HindooHeathen

So Witzel makes a critical study of the whole process and makes a case for
AIT/AMT. Does he? No. He evades;distorts;intentionally mistranslates and at last becomes an apologist for his fellow countryman Max Muller and
interestingly even for the use of AIT to support British colonialism
(an "it is only natural; so what " attitude). Max Muller's condemnation of
the term Aryan with racial meaning happened within the context of European
Christendom and not in the Indian context.So to make use of that (later day )
quote (in an entirely out of context) to exonerate Max Muller of giving
racist interpretation to Vedas in India, by Witzel shows more an apologist
attitude rather than an acadmic stand. Much of Max Muller's works have been
discussed by Arun Shourie in his book "Missionaries in India". They show not
just a romanticist but also a fierce missionary with full conviction of the
white man's burden.

So Witzel's critical study of the whole process gives no concrete proof of any AIT/AMT except for the presence of the so-called IE substratum in Vedic lore.Instead he evades;distorts;intentionally mistranslates and despite all that he also indulges in name calling.

For example, he does not give any valid reasons as to why he rejects Jim
Shaffer, an expert archaeologist, on stating the fact that ISVC (3200 BCE)to 800 BCE there is a noticable continuity and no major population shifts as should have happened if we accept the AIT model. Witzel himself is no exert in the field of archaeology and yet he, himself no arcaheologist, denounces
the archaelogical discovery of fire altars with no substantiation.He goes to
the extent of claiming them to be community kitchens (near ceremonial bath tanks?).
However here I just quote Dr.George Gheverghese Joseph,University of Manchester,
United Kingdom on the "community kitchens" of Witzel, "..A notable feature of
the Harappa culture was its use of kiln-fired bricks. These provide a link
between the "frozen" geometry unearthed by archaeologists and the earliest
written geometry, a guide to constructing Vedic brick altars."(Geometry of
Vedic Altars,1996) Also see the work of T. A. SarasvatiAmma, "Geometry in
Ancient and Medieval India" (Motilal Banarsidass. Delhi: 1979) for the
relations of the geometry Vedic fire altars/later day SulbaSutras and their
continuity with Harappan "communty kitchens" of Witzel. Also see the implied
prejudice if not outright contempt Witzel and his likes have for Indian scholarship. As per Witzel, an Indian archaeologist, even one of International repute, cannot differntiate between a fire altar and a
community kitchen! Of course LP you and your ilk are free to go ahead and claim
that Aryans borrowed the measurements of Indus valley civilization's community
kitchens and inserted that data into the construction of their fire altars.
Curious victorious behaviour to insert the measurement of the subjugated
community's kitchen measurement into their sacred fire altar construction
text! With your decades of computer programming skills you should have by
now developed algorithms and flowcharts to support such an incredible scenario.

Witzel is at his evasive best when he remains totally silent on the consistency the Indus seals show with Vedic imagery except for the non-abundance (which is not the same as their total absence) of horses. This too can be explained by models which need not involve any "Aryan" horse
riding hordes.The consistency of Indus seals with Vedic imagery is clearly inconsistent with this AIT model.
Any one who can read Mahadevan's interpretation of the terminal seals will know that the kind of functional categories are essentially caste like (more specific of the Varnashrama type)and even today Kshatriya caste names and priest-caste names have derivatives of jar carrying verbs. I think now your quote of (Witzel's reference to) thousand testicle Indra is enough to show your complete ignorance of the matter.
Thousand testicles are a fantasy imagination stemming from the presence of single testicle. Thousand oarred ships and thousand pillared houses too stem from such poetic fanatsy of something that is already present and such a projection happens from an urban scenario rather than rural. The name of a complete Vedic clan is urban-dwellers and they are a highly praised clan too.


