version of things. Regarding your second question, yes, I do think the Indig. Aryan school has a case that merits consideration, particularly regarding the archaeological and textual evidence. That's why I believe its worthwhile compiling and articulating the most salient arguments that have been made in this regard--they're quite intriguing. The appeal lessons when people try to claim India as the homeland for all the IE's except, as I said before, when this is done as an intellectual exercise to show how the same facts can be used to support different conclusions. Obviously, if the Aryans were indig. to India their relationship with the other IE lang's has to be accounted for. I don't think the Indig. Aryan school has an adequate representation of the data involved in historical linguistics (which is how this whole thing was put together in the first place). There are only two facilities in India today where one can even study hist. ling. But scholars are beginning to be aware of and turn their attention to this lacuna. Anyway, more on the Ling. aspects later. Some comments regarding Georges concerns, namely the horse, the Indus Valley /Vedic connection: In the Indus Valley, the horse (equus caballus Linn) was first reported in 1931 in Mohenjo-daro (Sewell and Guha). Mackay reported a clay model in the same site in 1938. Bhola Nath reported horse bones in 1963 from Harappa, Ropar and Lothal. Piggott reported a horse figurine from Periano Ghundai. Other reports include the Swat Valley (Stacul), Gumla (Sankalia), Pirac (Shaffer) Malvan (Sharma, A.K.) Kalibhangan (ibid), Kuntasi (Sharma, R.S.), Rangpur (Rao R.S.), Lothal (ibid), Rana Ghundai (Ross), Surkotada (Sharma, A.K) The exact species of horse is the crucial issue here--equus caballus Linn is the Aryan steed. A horse tooth had been found in Rana Ghundai by the excavator E.J.Ross from a pre-Harappan level but had been questioned by Zeuner, who claimed it could have been a lowly hamione (equus hamonius khur). The two animals can only be distinguished through certain teeth and phalanges, so if other parts of the animal were found, detractors of the Indig. Aryans could always reject their reliability. The whole issue became so politicized that it took a Hungarian horse bone specialist, Sandor Bokonyi, to confirm that bones he examined from Surkotada were, indeed, caballus Linn. I don't think there is much debate any more that the horse was a feature of the Indus Valley (so horse trainers could have gone to the Mittani). However, there has only been one reporting (that I'm aware of) from pre-Harappan sites. This leaves open the possiblity that the horse could have been introduced into the Mature Indus Civ. by incoming Aryans. More interesting are the reports of horse findings near Allahabad dated from 2265-1480 BCE and from a Neolithic site in Karnataka--both well before the Aryans are supposed to have come in introducing the animal and much too far East and South. I'll have to check the status of these reports with Jim Shaffer next time I meet him, along with another report of a finding in Rajasthan that was dated 4500 BCE. Just as we struggle to comprehend the world view that composed the Vedic hymns, the ancient Indo-Aryans, in turn, might have found it very peculiar that their place in the history of the subcontinent from the perspective of our modern age depends, to such a great extent, on the discovery of a few equine phalanges or molars dug up from burial grounds and refuse dumps. Be that as it may, the horse is now the most sought after animal in the Indus Valley. I have all the above ref's (mostly primary, some secondary) at my fingertips but can't imagine everyone will want a whole list. I recommend Sharma, G.K's article "the horse was buried under the dunes of..." in Puratattva no 23, 1922-3 pp 30-34 for a poignant article with a few ref's. Perhaps a more significant feature of the Indus Valley (IV) heralded by the Indig. Aryan school as proof of a Vedic presence is the discovery of the Sarasvati (hence the title of the conference in Atlanta--'Indus Sarasvati Age'--remember?) Some scholars recommend changing the name of the Indus Valley civ to the Sarasvati, or Indus-Sarasvati civ. This is because the Indus river has only about three dozen sites on it, but a huge dry river bed, called the Hakra in Pakistan and the Ghaggar in India has been discovered which has over 400 sites simply along a 300 mile stretch of it. The Sarasvati is considered to be the principal river in the Rig with 50 references in 46 hymns dedicated to her. She flows from the mountains to the sea. Her prestige is such that many kings and the five Aryan tribes dwell on her banks. However, unlike the other rivers mentioned in the Rig such as the Indus etc. she is no more, hence Hindus call her the 'supta nadi' (sleeping river) or state that she flows underground or mystically to Prayag. THe dry Hakra/Ghaggar river bed is situated where the Sarasvati is described as being situated in the Rig. viz between the Sutlej and the Yamuna. Landsat imagery reveals that the Sutlej and Yamuna once flowed into the GHaggar/Hakra as revealed by paleochannels, but were deviated due to tectonic disturbances causing her to loose her water supply. See Pal, Yash et al, "Remote Sensing of the 'Lost' Sarasvati" in Frontiers of the Indus Civ. B.B.LAL and S.P.Gupta eds., New Delhi: Books and Books, 1984. Other ref's available on request. Assuming this river is the Sarasvati (as the Indig. Aryan school, and most Indian archaeologists do) the crucial issue is when was she