From: vishalsagarwal
Message: 13204
Date: 2002-04-11
--- In cybalist@..., x99lynx@... wrote:
> "vishalsagarwal" <vishalagarwal@...> quoted KHAN, F. A.
1992 "Ancient
> but we don't really use the word any more in connection with even
> Egypt or Mesopotamia, much less Europe.
VA: Words like Mesopotamia, Egypt etc. are used for convenience.
India did not exist as an entity in say 2000 BCE, but we use the
word 'India' even while describing various cultures existing in the
subcontinent, for the sake of convenience. So I do not understand
what is the objection here.
The word 'Indus Civilization' is used because most of the sites that
were discovered were in the greater Indus basin. Harappan culture is
used as an alternative because Harappa was the first major site
identified as such. And now some want to use 'Indus-Saraswati
Civilization' as another name of the Mature Harappan culture.
> The early cultures of the Indian sub-continent don't begin with
urbanization.
> The key to any indigenous or borrowed argument for any of these
cultures has
> been pushed back in time by the work done in the Near East and
elsewhere.
> There were FUNDAMENTAL changes brought about everywhere by the
coming of
> neolitization. It becomes a key demarkation archaeologically and
in terms of
> defining material cultures. As a rule, there are NO material
remains before
> neoliticization except for bones, stone tools and huts.
VA: Do not worry. World class experts have dwelt on this problem for
the Indian subcontinent as well. For the region of our interest, we
now have the excavated site of Mehrgarh (in Baluchistan) where the
strata go back to around 6500 BCE. You may want to read the following
archaeological report -
Mehrgarh : field reports 1974-1985, from Neolithic times to the Indus
civilization / edited by Catherine Jarrige ... [et al.].
Published [Karachi] : Dept. of Culture and Tourism, Govt. of Sindh ;
in collaboration with the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1995.
Description xiii, 688 p. : ill., maps ; 29 cm.
>
> Was the Indian neolithic revolution native to India? I've seen no
such
> evidence (except for 7000 year spanning paleolinguistic "evidence"
which no
> one should take seriously). And if neolitization came from the
Near East,
> then in an important way, "civilization" came from the Near East.
VA: There were several INDEPENDENT Neolithic revolutions. In a recent
publication by the American Academy of Science, 8-9 such regions are
defined. There were 2 in China, and a few in Africa and the Americas.
The revolution did start first in the Near East, but it need not have
a genetic link to the start of farming etc. in other areas.
The book in question (I will find the title if you wish),
unfortunately left out any region in the Indian subcontinent, but
Mehrgarh is one of them (according to the report), and another is the
Central Gangetic plains, where there is an independent tradition of
farming traceable to 3500 BC, together with all the features of a
Neolithic culture. Here is a book you may read -
Beginnings of agriculture : from hunting and food gathering to
domestication of plants and animals : Epi-Palaeolithic to Neolithic :
excavations Chapani-Mando, Mahadaha and Mahagara / G.R. Sharma ...
[et al.].
Published: Allahabad, India : Abinash Prakashan for Dept. of Ancient
History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Alahabad, 1980.
Description xix, 238 p., [90] p. of plates : ill., maps (some
folded) ; 28 cm.
And now, evidence is emerging that there was an independent Neolithic
revolution in peninsular India. A recent article in the
magazine 'Science' credited this area as the homeland of Dravidian
langauges.
The implication then is that Dravidian languages are authochthonous,
and a branch moved North West to become Brahui. (It is another matter
however that none other than Asko Parpola, a renowned Dravidianist,
now seems to deny the very 'Dravidian' status of Brahui).
>
> As this relates to linguistics, the neolithic conversion is the
best path we
> have for cultural change because it shows a major revolution in
human life
> and culture. Those historical linguists who disregard it as such --
no
> matter what they think of Renfrew personally or linguistically --
open the
> door to any and all theories of non-documentable language change
and
> transmission. And we end up mired in discussions of the indigenous
vs I-A
> nature of "Indus civilization" which may be wholly irrelevant to
actual
> historical events.
VA: In view of the references cited by me above, all these statements
are redundant. We need not bring in linguistics here at all,
Archaeology seems to provide sufficient evidence.
>
> If anyone seriously argues for IE languages still being unified at
3500BC,
> they deserve what they get in "Out-of-India." If any
archaeologists find a
> clear demarcation between neolithic settlements and civilization,
they
> deserve what they get with the "indigenous Indus."
VA: I do not really know where this OIT argument comes into the
picture now. But archaeologists studying India now clearly see a
continuity in the Indus area from Mehrgarh Neolithic revolution to
post Harappan cultures. This is not a reaction to the earlier
tendency of positing invasions for any cultural change - rather it
extends across all schools of archaeology pertaining to the Indian
subcontinent.
Since linguists honor Professor Witzel so much, maybe you would like
to read HIM saying that the Indus civilization is indigenous. Here is
the URL -
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITguestbookframeset.htm
Sincerely,
Vishal