Soma's association with Indra for example, comes from the most ancient Vedic
books.(the first books of Rig Veda). Soma cult related seals have been found
at even the early and mature Harappan/Mohenjadaro layers. Bull imagery of
Indra, Antelope imagery in connection with ritual repetition of Cosmic creation etc. are also found in early Vedic books and also relate to the Indus seals. If as per the AIT model early books of RV are written during the invasion then Soma cult should be viewed with contempt as that of the
subjugated people. No evidence whatsever suggests that. (As has been
suggested for phallic worship. Phallic/Yoni symbolism in Vedic fire
rituals is denoted in early Vedic texts. It is only in very later Vedic
books that phallic worship is derided.)

Also he dwells on the much discredited racial interpretation of
Dasyu-Arya fights in the Vedas which is central to this whole thread.It is
exactly this interpretation which has been shown through the study of
complete Vedic body to be false if not out right malicious and motivated.
Further Witzel tells us that the reversal AIT met in the academic circles
also has more to do with the works of Western/Western-educated academics
(only Indian name he mentions in this connection is Romilla Thappar who
often has contributed almost nothing original in AIT debate and uses Marxist
methodolgy to interpret history often with distortion of facts to suit her
theory.). This is factually wrong. A single example will be enough. As I
mentioned earlier Dr. Ambedkar, a modern critical Vedic scholar and the
father of Indian constitution, made an in depth study of Vedas with the
conclusion against AIT. Many noted Indian archaeologists like S.R.Rao,
B.B.Lal who started their academic career with the acceptance of AIT had
raised serious doubts regarding that model. Credit also goes to Western
archaeologists like Dr. Dales who raised serious doubts about the Invasion
and massacre of local inhabitants. The credit for first disputing the
attribution of racist meaning to the word "Aryan" should go to
Swami Vivekananda,Sri Aurobindo, Bharathi, and Dr.Ambedkar.
Not one of them can be labelled as a HinduthvaVadi. Bharathi a Tamil and
Sanskrit scholar and poet;Sri Aurobindo a scholar of Sanskrit, Bengali,
Latin and English and also a philosopher and nationalist (interestingly as
early as 1910 Sri Aurobindo refrains from using the term race when
discoursing on nationalism and is highly skeptical about the use of the term
with relation to nationalism) , Dr Ambedkar the father of Indian constitution
,a neo-Buddhist and also a critical Vedic scholar; they all had knowledge of
Sanskrit and also an Indian language and they all rejected the racist
interpretation of Vedas. Among the Dalit reformers only Mahatma Phule
accepted AIT model and not Dr. Ambedkar who is a nation wide reformer with
much more influence than Phule.And no Indian freedom fighters made use of the
Aryan race theory as alleged by Witzel in his "critical " study. Still Witzel
wants to attribute the reversal of AIT exclusively to Western/Western-educated
academics which is clearly contrary to the facts and speaks much about
Witzel's own mindset.

LP, your own reference to cow worship as a later invention in Hinduism
(grouping it together with other supposedly Aryan contributions like
full-scale caste system) implying it to be an Aryan aspect is here:

LP:These invading Aryans contributed *some* culture to India, but certainly
not all of it. Here's an example: one important Hindu deity, Shiva, is
associated with phallic symbols and is sometimes depicted as a Master of
Animals. However, the Vedas do not mention Shiva and they describe fighting
wicked phallus-worshippers; this suggests that the locals had had some
tradition of phallic symbolism. And some Harappan imagery shows a Master of
Animals, though his name is not given. Thus, both Shiva and phallic symbolism
are pre-Aryan. Hinduism also contains several later inventions, such as the
full-scale caste system, Krishna, and cow worship.