the mighty river of the Vedic hymns flowing from the mountains to the sea? Mughal proposes that on the Pak side, the Hakra was a perennial river in the 4th and early 3rd mill BCE and that the whole river had dried up about the end of the second (Possehl G.ed's Harappan Civ, N. Delhi: Oxford & IBH, pp85-94) Other dates range from 2500-2200 BCE and 2200-1700 BCE. A French team (who have scant regard for mythico-poetic references to Sarasvati in what they consider to be much later Vedic texts) insist that it had been dry well before any proto-historic people had settled in the Indus area. (I have to chase down some of the other publications by this team) Again, granting all this, it can still be argued that the Aryans came into the Indus Civ. sometime in the 3rd or 2nd mill. BCE and settled on the banks of the river (unless the Indo-French dates are authoritative, in which case the Indig. Aryan school could claim the Vedic ref's to Sarasvati predate the whole Indus Civ. making the Veda much earlier than the Indus Civ). Anyway, taking the lowest of all these dates, this evidence suggests that the Vedic Aryans knew the Sarasvati well before the end of the second mill BCE when she was already completely dry, and therefore they must have been in the Indus Valley. The large number of sites on the river bed, which go back to early and mature Harappan periods, are suggestive of the inhabitations of the five Aryan tribes who are said to live upon Sarasvati's banks. Another I-A feature found in the Indus Civ. is the fire altars. These have been found in Kalibhangan and Lothal causing even Aryan Invasion supporters such as Allchin to allow that the Indo-Aryans must have at least coexisted in the Indus Valley civ. Some of these altars are domestic, some public, on a raised platform and arrayed in a row of seven facing East (suggesting the 7 dhish.nya hearths where the sacrificer had to face East). Nearby were a well and the remains of bath pavements suggesting ceremonial bathing. These altars were found both in the early and later stages of occupation of the towns from at least 2200 BCE (Lal, B.B "Some Reflections on the Structural Remains at Kalibangan" in Frontiers of the Indus Civ. Lal, B.B. & Gupta S.P New Delhi: Books and Books, 1984. ALso, THappar, B.K. "Kalibangan: A Harappan Metropolis beyond the Indus Valley" in Expedition,17.2 (1975) 19-33). So the big dichotomy between the Vedic and Indus world needs to be reconsidered--although it can always be argued that the Aryans still came into the subcontinent albeit much earlier than has been held so far, and coexisted with the Indus Valley people. In this regard, some final arch ref's I recommend are the articles by Jim Shaffer and Mark Kenoyer. They argue for a continual organic archaeological development reflecting indigenous cultural development from pre- to proto-historic periods with absolutely nothing that can be considered intrusive from the North West (or anywhere else) in the archaeological record. Of course, lots of Indian archaeologists have been saying the same thing for years, but since the charge of Hindutva or anti-colonial bias can be levied against them, try Shaffer's article in George Erdosy's ed. called "Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity:The Indo- Aryans in Ancient South Asia" Berlin: W. deGruyter, 1995 also, his article in "The People of South Asia" Lukacs, John ed N.Y & London:Plenum Press, 1984.. These articles are easily obtainable, but any of his articles will do. We should bear in mind, that there must have been a significant enough number of Aryans speakers intruding to have completely obliterated all traces of a pre-Aryan language across most of the subcontinent (with the exception of Brahui etc. which could as easily have migrated North from the South as other Dravidian tribes have done in the historic period) and one would have a right to expect such an intrusion to show up somewhere in the archaeological record. By the way, Laurie, I'm curious where you got your ref's from stating the PGW has been found in the Caspian, because my ref's say it has not been found outside the subcontinent which specifically disqualifies it from being correlated with the Aryans. Anyway, B.B.Lal who was promoting PGW as proof of the Aryan intrusion, seems now to have become an Indig. Aryanist. Regarding the racial references--as was pointed out, Indra and other rishis whose Aryan pedigree can hardly be doubted are also called black, and sometimes the term seems to be used to refer to powers of darkness. A favourite example often used by the Indig. Aryan school to demonstrate how 19th cent. European scholars gave racial glosses to words due to predetermined convictions is the word anasa applied to the dasas. 