From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 17595
Date: 2003-01-14
----- Original Message -----
From: <vishalsagarwal@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 4:08 PM
Subject: [tied] Fwd: Aryanism and Journal of Indo-European Studies
> Dr. Kazanas also informed me that Mallory had earlier promised that
he would ask 5 Indians and 5 non-Indians to review the article, but
later went back on his word and asked 8 non-Indians and 1 Indian to
write comments on the same (see his lead article at the URL above)
without informing Dr. Kazanas.
> As a result of this breach of trust, Dr. Kazanas has written to
Mallory informing him that he WILL NOT write his final reply to the
reviewers, and that he is retracting another article that he had
submitted for publication in another subsequent issue of the JIES.
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 matter if justified or not) sound ludicrous to me. Science is one. It is not Indian, American, German or Japanese, leftist, centrist or rightist, Eastern or Western, Hindu, Protestant, Vedic, Quranic or atheist, feminist, gay or male-chauvinist. The nationality of the reviewers should not matter at all. 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 to engage in meta-reviewing (all our members may read the article and the reviews for themselves), but consider this: obviously unfair criticism is easy to rebut. What if the criticism is devastating but well-deserved? Never fear. A prudent strategos knows when to sound a retreat and how to make it look like a moral victory.
> The list members must note that none of the more experienced and balanced South Asian archaeologists were asked to review the article, the reviews are all one sided, and some (like that of German scholar Stefan Zimmer) plain abuse.
One-sided in what way? Do you simply mean that they were all critical of Kazanas's ideas and nobody praised them? Ouch, it must have been painful!
> Elena Kuzmina is the most brash supporter of Aryan invasion theories even to this day,
Yep. "Brash" is the word ;-) but is "supporter" strong enough? What about "partisan"?
> 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 should be bad to be one, or in what way being one discredits one as a scientist. I'm a linguist but I scarcely understand a word of this manipulative political gibberish. I'm sure, however, that it's proper place is in propaganda leaflets. Why don't you use plain English instead? But perhaps saying that somebody admits the possibility of migrations into India does not sound as damning as "crypto-Invasionism".
> 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 proportional to the number of assumed invasions?
> and a darling of Dravidian chauvinists.
Thanks to his being a Dravidologist, I suppose. Even if true, does that undermine his credibility as a scholar? As far as I know, Parpola himself is not a chauvinist, Dravidian or whatever.
> Bryant is somewhat balanced, although he refrains for castigating his benefactor at Harvard for blatantly inappropriate comments.
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 cryptically to "his benefactor at Harvard" instead of naming the man? Are you 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?
> Meadow has already shown his prejudices by openly supporting Indian marxists such as Thapar and the 'secular RSS' (R S Sharma) and by calling South Asian writings as tainted with 'flights of fancy', 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. I know of many European writings that can be described as "flights of fancy" and have been so called, justly, in print. Do you mean that South Asia is absolutely uninfested by flights of fancy and anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to be pilloried as a crypto-something-or-other?
> In other words, the collection of 'reviews' is just another kangaroo court, published in a journal alleged to be associated with white supermacism and racism.
A kangaroo court? It sounds as though they had lynched Kazanas or at least denied him his rights (e.g. by refusing to print his reply if he had chosen to write one), which doesn't seem to be the case. "A journal alleged to be be associated with white supremacism and racism"? The alleged association has no practical effect, fortunately. Whatever Roger Pearson's views are, the JIES itself is a respectable journal, not a racist forum. 'Nuf said, we've been through that before.
Piotr