HH: Here you are again wrong. Rudra the prototype of Shiva is a Vedic deity
and what is more he is the wild lord and is Siva (RV 10:92:9)
(Stella Kramrisch,1981) he occupies very high-exalted position
In early books of Rig Veda and there is enough of phallic/yoni symbolism,
explicitly mentioned in Rig Veda's early books. Rudra is derided and Phallic
worship condemned (rather vaguely and interpreted by Indian Sanskrit scholars
as meaning 'those indulge in the pleasures of phallus" rather than "phallus
worshippers" as interpreted by Indologists) in some of the later Vedic books.
However even in later Vedic text there are many hymns praising Rudra.
Rudra's association with creation legend in Vedas (in terms of antelope
imagery) can again be seen in ISV seals. So to see an Aryan/non-Aryan into
the aspect of rise and (supposed) fall of Rudra (proto-Shiva) is poor understanding of facts to say the least.

HindooHeathen

LP,

Your remarks that I quote Witzel the way creationists quote eminent biologists is highly unfortunate. The quote I have given shows the anti-AIT position taken by Witzel.
Hence I have shown that. Where is a creationist tactics in that? I have neither cut nor quoted him out of context. In fact I have given the complete quote by him.
Further Witzel is known for making inaccurate and often errored statements. Most of his statements after he took the pro-AIT position have been marked highly by political overtones rather than by academic fervour.
On the other hand you can compare Dr.Edwin Byrant who makes a careful and proper evaluation of many works Witzel dismisses out of hand. Sethna's case for urban nature of Rig Veda has been critically evaluated by many authors (including Bryant) and they all come to the conclusion that RV cannot be considered as a hymn created by purely pastoral people but rather it reflects a society that has both dominant towns and villages just like India today.
I feel that you have started arguing for the sake of argument rather than an opting for an open hearted discussion. You have no idea of either Vedas or Indian mythology.

Perhaps one day we can discuss the whole thing after you have studies Vedas first hand in Sanskrit or at least in some Indian language rather than through (mis) translations of 18th century European missionaries or colonial administrators.

Phaedrus,

Thank you bringing to notice this thread. It has been great to be here.Also thank you for the astronomy links you suggested. As a South Indian and a proud Sudra I can say there has been no memory of any invasion or whatsoever even in the remotest of Tamil literature , what is more the most ancient Tamil literature collection , Sangam songs, speak of our nation as one. Just like later day Vishnu Puran, you find in Sangam literature lines after lines of praise of this land that extends between Himalayas in the north and KanyaKumari in the South. Despite what others may say about Aryan invasion and stuff of that kind, we can say WE are one culturally, spiritually (by sharing the most humanistic values)and We can rightly be proud of belonging to this great culture that tells us "Vasudaivaka Kudumbakam" - "The whole world is one family". Tomorrow will be Independence day of Bharath! I extend to one and all heartiest Independence day wishes! And I sincerely wish we shall strive to remove that ugly thing called caste discrimination that still exists as a blot on our society.



"Thamasoma Jyothir Kamaya"

lpetrich

phaedrus:
Why havent you talked about Sanskrit? And since you use the word "likely" above, can u substantiate devanagari being a modification of "some" semitic alphabet?

LP:
Devanagari is a modification of the Brahmi script, and that, in turn may be a borrowing of some Semitic script. However, it might possibly be the result of stimulus diffusion, as several writing systems are known to be. A Harappan connection is unlikely, however, because of a big gap in time and the lack of resemblance.

phaedrus:
And given that harappan script was indigenous, would it mean the residents were much more advanced? And the nomads re-acquired writing since they killed all the locals or maybe the locals refused to let them in on the knowledge about the writing?

LP:
India is not the only place with a literacy gap; Greece had also had one.

phaedrus:
And if the aryans arrived with no knowledge of writing, how did the write durign the maurya period? How did it dawn on them?

LP:
That was when the Brahmi script was invented.

[Me on storing wheels separate from chariot bodies...]

Phaedrus:
Err in your world, is this what called a substantiating a statement? I asked you can you substantiate the knowledge of chariots and when the IE speakers acquired it and if they managed to lug them around in the mountains to assemble them in the valleys, is there any direct proof? What was the metal used?