19th cent philologers decided it was a-nasa, 'noseless'. If the dasas were noseless then they must have been black aborigines. Sayana, glosses the word as an-asa 'faceless' or 'mouthless', which could be taken to mean devoid of fair speech, uncouth. So, like so much of all this, the same evidence can be reconstrued and interpreted very differently. Indig. Aryanists argue that Arya and Dasya are cultural terms with no racial connotations whatsoever. I had promised to keep my postings short but we're dealing with a massive amount of material here. There are all kinds of disparate data--the possibility of the Vedic texts recording astronomical information pertaining to the solstices which, due to the precession of the equinoxes, can be dated to the 3rd or 4th mill BCE is another piece of evidence that keeps resurfacing in Indig. Aryan discourses. Thibaut and Whitney attempted to refute this line of reasoning, but their rebutals have not been accepted by many Indig. Aryanists and the debate merits reexamination. Pingree does not allow the early Indo-Aryans; basic astronomical skills because the texts do not specifically outline such skills. In my analysis of the debate I suggest that the references themselves could be taken as evidence of such skills and that it remains possible that the statements in the Satapatha and elsewhere do refer to the solstices and equinoxes at a time far anterior to the date commonly allowed for these texts. Of course, even if this were accepted, it could still be argued that the Indo-Aryans brought these ancient memories with them from outside India and recorded them in their texts. Subash Kak recently drew my attention to two articles by the historian of science Seidenberg who insisted that the geometry of the sulba shastras must have been the origin of the Babylonian system and accordingly would date it no later than 1700 BCE. This would make the Veda much older still (as would the astro. info in the braahma.nas, if valid (see Seidenberg's 2 articles in 'Archive for Exact Science, vol 1.1, 1960 pp 488-527; and vol 18 1978, pp 301-342 entitled 'the Ritual Origin of Geometry' and 'the Origin of Mathematics' respectively). Incidently, this whole debate is not simply about the indigenousness of the Aryans, but also about issues of antiquity, specifically revolving around the date of the Veda. There's lots more, but I'm spending more time on email than on my dissertation and its late already. We'll have to talk about linguistics another time, George. Misra's point about the MIA features of the Mittani, which is dated circa 1400 BCE is that the Veda must be much older still. There are other linguistic features he points out [semi-vowels not assimilated in conjunction with plosives (vartana>wartana); nasals also not assimilated to plosives (.rtamna>artamna); .r>ar (v.rdh>bard); Norman pointed out pt>tt, labialisation of a>u after v (ashvasani>assussanni); assimilation of sh>ss after labialisation of a>u (as in above). Even if all these features can be interpreted as quirks of the script or whatever, they can also be seen as MIA features and that's the whole point: the Indig. Aryan school has a case. I'm trying to articulate the more convincing elements of it. How we evaluate it will be an individual thing. All I'm saying is that there are plenty of reasonable arguments being offered by the Indig. Aryan school which are based on critical methods of scholarship and I think they should be treated in kind. Let them be given a fair hearing and critiqued and good luck to them. Hope some of this is of some use to some of you, and do let me know when you all get tired of this topic. Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 06:31:16 -0700 From: "Laurie L. Patton" Edwin deserves 1000 CRORES of cows for that message, a hearty round of applause and appreciation from this list for being so generous with his research before it is published. Edwin: I worry that this productive conversation of this list has become in fact an obstruction to getting your work done. List, perhaps we could, after another round of applause, cut him (and ourselves) a little bit of a break? I for one am meeting deadlines I should have met months ago and need to be a little more circumspect in my devotion to the fascinating vicissitudes of this topic. So I will respond to the PGW issue in a week or two, if no-one minds my temporary hiatus. With hopes for clemency, especially for Edwin, Laurie Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 09:08:19 -0700 From: Edwin F Bryant ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 12 Oct 96 13:28:14 CDT From: Subhash Kak Edwin, I think it is very important to be clear about the fact that the Atlanta meeting was not meant to promote any specific agenda. The reason why we came together to organize it was because we felt that south asian studies departments have become so specialized that they are missing out on the major advances that have occurred in archaeology and history of science and archaeoastronomy. This was the motivation for the establishment of the World Vedic Association. It will be open to all and all scholarly viewpoints will be welcome. Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 10:57:40 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) Thanks again to Edwin for generously taking the time to forward all of this material. I have a few more questions and responses, but I don't expect an answer until it is convenient for him [or others] to provide them. It is clear that I have to go and do some more horse-homework [I confess that I have not read, e.g., Anthony: not cited by Edwin?!]. My general impression [admittedly formed from older summaries of the archaeological evidence, and/or summaries representative *perhaps* of only one perspective, like Piggott, Allchin, Fairservis, Mallory, Erdosy, Gimbutas, et al] is that the horse is a latecomer, unattested in IVC representations [figurines and seals] and that burials and remains are also rare and late. Edwin, does your evidence [as you yourself say: only "a few equine phalanges or molars dug up from burial grounds and refuse dumps"].