Indo-Aryan im/e-migration (scholarly debate)

[Srinivasan Pichumani]

This weird parallel occured to me after reading recent posts
by George Thompson and Jan Houben quoting Erdosy, Allchin, etc.
So, here I go, requesting your indulgence, and parding your
beggon for this flight of fancy.

________

All this jostling that goes on between archeologists and linguists/
Vedicists on the AIT/AMT/OOI issue seems to mirror very well the
Aryan/non-Aryan scenario of the Vedic times.

Think about it... the linguists think that they have the blemishless
evidence i.e. Vedas and IE "speech" on their side... thus, they are
the "Aryas" with their powerful "mantra"... the archeologists are
devoid of it or at least don't pay that much attention to it, and
hence, are "anArya", "mRdhravAca" etc.

The archeologists on the other hand have their telling, extensive
material evidence - their stunning excavations, their cities, their
"pura"s - starting off with the Indus Valley civilization digs,
ranging over time and geography, all the way down to early Indian
historical times... thus they are like the "dAsas" of yore... and
are always at loggerheads with the "Aryas".
_______

:-)
-Srini.

ps: As for the linguist-Vedicist/archeologist divide, I only witnessed
it all too well in the Aryan/non-Aryan seminar at U of M where, in one
of the panels, Witzel sat at one corner and Jim Shaffer on the other
with nary a look at each other ;-)