LP:
What would you consider proof, Phaedrus?

Phaedrus:
And how come nomadic tribes have learnt how to build chariots { i wonder how a nomadic horde of barbarians wrote (or constructed verbally) books like the Vedas }? And if they had the knowledge, are there any other sites which fall in the "supposed path" they took to the subcontinent, which have the remains?

LP:
The early Iranians were culturally similar; there are remarkable similarities, as Witzel and others have pointed out.

Phaedrus:
And how come there are no chariots or horse remains at harappa itself if they conquering hoards overcome the local population there?

LP:
The Harappan society may have collapsed before the invasion.

lpetrich

HH:
So Witzel makes a critical study of the whole process and makes a case for AIT/AMT. Does he? No. He evades;distorts;intentionally mistranslates and at last becomes an apologist for his fellow countryman Max Muller and interestingly even for the use of AIT to support British colonialism ...

LP:
British colonialism has nothing to do with it. Many of the early workers on the Indo-European question has been German, which would not have given them a direct interest. In fact, some of them had made an analogy with Germanic tribes overrunning the Roman Empire. And I don't see any British people calling the Angle-Saxon-Jute invasion theory of English an imperialist hoax.

HH:
So Witzel's critical study of the whole process gives no concrete proof of any AIT/AMT except for the presence of the so-called IE substratum in Vedic lore. ...

LP:
HH, I doubt that you really understand his linguistic analysis.

HH:
As per Witzel, an Indian archaeologist, even one of International repute, cannot differntiate between a fire altar and a community kitchen!

LP:
Why would there be an absolute difference?

HH:
Witzel is at his evasive best when he remains totally silent on the consistency the Indus seals show with Vedic imagery except for the non-abundance (which is not the same as their total absence) of horses. ...

LP:
WHAT Vedic imagery? Such similarities may be explained by the writers of the Vedas adopting pre-Aryan symbols.

HH:
Any one who can read Mahadevan's interpretation of the terminal seals will know that the kind of functional categories are essentially caste like ...

LP:
A rather weak deduction.

HH:
...If as per the AIT model early books of RV are written during the invasion ...

LP:
Clearly a straw position; Witzel believes that the RV had been composed a few centuries after the invasion, when the invaders had sort-of settled down.

HH:
[a lot of namedropping...] ... Still Witzel wants to attribute the reversal of AIT exclusively to Western/Western-educated academics which is clearly contrary to the facts and speaks much about Witzel's own mindset.

LP:
I wonder what HH calls Mahadevan and Dani; both of them agree on supporting some version of AIT.

As to archeologists who claim to find no evidence of such an invasion, that may simply be a result of the Aryan invaders showing little evidence of their travels, which is often the case for nomadic tribes. As Witzel notes, the Huns had not left a lot of remains behind -- only a few graves that have recently been found.

[about Shiva being pre-Aryan...]
HH:
Here you are again wrong. Rudra the prototype of Shiva is a Vedic deity and what is more he is the wild lord and is Siva (RV 10:92:9) (Stella Kramrisch,1981) ...

LP:
However, some Vedic deities could be borrowings of pre-Aryan ones.

lpetrich

HH:
Your remarks that I quote Witzel the way creationists quote eminent biologists is highly unfortunate. The quote I have given shows the anti-AIT position taken by Witzel. Hence I have shown that. Where is a creationist tactics in that? I have neither cut nor quoted him out of context. In fact I have given the complete quote by him.

LP:
He believes that the invasion happened a few centuries before the Rig Veda was composed; read his works more carefully.

HH:
Further Witzel is known for making inaccurate and often errored statements. Most of his statements after he took the pro-AIT position have been marked highly by political overtones rather than by academic fervour.

LP:
WHAT political overtones?

HH:
Perhaps one day we can discuss the whole thing after you have studies Vedas first hand in Sanskrit or at least in some Indian language rather than through (mis) translations of 18th century European missionaries or colonial administrators.

