--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> The "cultural continuity" was not all that continuous in
archaeological terms. The collapse of the IVC is a discontinuity,
isn't it? The Harappans' way of changed quite drastically as a
result. The usual theory is that the Indo-Aryans appeared during the
post-collapse period, combining the local traditions with their own
inherited ones, and that their language came to be used as lingua
franca. A civilisation can change its language completely while
retaining much of its material and spiritual culture. This is what
happened e.g. in Mesopotamia, when Akkadian replaced Sumerian.
VA: We need to distinguish between archaeological discontinuity, and
cultural discontuity (which need not be mutually exclusive).
The latter often implies the presence of a 'sterile' layer between
two strata show human inhabitation.
The former need not suppose a sterile layer, but could mean that
younger stratum artifacts do not derive from the older stratum
artifacts. The new features in the younger stratum are attributed to
either internal innovation, or to intrusion of new cultural elements
(which need not involve intrusion of people however).
In the theory that IA speakers overwhelmed people in Pakistan, N.
India completely in and around the 2nd millennium BCE, cultural
and/or discontinuity and clear cut evidence of massive intrusion MUST
be demonstrated by linguists before we start dismissing the
archaeologists. The reasons for this are very clear, irrespective of
what literature on 'Archaeology and Migrations' (of which there is no
dearth), states.
And the reason is, that the IA speakers are said to have transformed
completely the religion, language, culture of the original
inhabitants of Pakistan and most of India even though they were so
few in number that they have not left a genetic trace. For more than
a century now, scholars of various views have been CONTRASTING the
religion and culture of IVC inhabitants from IA speakers in the
following terms:
1. IVC people did not have swords, IA speakers had swords.
[Actual FACT - Swords have now been unearthed from non IA, IVC areas
by archaeologists].
2. IVC did not have horse, IA were horse-riders and charioteers.
[ACTUAL FACT - Chariots are not attested in India till 280 BCE
archaeologically, and so this argument is not admissible. Spoked
wheels are now found in IVC sites, as are horse bones. There is no
archaeological trail of chariots and horses from C Asia to India].
3. IA religion was centred around male deities, IVC religion
venerated the mother goddess.
[ACTUAL FACT - Credible archaeologists reject the identification of
most female figurines as mother goddess now].
4. IVC did not have Soma Ritual. IA were Soma drinkers.
[ACTUAL FACT - Many now identify the 'standard' in front of
the 'Unicorn' as a Soma Filter].
5. IVC religion was iconic, where IA brought in the fire cult.
[ACTUAL FACT - Fire altars are found in numerous IVC sites. And RV
description of devatas actually lends itself very easily to iconic
representation. The 'one horned bull' on seals actually closely
matches what the RV says of Indra.]
6. IA first settled in Saptasindhu and RV has no mention of Gujarat
and Sindh. IVC was centred on Indus.
[ACTUAL FACT - Only pre-Harappan sites predominate along or west of
Indus. But even here, we have pre-Harappan cultures on Sarasvati
valley. When we come to Mature Harappan phase, there are ONLY 14
sites on the Indus, practically NONE west of Ravi in the Punjab. The
middle level RV too terms 'Purushni' or 'Vipas' as a kind of
a 'boundary marker' where the 10 kings are vanquished and pushed out
by Sudas. There are almost 600 sites in and around Sarasvati valley,
the river extolled in the RV. Oceanic imagery is present in the RV,
and many of these references can be wished away only by tortuous
interpretations. The expansion of Mature Harappan elements into
Gujarat and Kutch occurs late, and via attestable intrusion, often
violent. Gujarati brahmins are still called 'Dravida' Brahmins.]
7. It is supposed that IA people spread their language grdually over
Punjab, UP, Bihar, MP, Rajasthan. Gujarat, Maharashtra...
[ACTUAL FACT - There is no archaeological proof for this of course.
However, we do know that after the demise of Harappan culture, it
gave rise to cultures in the interior of India - in Rajasthan, MP,
eastern/central UP, Maharashtra. These areas are precisely the ones
where IA langauges predominate today. In other words, the supposed
spread of IA langauges parallels spread of degenerate IVC elements,
which is quite surprising].
IA might have come to India from Central Asia, but the chance that it
came after the demise of IVC are very slim.
Instances can be multiplied.
The fact is that literary, genetic, archaeological, anthropoligical
evidence and insights are at variance with the scenario constructed
by some linguists, while they are consistent with each other.
There is no clear cut cultural break or even archaeological
discontinuity between IVC and other cultures (like PGW). There is no
demonstrable intrusion of any cultural elements from Central asia
into N India in the proposed time period, and the supposed dichotomy
between IVC culture/religion on one hand and IA culture/religion on
the other hand does not exist. Archaeologists prefer to speak of
transformation or urban features of the culture into rural features.
Now tell me - are the Kalpasutras more 'urban' than the Samhitas?
Or vice versa?
Linguists can deny horse bones, altars, spoked wheels...in IVC sites.
But they are there for all to see.
The question then is - do we need to revisit the entire methodology
from which these Aryan theories were derived?
BTW, did Akkadians come as peaceful migrants, and in very small
numbers, before they replaced Sumerian with their own language?
Has their intrusion left any archaeological evidence? Literary
evidence?
Is the same true for IA langauges?
Sincerely,
Vishal