--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Genetics is one form of physical evidence that could
> > support
> > linguistic theories. But it does not, in this case.
> > As we have
> > explained in detail in our paper (proto vedic
> > continuity theory.doc),
> > there is no physical evidence to support IEL
> > theories.
>
> *****GK: There is no evidence of horse-drawn war
> chariots in India at the time of the Harappan
> civilization or prior thereto. There is abundant
> evidence of this in the steppes of Europe and adjacent
> areas as of the mid-3rd millennium BC (and even
> earlier). The "technology flow" is obvious. As are the
> linguistic implications.****
There is no evidence of equus caballus linn drawn chariots AFTER the
supposed Indo Aryan...what should we call it now? travels? These
arguments from silence can be used to justify any scenerio. Anyways,
here is the current state of "horse drwan chariot" evidence in the
Indian subcontinent (Agarwal 2006),
"18. But is it not true, as Michael Witzel says, that the Aryans came
from Central Asia into India with their horses, chariots and language
as said by him according to his interview in the Christian Science
Monitor article on 24 January 2006?
This argument is just a regurgitation of Aryan fantasies straight
out of 1800s! Now that archaeology and many other scientific
disciplines have failed to produce any evidence corroborating the
Aryan invasion theory or its migration variant, this romantic
horse-chariot fantasy is the last fig leaf that is being used to
defend untenable theories under the guise that it sustains the `Elite
dominance' scenarios for explaining the `Aryanization' of India. When
even in modern times American tanks cannot traverse the Afghani
terrain easily, it is ridiculous to propose that Aryans could
heroically ride their chariots from Steppes or Central Asia across
Afghanistan (or the rivers of Punjab) into India.
There is reason to believe that the technology to make chariots was
not absent in Harappan Indian. Archaeologists B. K. Thapar and Rafique
Mughal mention that a sherd depicting a canopied cart with spoked
wheels was unearthed from pre-Harappan levels at Banawali. R.S. Bisht
reports that at Banawali, a pot sherd depicting a canopied cart with
spoked wheels was found at pre-Indus levels. Bisht is the excavator of
the site. This shows that the Harappans apparently possessed the
relevant technology to fashion light vehicles with spoked wheels.
Chariots as such are not attested in the archaeological record of the
Indian subcontinent till about the middle of first millennium BCE, and
therefore their absence in Harappan contexts need not lead us to
conclude that they were absent in that civilization. In any case, it
should be noted that the introduction of the chariot and horse in
other cultures such as ancient Egypt, ancient China, ancient Iraq
etc., did not lead to a new civilization, language, religion and
culture. So why should India be an exception?
It is often argued that Harappans could not have employed chariots
in warfare because they did not possess horses. However, the sum total
of evidence attests to the presence of horse in Harappan contexts, and
this is contested now only by very few zoo-archaeologists (e.g.,
Michael Witzel's colleague Richard Meadow with vested interests in
opposite theories that he has propagated for 3 decades). In summary,
horse bones have been found in Harappan and pre-Harappan levels at
Kuntasi, Surkotada, Lothal, Ropar, Kalibangan, Shikarpur, Malvan etc.
Horse figurines have emerged in Rakhigarhi, Lothal, Nausharo and
several other places, and painted horse on pottery sherds at Kunal.
And horse remains have been unearthed not just in Harappan contexts,
but also in non-Harappan chalcolithic sites in the interior of India
from strata predating the supposed time of arrival or Aryans at or
after 1500 BCE. For instance, in Kayatha, a site in Central India
excavated in 1968, a part of a horse jaw was unearthed from a level
dated to 2000-1800 BC and a few other bones from levels dated from
1800-1600 BCE. Likewise, Hallur in Karnataka has yielded horse bones
at levels dated to 1500 BCE which is too early for the arrival of
Aryans in this part of India.
Numerous other reports on Kayatha, Malwa and other chalcolithic
cultures in the interior of India attest the presence of horse between
2000-1500 BCE. So whether an Aryan migration took place or not, it is
clear that the elite dominance model cannot explain the Aryanization
of India because horse was already present in India and there is no
proof for the arrival of the chariot or horse only after 1500 BCE. "
> > trickle ins etc.