*clearly and directly negate* this view, which I have derived from such authorities? I'll yield to your authority on this [at least, until I can check it out myself, of course!], *if* you can *explicitly* assert that this model is wrong. It seems to me that you haven't yet done so. The fact that so much effort has been and continues to be invested in the pursuit of horse-evidence implies to me that the horse was *not* as central a figure in IVC as it certainly was in Vedic [if it were, there'd be more evidence of it]. What are the dates of these findings ["4500 BCE" - really!?!]? How much earlier than Vedic are they [of course, this presupposes the question: where do you date the Rgveda?]? Also [and I don't think that this is as silly as it may sound], I believe that the Vedic Aryans might well have found it pleasing indeed to have "their place in history" depend, as it seems from all our attention, on the horse. The horse was *that* important to them! Think of the canonical list of sacrificial victims in Vedic [pancapa'su]. I rate it as *highly* important that the horse is right up there at the top of the chart next to the most charged pa'su of them all, the human one. Up there above the all-important, economically far more significant, cow. The a'svamedha shows, among other things, that the horse, above all other ritual substitutes, was the most fitting representative of the ambitious king who might sponsor such an expensive and risky ritual. A simple but important question: is there anything in the evidence for IVC that suggests an equivalent role for the horse in that culture? I've been lead to believe by my authorities that there isn't. Correct me if I am wrong. I still have not seen any evidence to the contrary. For me the problem of the bricks represents a much larger problem than just bricks: there seems to be a chasm [I stll believe this] between the material culture of IVC and Vedic culture. I don't want to go into this in any detail because there is already a great deal of other details to deal with. But this issue needs to be addressed at some point. The standard characterizations of the material culture of IVC and of Vedic culture differ drastically, as far as I can tell. Monumental urban culture on the one hand and nomadic or transhumant culture on the other. A bit of overlapping of or contact between such cultures seems possible to me, but not so a *complete* identification. How can IVC be urban and brick-based on the one hand and, if it is IE and Vedic, wattles- and wagon-based on the other? As for fire-altars, I assume simply that the Vedic ones were borrowed by Indo-Aryans from Dravidians [or from some substratum]. I date the agnicayana, with its huge altar, to abt. 1000 BCE [following Staal]. The vedi on the other hand, much older than the mahaavedi of the agnicayana, was a shallow pit. Thus no altar in our sense, it probably meant "seat" for visiting gods to sit in. I have not researched the dates of the drying up of the Sarasvati River, so I will yield to Edwin on these dates. However, I was under the impression that the wandering Aryans named *many* rivers "sarasvatii" [as did the Iranian Aryans: cf. Harahvaiti, Arachosia, etc.]. Thus there was more than one Sarasvati, and they kept on moving East. Finally, the linguistic evidence offered by Edwin [Misra and Norman, et al.] is perhaps their weakest. So-called "MIA features" in Mitanni could have arisen there without any influence whatsoever from the Indic linguistic area. It is incorrect to call these "MIA features" [it shows, in fact, that you are already assuming the point that you are trying to make]. Look, it is very tempting to attribute retrofexion in Skt. to a Dravidian substratum, but Hock has shown that retroflexion is a phonological process attested all over the planet, so it is not necessarily the case that Dravidian is the substratum that induced Skt to absorb retroflexion [though I still think it may well be]. French has many so-called "MIA features," but I wouldn't suppose that Indg. Aryan theorists would suggest IA influence on that language, would they? The phonological features that are being described here are *very* widespread and not at all uncommon. They are "MIA features" only when they occur in MIA. And in fact, if I recall correctly my studies of Iranian with Martin Schwartz [though I acknowledge that my recollection is shaky here] much of the data cited looks to me simply like transcription variants. Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 11:41:50 -0700 From: Edwin F Bryant My apologies for taking some time to respond to George Thompsons concerns, but I have been extremely busy. This is a scaled down version of an email I wrote last night which was wiped out when my net connection blanked out. 1) The horse: As mentioned in my last posting, the horse has been found in the Indus Valley. However, so far, there has not been a significant number of findings, and these do not date to the early or pre-Harappan strata (except for one 4500 BCE report). So George makes the perfectly valid point that this paucity corresponds poorly to the central place the horse has in the Rig. I will find out whether the number of findings increases dramatically in the 1500-1200 BCE period which should be the case according to this logic, because this is the period when the Aryans are generally supposed to have been in India. If, however, we find that the findings do not increase dramatically in this period, and that only a few horse bones are available in this later period as well, then we will have to conclude that the archaeological record is deficient in this regard, and that horse bones are not an accurate indicator of Aryan presence. I will let you know after the Madison conference next weekend (Aryan and non-Aryan in S. Asia). Anyway, there is no evidence of a West to East trail of horse bones into the subcontinent in the period assigned to Aryan intrusions nor ANY INNOVATIONS IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD WHATSOEVER THAT CAN BE CORRELATED WITH AN ARYAN IMMIGRATION. If the Indig. Aryan school is to be held accountable for the paucity of horse bones, their detractors must, likewise be held accountable for the complete absence of any arch. indicator whatsoever of the Aryan presence. 