Re: Indo-European Studies
Marc W.D. Tyrrell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 13 Jul 1995 19:31:33 GMT
In article <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Virendra Verma) writes:
>From: email@example.com (Virendra Verma)
>Subject: Re: Indo-European Studies
>Date: 12 JUL 95 13:12:46
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (R. Wallace) writes...
>>: In any case, the migration down from the passes of the hindu kush was
>>: *long* before anything was written down. Within a few generations, such
>>: memories get very vague.
> The Aryan invasion of India is baseless on following grounds:
> 1. How could a few so called uncivilized Aryans eliminate or displace
> an earlier advanced Indus civilization unless they were supported
> by weapons and force from their ancestral land or the then native
> population of India was savage?
And how did the Hyksos gain control over Egypt? The answer is simple, use a
new form of military technology.
> 2. The river Saraswati has been praised a lot in the Vedas. It was
> the most revered river of the Vedic rishis and had been elevated
> to the status of a deity. According to recent archaeological data,
> the river dried up around 1800 BC. If Aryans came to India in
> 1500 BC, how is it possible for someone to talk about an entity
> which they never saw? The demise of Sarasawti was gradual. This
> means that so called Aryans must be in India much earlier than
> at least 2000 BC.
Why do you say that they Aryans came to India in 1500? The archealogical
evidence of Indo-Turanian movement seems to support a figure of between 3000
and 2500 bce.
> 3. Casteism is unique to Vedic people. If they came from outside,
> why casteism does not exist in the other western cultures.
Bull. Study the social structures of the celts, and also take a look at Egypt,
China, and Monolia. The development of a caste structure is by no means
"unique to the Vedic people".
> 4. Sanskrit is the most structured language. Why other Indo-European
> languages lack consistent structure.
Try reading early Hittite or Persian.
> 5. Recent excavations of submerged Dwarika (Krishna's abode) and
> other parts of India have revealed relics and structures exactly
> as described in Mahabharat. Why a mythical document should bother
> to document such minute details while a superficial description
> might suffice to create a stage.
You might also ask why Homer recorded Troia in so much detail.
> 6. The heroes of Vedic rishis were dark-skin people such as Rama.
> Krishna, Shiva etc. How could fair color be an attribute of Vedic
Deities do not always reflect the physical images of the populace that
worships them. If you want to try and hold this position, I would ask you to
produce skeletal evidence of bird headed men in Egypt.
> 7. The chariot is frequently mentioned by Vedic rishis. If they knew>
about chariot before entering India, how could chariot be used>
in hilly tarain of Central Asia?
<sigh> The earliest archeaological evidence of chariots comes from the Russian
steppes and dates from about 2800 bce. Chariot remains have been found in the
Lake Van area that are dated to approx 2500 bce. Chariots entered into
Mesopotamia around 1900 bce. You might as well ask how chariots could be used
in the hilly terrain of the middle east, esp. around palestine, but they were.
> 8. In classical Sanskrit literature, various "Dravidian" persons >
have been addressed as "Arya" by their own relatives (e.g Ravan >
by Mandodari, Hiranyakashyapa by Prahlad, etc.).
And "arya" means "warrior", at least in Mittani.
>The Aryan invasion theory is a biggest scientific myth of the last
>200 years. It has no scientific basis but a racial one. It is used in
>modern times for socio-political purposes.
The nice thing about scientific myths is that they can poiint to solid
evidence. The interpretations of that evidence may be "wrong", and the
interpretations may be used for political purposes. All of this is true.
However, I would certainly rather subscribe to a scientifdic myth that a
Department of Sociology and Anthropology,