LP:
Why not a good -- and honest -- translation into present-day English?

HH:
I can say there has been no memory of any invasion or whatsoever even in the remotest of Tamil literature , what is more the most ancient Tamil literature collection , Sangam songs, speak of our nation as one. ...

LP:
Southern India was not invaded, however; just northern India.

jess

Guys (and I mean that in a unisex way), this is a great topic and one that I am glad to have here.

Keep up the good debate.

copernicus

No, phaedrus, you are not "merely" questioning him. You reveal your fundamental ignorance when you don't even bother to check out what he has told you, which you could do with a simple web search on "devanagari" and "history". Here is a reference from a page on Writing, History, and Typology. Here is an excerpt:
The Brahmi script was clearly not based on Harappan. If it were, we would probably have been able to decode it by now. What we don't know is if the people who adapted the North Semitic script to Indian languages were indigenes. They probably were. The adaptation of the symbols was brilliant, mixing a syllabery with true alphabetic (phoneme-based) writing. We also know that the basis of Indian articulatory phonetics, which is endoded in the so-called "Shiva sutras" near the beginning of Panini's famous work on Sanskrit, predated Panini. Whoever adapted the alphabet had a very detailed knowledge of articulatory phonetics and phonemics. The traditional ordering of the symbols in the devanagari alphabet is laid out from the back to the front of the mouth, which made it very convenient for ancient linguists to describe not just individual sounds, but classes of sounds. Panini used this articulatory schema to come up with sophisticated phonological rules to describe Sanskrit pronunciation. Hence, we know more about Sanskrit pronunciation than that of any other ancient language.

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: copernicus ]

phaedrus

LP

Devanagari is a modification of the Brahmi script, and that, in turn may be a borrowing of some Semitic script. However, it might possibly be the result of stimulus diffusion, as several writing systems are known to be. A Harappan connection is unlikely, however, because of a big gap in time and the lack of resemblance.

Cool

India is not the only place with a literacy gap; Greece had also had one.

What would the gap suggest? And why didnt the residents share their script with the incoming populations?

That was when the Brahmi script was invented.

Thats fine, what i am asking is, why did it take them so many years to invent the script and if they didnt have any inkling about writing, how were they able to invent writing which is similar to semitic after so much time passed since their arrival in the sub-continent.?

What would you consider proof, Phaedrus?

Archealogical evidence and clear linguistic proof of the tribes having knowledge of building chariots and the description of the path they took to the indus valley and carrying of parts of the chariots in the moutain terrains and assembling the same in the valleys as u postulated.

The early Iranians were culturally similar; there are remarkable similarities, as Witzel and others have pointed out.

How does this answer my question ?... And how come nomadic tribes have learnt how to build chariots { i wonder how a nomadic horde of barbarians wrote (or constructed verbally) books like the Vedas }? And if they had the knowledge, are there any other sites which fall in the "supposed path" they took to the subcontinent, which have the remains?

The Harappan society may have collapsed before the invasion.

And whom did the tribes "invade" as you keep saying???? A ghost town??

And finally i repeat again...And finally do you still perfer to use the words "invasion" and "invaders" as you did in your original post?? If so, state your reasons.

And am adding one more to the what happened to this series

phaedrus

HH

No problemo and continue the good work

JP

phaedrus

Copernicus


Ummm....*decides to be polite and puts his euphemism cap on*


1. Thanks but no thanks for the "great idea" of web search, you must have really taxed those grey cells of yours.
In case, you didnt notice i was talking to LP here and have to get his opinion and not someone elses'. It is a discussion which is going on and LP and moi can ask each other questions on the points being raised here to ascertain or clarify positions.

2. Hence, yet again you poke your nose where it doesnt belong.

3. Answer the posts directed at you, i think there are one ot two above in this page in this page.(and by answering i mean responding fully instead of answering only those parts which you are comfortable with)