2) Horse and Indus seals: Regarding the fact that there are no representations of the horse on the seals (and that therefore the horse was not a prominent feature of the Indus), there are no representations of the cow either (although the bull is ubiquitous). Are we to suppose that the Indus had bulls but no cows? Moreover, plenty of ass and camel bones have been found in the Indus, but these animals do not appear on the seals. So we will have to consider that there may be cultural reasons for this lacuna. 3) The Sarasvati: If horse bones are the achilles heel of the Indig. School (and I haven't conceeded this until I do the above mentioned research), the Sarasvati is a main support. This was completely dry when the Aryans are supposed to have entered. But the Rig knows the Sarasvati as a full flowing river running from the mountains to the sea. The five Aryan tribes that are said to live on her banks, then, must have been doing so during the Indus Valley period proper. The Harasvati referred to in the Avesta is not the same Sarasvati as that of the Rig, because it does not flow from the mountains to the sea. 4) The yajna pits. Is there any evidence that the Aryans borrowed this from the Dravidians? These seem to be a clearly Indo-Iranian feature, so the yajna pits in the Indus are another clear marker of Aryan presence in the Indus (accepted by many anti-Indig. Aryanists, by the way). 5) The Urban Indus vs. the Rural Veda: George makes a further often-encountered observation that the Indus is dramatically urban, while the Veda seems to describe a rural nomadic landscape. Even allowing the latter part of this observation, there are some problems with this argument. Recent archaeological explorations have disallowed the idea that there was a dark age (non-urban period) following the decline of the Indus and before the historical period. Although there is a shift in settlements in the Indus Valley proper in the late and post Harappan periods, there is a significant increase in the no. of settlements in Gujarat, and an 'explosion' (300% increase) of new settlements in East Punjab--right when and where the Aryans are supposed to have entered the subcontinent. Nor where these small settlements. Data from Bahawalpur the region of Pakistan best surveyed, suggests an increase in size in late Harappan sites over Harappan proper. So there were large, and numerous, urban settlements in the area where the Aryans are supposed to have entered, and at about the same time--why is the Rig silent about these? The geography of the Rig is clearly that of the Sapta Sindhu. If the Aryans could have been silent about these later urban settlements despite supposedly being present during this later period, they could easily have been present during the Harappan settlements proper and remained silent about urbanity for the same reasons (whatever they might be). Absence of urban references, then, is not a clear indicator of whether the Vedic composers were aware of such centres or not. (see Shafer, ref. in my last posting, and Kenoyer, ref. available on request, for info on this). 6) Besides, is the Rig so nomadic? What do we do about ref's to thousand pillared houses, thousand doored houses, pillars of copper covered with gold, purs made of stone (asanmaya), and of plaster? (dehya) which are prthvi, bahula and urvi. What about ships with a hundred oars and the numerous references to boats and maritime trade? What about the oceanic imagery in cosmology and other cosmic references? Is this compatible with a nomadic tribesmen who had never seen the ocean? I will defer to George on this, for the time being, but would be curious as to his (or anyone's) opinion on a book recently published called 'The Vedic Harappans' by Bhagavan Singh, New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1995. It seems that if we look for nomadic Aryans in the Rig, we will come away with a nomadic reading of the text. Singh, at least, has not shared those assumptions. Extracting all the words from the Rig dealing with material culture (which result in sizeable lists) his reading is of a culture fully aware of urbanity and pastoralism simultaneously--just like India today. I haven't had time to check all his references yet, so I cannot give an informed opinion as to his accuracy. One thing, on a side note, that I have found in dealing with the kinds of sources I have to deal with, is that even if someone makes absurd or highly uncritical comments in one place, not to discard the whole work completely, because he/she might produce some very valuable insights in another place. Frawley , who was the subject of some debate on this list, also questions the purely rural depiction of the Indo-Aryans in an appendix to his book (Gods, Sages and Kings, Salt lake city: Passage Press, 1991). Finally, Misra's points may not prove the MIA nature of the Mittani language, but can he be disproved? Also, can an alternative, and consistent, explanation be given for each item he lists as MIA? Anyway, that is not my point-- all I'm