The Indigenous Aryan Discussion on RISA-L the Complete Text

8/22/2019 The Indigenous Aryan Discussion on RISA-L the Complete Text

1/40

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

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 BSTFrom: Madhav Deshpande

Reply-To: [email protected]

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

http://www.montclair.edu/RISA/d-iary

of 40 04/08/2013


2/40

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 ofAryan 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"


of 40 04/08/2013


3/40

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 holdthe "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 thearticle 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: [email protected]

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)..


of 40 04/08/2013


4/40

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 JohnE. 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 openlydiscuss 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: [email protected] (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


of 40 04/08/2013


5/40

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: [email protected] (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


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.


of 40 04/08/2013


6/40

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 openedup 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 isthat 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


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.


of 40 04/08/2013


7/40

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 IEhomeland).

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: [email protected] (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


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


of 40 04/08/2013


8/40

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 invasionhypothesis 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


of 40 04/08/2013


9/40

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


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 aryanmigration. 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


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


of 40 04/08/2013


10/40

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 Georgesays, we ought to be searching for truth.

Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 04:14:11 -0700

From: [email protected] (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 agiven 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


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



0 of 40 04/08/2013


11/40

>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 -0700From: [email protected] (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 understandBernard, 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?].


1 of 40 04/08/2013


12/40

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


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 ratherlike 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: [email protected] (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,


2 of 40 04/08/2013


13/40

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


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


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.


3 of 40 04/08/2013


14/40

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 allegoricalapproaches 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


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


4 of 40 04/08/2013


15/40


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


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 knowof 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


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,


5 of 40 04/08/2013


16/40

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 reconstruedto 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)Theyare 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


6 of 40 04/08/2013


17/40

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 hisreliance 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


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


7 of 40 04/08/2013


18/40

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 th

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 -0700From: 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 religiousclaims 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 thearchaeological 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


8 of 40 04/08/2013


19/40

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


9 of 40 04/08/2013


20/40

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 ina 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


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


0 of 40 04/08/2013


21/40

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* assertthe 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 cullfrom 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.


1 of 40 04/08/2013


22/40

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. Thesemercenary 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 > Indaramay 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


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 ofthis 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: [email protected] (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


2 of 40 04/08/2013


23/40

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 strongposition 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


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 Hindutvacamp. 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

Documents

The Indigenous Aryan Discussion on RISA-L the Complete Text