From: Richard Wordingham
> Please see below -matter
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <vishalsagarwal@...>
> > Dear Vishal, I'd say that Kazanas was positively lionised by the
> editors. He was given 60 pages -- twice the length of the next
> longest article in the issue. Both Mallory's promise (no matter if
> real or alleged) and Kazanas's complaint about its breach (no
> if justified or not) sound ludicrous to me. Science is one. It isnot
> Indian, American, German or Japanese, leftist, centrist orrightist,
> Eastern or Western, Hindu, Protestant, Vedic, Quranic or atheist,archaeological
> feminist, gay or male-chauvinist. The nationality of the reviewers
> should not matter at all.
> VA: In this case, IT DOES. Because it was expected that
> archaeologists from India, who are much closer to the
> data, would be some of the reviewers. This lacuna in the list ofinstance,
> reviewers leads to some wrong comments in the reviews. For
> Kuzmina says that oldest specimens of spoked wheel chariots comefrom
> somewhere north of Afghanistan. In reality, terracotta spoked wheelmention
> representations have been found in atleast two Harappan sites, at
> levels dated to 2300 -2200 BCE, and I have seen photographs.
> Moreover, the chariot argument is flawed because spokes find
> in only late parts of Rigveda. Counting pages here is quite silly.to
> Let us count the total number of pages given by Mallory to 'OIT'
> position vis a vis all the other views on PIE homeland. In fact, 60
> pages are too short to discuss the alternate paradigms.
> PG: All that matters is what they have to say. One might remark,
> somewhat cynically, that Kazanas's indignant refusal to address the
> critics is rather convenient from his point of view. I'm not going
> engage in meta-reviewing (all our members may read the article andbut
> the reviews for themselves), but consider this: obviously unfair
> criticism is easy to rebut. What if the criticism is devastating
> well-deserved? Never fear. A prudent strategos knows when to sounda
> retreat and how to make it look like a moral victory.some
> VA: The criticism appears devastating only to those who are totally
> ignorant of the tons of literature published in India (reflected so
> clearly in the bibliographies of the reviewers in the JIES Winter
> 2002). Your final remarks, which some other list members find so
> thrilling, merely reflects the prejudices so deeply ingrained in
> people.RW: For what they're worth, my observations on the reviews are as
> > > The list members must note that none of the more experiencedand
> balanced South Asian archaeologists were asked to review thearticle,
> the reviews are all one sided, and some (like that of Germanscholar
> Stefan Zimmer) plain abuse.RW: Do we know who were invited to comment on the paper? Has Mallory
> > One-sided in what way? Do you simply mean that they were allopinion
> critical of Kazanas's ideas and nobody praised them? Ouch, it must
> have been painful!
> VA: There was nothing difficult in my post that you could not
> comprehend. As noted above, Mallory did not include even one
> archaeologist who has dug extensively in India (Meadow largely
> restricts to Pakistan) except DPA whose views are a minority
> within India, Kuzmina digs in earstwhile Soviet Union. The onlylist
> Vedicists included were Parpola and Witzel, whose views are at the
> same and one end of the spectrum, no Vedic scholar with opposite or
> even different views was included. I presume, you do not want a
> of people who Mallory could have included.should
> > > D P Agrawal is somewhat of an oddity in the Indian Archaeology
> establishment in his continued support to crypto Invasionist
> scenarios (and is widely known within India for his leftist-
> sublaternist affiliations).
> > Hang me if I know what a "leftist-sublaternist" is or why it
> be bad to be one, or in what way being one discredits one as aproper
> scientist. I'm a linguist but I scarcely understand a word of this
> manipulative political gibberish. I'm sure, however, that it's
> place is in propaganda leaflets. Why don't you use plain Englishfew
> instead? But perhaps saying that somebody admits the possibility of
> migrations into India does not sound as damning as "crypto-
> VA: Ask Zimmer or other 'reviewers' who throw words like 'Hindu
> Nationalists' whenever someone questions their own views in India.
> Within Indian political scenarios, unfortunately, the issue has
> become politicized, and the Marxists-Leftists are actually asking
> that the government ban archaeological digs in India for the next
> years!! I presume that since you are ignorant of all this, youwould
> not understand.proportional
> > > Parpola is a multiple invasionist as is well known,
> > The way you put it, it sounds sinister, but is it against the law
> to be a "multiple invasionist" (especially if we are talking of
> invasions in the distant past)? If so, is the punishment
> to the number of assumed invasions?Does he believe in the Dravidian invasion?
> VA: By this phrase, I meant that he subscribes to the theory of
> atleast 2 invasions of IA speakers into India.
> > > Bryant is somewhat balanced, although he refrains forcastigating
> his benefactor at Harvard for blatantly inappropriate comments.cryptically
> > I somehow have difficulty imagining Edwin Bryant as a member of a
> white supremacist kangaroo court. So in order to prove that he's
> fully balanced he ought to castigate ... why do you refer
> to "his benefactor at Harvard" instead of naming the man? Are youof
> talking of Lord Voldemort? What's Bryant's failure to castigate him
> got to do with what Bryant has to say about Kazanas's article?
> VA: Yes and No, to your last question. In fact, Bryant is critical
> Kazanas at times (for that matter, I also find it hard to digestthe
> extremely high chronology that K has argued for). However, ontopics
> Eurocentric Indology lists, he and just 1 or two other people (such
> as Dr. Hock) have come out OPENLY protesting the rudeness and
> unfairness of the 'mainstream' Indology when discussing these
> (why not do a search on Liverpool Indology archives).and
> > > Meadow has already shown his prejudices by openly supporting
> Indian marxists such as Thapar and the 'secular RSS' (R S Sharma)
> by calling South Asian writings as tainted with 'flights of fancy',RW: Only if you think politics is on a line. A circle seems a better
> IN PRINT.
> > How confusing! It seems the extreme rightists in the West are
> conspiring with the extreme leftists in India against whatever
> Kazanas stands for.
> VA: So I gather it is not wrong to accept money also fromsmugglers,
> murderers, neo-Nazis and all kinds of criminals to fund journals.Not
> that Roger Pearson is any of them, but I really marvel at the lowRW: Defrauding White Supremacists is disgraceful. The money they
> morals and ethics of the 'scholarly readers' of the JIES.
> Surely, 'Indian Nationalists', and 'Hindu Nationalists' are more
> respectable than them.