saying is that a case can be made. Evidence that the Indig. Aryans use one way, are used by their opponents in another. I do feel the Indig. Aryan school has a place in the debate over Aryan origins. I would feel fulfilled, in undertaking this project, if I could at least demonstrate that there is an internal logic, and a consistency and a lot of valid arguments being made which, while they may not persuade everybody, are intriguing and merit consideration. Over to you George...I would like to say that I have always enjoyed our exchanges (even on the Indo-European net) and will continue to try to present the opposing point of view to your valuable and to-the-point criticisms (except that it may take me time to get back to you). I hope this is of general interest to others on the net, otherwise George and I (and anyone else interested), can continue this discussion privately. Edwin Bryant. P.S. The word for bricks in the Taittiriiya, i.s.takaa, has a cognate in Iranian so, unless we are to propose that the word is a later loan, the word for brick can be argued to go back to the Indo-Iranian period. So the Indo-Aryans would have had a word for bricks, even if it didn't surface in the Rig. Edwin Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 22:04:55 -0700 From: "F. Smith" With some trepidation, I will finally plummet into this debate; but my contribution will be short and sweet: sweet because short. I discussed the germaine questions this past weekend at length at the Madison S. Asia conf. with Asko Parpola and Mark Kenoyer. For one thing, Kenoyer was very strong in asserting that there have been absolutely no horse bones in the Indus area before the early 2nd millennium b.c.e. What have been found are ass bones. Any rumors to the contrary are completely unfounded, if not deliberate fudging of data. Parpola attended a conference on the horse last year in Uzbekistan, organized by Anthony. The conclusions were that, though there is evidence that the Aryans entered the South Asia region by the 21st cent. b.c.e., there is evidence for the horse only up to Bactria. However, something new is evidence for chariots up to the Urals by 2000 b.c.e. This could very well eventually have implications for the S. Asia region, but Parpola declined to speculate on what they might be. Parpola presented the keynote address for the conference, a summary of his work on the Indus script. As I'm sure most of you know, he speculates on some form of Dravidian. He has worked on this intensively for 35 years, and his conclusions are very attractive. On fire altars (and now we are back to me), see B. K. Thapar's article on Kalibangan in Expedition, the J. of the University Museum of the U. of Penn. I have the article here someplace, but it was in the late '70's I believe. I was unable to recognize the fire altars that he depicted. I tried without success to obtain further photos from him, and to my knowledge he has not published any more on the subject. What he did publish did not resemble (at least not very easily) any Vedic fire altars that could be recognized from the 'Srautasuutras. Nevertheless, it is possible, if not likely, that he is correct. Re: the Skt. word for brick, i.s.takaa, it is not so simple merely to assert that there is an Iranian cognate. The linguistic situation of that region was decidedly complex, with the strong possibility of a link between Elamite and Proto-Dravidian. Thus the mere appearance of a similar lexeme in Iran does not prove that it is of IA (or Skt) origin. . . . Oops, I was gonna be brief... Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 07:54:31 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) I am confident that my responses to Edwin's informative postings will be superceded by what will be said at the Michigan conference this weekend. Let's hope that someone in attendance [not necessarily Edwin, whose plate is already quite full] will summarize the proceedings for those of us who are unable to attend. I would hope in the meantime that this posting will be of some interest to the list in general. Hereafter, I'll carry on my conversation with Edwin off the list. I will try to be brief [but it's not easy! I haven't yet mastered the art of the sound-bite]. First of all, Edwin's point that the onset of a supposed IA migration should be accompanied by an increase in archaeological horse-evidence is a a good one. I would point out, however, that *negative* evidence in this regard may not be as damaging to the IA migration thesis as Edwin thinks it would be. It might actually do more damage to the presumed relevance of the archaeological record. The IA migration thesis has been established on linguistic and philological foundations. If the archaeological record fails to discredit these foundations with *positive* evidence [e.g. by providing early horse-bones, etc.], the thesis is not weakened. If it leaves us with little evidence either way, the thesis remains unweakened. It may well be that the archaeological record alone simply cannot provide evidence one way or the other. Frankly, I have my doubts about the usefulness of the archaeological record in general when it comes to things Vedic [cf. previous references to Rau and Elizarenkova]. As for Edwin's appeal for equal accountability re "the complete absence of any arch. indicator whatsoever of the Aryan presence": fair enough, but proponents of the Indg. Aryan theory need *positive* support from the archaeological record, and, as far as I can tell, they just aren't getting any. The absence of relevant