>
> *****GK: The bottom line is that one way or another
> the impulse to culture and linguistic change in North
> India came from the steppes. The remains of the
> Catacomb culture of 2900-2200 BC have been well
> studied. They relate very well to an earlier version
> of the cultural milieu discussed in the RV. On the
> other hand, there is no way in which the RigVeda
> society can fit what we know of the material culture
> of Harappa.
On the contrary the "Harrpan" material culture fits extremly well with
the "cultural milieu discussed in the RV."
See my review of
McIntosh, Jane (2001), A Peaceful Realm : The Rise And Fall of the
Indus Civilization, New York: Westview Press.
"Archaeologist Jane McIntosh walks right into the Indo-European
Linguistic trap.
1. She agrees that the Indus Civilization should now be seen as the
Indus-Saraswati Civilization (p. 24, 53). "But in Indus times, the
Saraswati was a mighty river (p. 53). She cites Griffith's (1890)
translations of the Rig Vedic hymns regarding the Saraswati River, as
quoted by Possehl (1999).
2. She approvingly cites Dales (1964) who has mocked at Wheeler's 37
skeletons as proof that an "Aryan Invasion" had occurred (p, 178. 179).
3. She draws upon Asko Parpola's work in connecting the Indus
artifacts to the Vedas. Regarding the trefoils on the robe worn by
the famous "Priest King" of the Indus, she says, " This robe was also
mentioned in the Vedas as being worn by kings during their
consecration. Parpola also argues that the trefoil could represent the
three-lobed hearth, used not only in the home but also in Vedic
sacrifices, and the Vulva or womb-the yoni symbol of the goddess Durga
and counterpart to the lingam, symbol of Shiva (p. 108)."
4. She acknowledges that the Indus people had knowledge of astronomy.
"Asko Parpola and a number of other scholars relate this (the
systematic arrangement of streets) to the astronomical knowledge of
the Indus people and to the unknown (!)religious beliefs that must lie
behind this (p. 99, parentheses added)."
5. She discusses Parpola's interpretation of a famous Indus seal
(color plate 10 in the book) as depicting goddess Durga, her husband
Shiva and the wives of the seven sages who are also the seven stars of
the Great bear (ref. 116-117).
6. She admits that the discovery of fire alters which were probably
used for Vedic sacrifices has been an embarrassment to the theory that
the Indus civilization was pre-Vedic.
After all this, one would expect her to reach the logical conclusion
that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then.. It IS a duck.
That is the Indus and the Vedic people are the same. But hold on a
minute! She bows down the linguistic fables and fails to reach that
rather obvious conclusion.
"Their (Vedic) literature shows that they moved gradually from the
north, on the Iranian plateau, into the Panjab and hence farther into
the subcontinent.. (p. 128, parenthesis added),"
"This (the linguistic) evidence seems to show that the speakers of the
Indo-Aryan (also known as plain "Aryan") languages, a branch of the
Indo-European language family that covered Europe, Iran and Northern
India by the late 1st millennium BC entered the region in the Indus
region during the second millennium BC .. (p. 128, first parenthesis
added)."
"The migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers can be traced in their early
literature the Vedas. The geographical information that they contain
shows that the Indo-Aryans (who it is thought came organically from
the area north of the Black and Caspian Seas) entered the northwest
during the 2nd millennium BC and thence moved eastward into the Ganges
Valley ... (p. 147)."
McIntosh does not mention what this geographical information is and
how it shows the so called movement from northwest to the east. As
archaeologist she obviously has not found any physical evidence for
such a movement . Even the strongest proponents of AIT/AMT now agree
that the Rig Veda does not provide any evidence of movement like that,
and its geography can be firmly placed in the North west of the Indian
subcontinent. The author contradicts herself within a space of few
paragraphs; viz "Although the Indo-Aryan languages were introduced by
invader...(p. 202)," and "One key aspect of the Indus society as I
have reconstructed it, is its absence of violence or military activity
(p. 203)."
One wonders, "what is so powerful about these highly speculative
linguistic theories that grips even informed scholars to passively
submit to them in favor of their scientifically testable methods.
M. Kelkar
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>