horse-evidence simply confirms this point. We must rely on what we actually know, *not* on conjectures about the reasons for the absence of positive evidence. Thus, Edwin's argument [that the absence of horse representations in IVC seals is not cogent, because of the similar absence of cow-representations, as opposed to those prominent bull-representations] *actually* works against Edwin's own position. It is the burden of Indg. Aryan theorists to explain the *absence* of cow-and-horse representations in IVC. From my point of view their absence means simply that both the horse and the cow were clearly not as significant to IVC as they manifestly were to Vedic culture. I think that Edwin and the Indg. Aryan theorists have to concede their unenviable position: they are trying to rationalize the *absence* of evidence, because they have no *positive* evidence. The seals, at least, seem to show unambiguously that bulls were significant in IVC, but horses and cows weren't. The seals do not convey a very Vedic picture, at least to these eyes. I'll send the rest of my response directly to Edwin. Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:19:37 -0700 From: nancy.falk@wmich.edu Dear George, There are a number of reasonably silent voyeurs out here following with great interest your conversation with Edwin. Please don't go private with it too quickly--at least not as long as you are coming up with new points. I, for one, am very greatful to you, to Edwin, to Laurie, and to everyone else who has entered this coversation for greatly enhancing my understanding of this vexing and loaded issue. Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:40:11 -0700 From: phijag@zelacom.com (john grimes) George, I, too, second Nancy's plea. Words fail to express my gratitude (to everyone) for how much I have learned during this on-going conversation. Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:18:03 -0700 From: Edwin F Bryant From what I've understood, certain teeth and phalanges (toe bones) clinch the identification. If this is correct, it would suggest that there might be a significant number of bones that could belong to either, in which case, it would be as much fudging the evidence to call them ass bones, as to call them horse bones (one would only have the right to say they could be either). I would welcome a more informed opinion on this. I mentioned previously that, due to the politicization of this whole issue (which gets very, very, emotional in India) a HUngarian horse bone specialist was called in to examine the specimens in Surkotada. He confirmed that they were equus caballus Linn. I would have to add, now, that a prominent archaeologist (who asked to remain unnamed on the list) informed me yesterday that this identification has been rejected by Meadows. I'll have to hunt down the article. Of course, one would have to allow the HUngarian specialist, Sandor Bokonyi, to defend his identification, but I had not been aware of any controversy on these particular findings, at least, which there now evidently is. On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, B. Reusch wrote: > After reading the recent postings on this and related issues, a couple of > questions: > 1. Is is easy or difficult to distinguish the bones of horses, asses, and > wild horses as archaeological remains? > 2. Is the conclusion about ass bones in the Indus Valley totally clear and > unambiguous, or are there any uncertainties or educated guesses involved? > May I ask you to spare some of your valuable time and comment on the above? Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:15:24 -0700 From: Edwin F Bryant George, It's not clear to me why the burden of proof for the lack of the horse and cow (and camel and ass) on seals in the Indus, lies primarily on the Indig. Aryan school, and the lack of the same in the arch record on the overland trail into India is not such a pressing burden for their opponents. Remember, HIndus have been under the impression that their culture is indigenous for many centuries, it was colonial scholars who introduced the theory of Aryan invasions and unsettled the traditional historical narrative of Sanskritic culture. So would it not be this 'new theory' that would have to bear the burden of proof? Anyway, lets not get bogged down with this. Regarding 'positive evidence', you forget the Sarasvatii. If I may wear my own hat, for a moment (as opposed to playing devils advocate, or arguing out of concern that reasonable arguments be given a reasonable hearing), The 'discovery' of the Sarasvatii was the thing that made me first wonder whether the Aryans might not have had a presence in the Indus Valley (even if the whole civilization was not dramatically Vedic--it could have been multi-cultural and multi-lingual). The clinching factor, for me, will be when it is empirically established at what date the dry Hakra/Ghaggar (Sarasvatii) river bed was a full flowing river. If this was Late Harappan, then the Aryans could have come in at the terminal phase of the civilization. If it was much earlier, then I, at least, will find it hard to avoid the conclusion that the Aryans must have been present in the IVC to some degree. This is empirical data which should be available to us sooner or later. If we are to stay on the net with this (and I would feel happier about this if more people expressed interest and, better still, contributed [thank you Laurie and Fred Smith]), lets keep our exchanges to just one or two points at a time, so that it doesn't become a burden to read, what to speak of actually comment on these issues. Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 05:42:24 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) Many thanks to Nancy and to John [especially!] for your expressions of interest and encouragement. But I do think that my remarks will be [and should be] superceded by the Michigan conference, as well as by people like Parpola and Kenoyer, whom Fred has wisely brought into the discussion, along with his own helpful observations. They are more informed than I am about IVC, the archaeological record, Aryan-and-Non-Aryan issues -- so much of what we have been discussing. Me? I've just been reacting. I'm ready to listen to anyone "ya eva.m veda." As for Edwin's last posting: "It's not clear to me why the burden of proof for the lack of the horse and cow (and camel and ass) on seals in the Indus, lies primarily on the Indig. Aryan school..." I do not mean that the burden is theirs in general [that *would* be imperialist!]. I mean that it is theirs in this particular case. Evidence for the IA migration thesis has already been offered. It is philological [textual studies of Vedic] and linguistic [comparative method and internal reconstruction]. From the former we get a rather detailed picture of Vedic culture. From the latter we get indisputable evidence of Skt.'s genetic relationship with IE. The indg. Aryan thesis on the other hand relies on the archaeological record, which appears not to be very solid, at least when it comes to horses and cows, etc. As for the conjectural nature of all this: the migration model has been generated by principles that really work. Admittedly, the model is hypothetical. It exists in that land alluded to by Laurie, to the east of the asterisk. But think of Saussure in 1879 applying these principles and concluding that there *had* to be a "coefficient sonantique", attested in no known language, but necessary nevertheless in order to explain IE ablaut. Of course, a generation later Hittite was discovered, and -- guess what -- laryngeals were *right there* where Saussure thought that the coefficient sonantique should have been. In his skillful hands the principles worked. In the same way, there is a reality to which the migration model points, even if it turns out to be imperfectly modelled at this stage. This is legitimate scholarship, not the fantasy of colonialist scholars. [Edwin, the promised, longish, posting to you is on the way] Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:39:05 -0700 From: thompson@jlc.net (George Thompson) >Dear George: >Could you post the reference to Saussure cited earlier. I, for one, would be >interested in taking a look at it. Thank you >Frank J. Korom =46or Frank and others interested in the Saussure reference: It was his dissertation, written when he was a ripe old 21 years! "M=E9moire sur le syst=E8me primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-europ=E9enes" [Paris:Vieweg, 1887; reprinted 1879] It has been excerpted [very briefly] and translated into English by Winfred P. Lehmann in his "A Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics" [Indiana Univ. Press, 1967]. A lucid and accessible discussion of it [with a refreshingly biographical touch] can be found in Emile Benveniste: "Problems in General Linguistics" [eng transl. publ. by Univ. of Miami Press, 1971]. Chapter Three: "Saussure after Half a Century". It might also be interesting for Indologists in general to consult Hans Heinrich Hock's "Principles of Historical Linguistics" [Mouton de Gruyter, 1986], where a fairly extensive and more technical discussion is offered. Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 12:20:14 -0800 From: Carl Ernst It's been fascinating to observe the controversies over Indo-European and the Indus valley. It's also true that this is a hot subject in Pakistan. Partly because of Brahui, but mainly because of a tendency to equate Indo-European with northern India, there is a movement to declare all languages of the Indus region as Dravidian, chiefly by strained etymological analogies. But one of the most interesting re-evaluations of the Indus valley civilization comes from Aitzaz Ahsan, leading member of the PPP (currently a senator) and longtime lawyer for Benazir Bhutto. He argues that priestly domination led to the downfall of this civilization; from this example of "the Mullas of Mohenjo Daro," one should draw the lesson that religious fundamentalism is a non-starter in Pakistan today. I have described an early version of this presentation in "Local Cultural Nationalism as Anti-Fundamentalist Strategy in Pakistan," in Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East 16 (1996), pp. 68-76. Ahsan has just published his complete book on the Indus region from OUP Karachi. Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:45:28 -0800 From: "Frank J. Korom" Carl Ernst's note about Pakistani takes on the Indus/Aryan, etc. controversy reminds me of a different interpretation that gained some currency in 1984-85, when I was living in Lahore. A number of local writers, amateur linguists and even some university professors were publishing articles arguing the Semitic origins of Urdu! (The reasons for this should be quite clear even without explanation) I recall reading articles in both Urdu and Panjabi that took this position. At the time, I found such arguments uninteresting, but given the recent fervor, I'd like to reacquaint myself with such materials. Does anyone have references (popular or academic) on this angle?