SV: [Re: On substratum religion]

[Dominique.Thillaud]

>My point is exactly that it is all a bit too simple.  Too simple, for
>example, to view all male divinities as of the hegemonic group,
>"superstratum," and all female divinities as in the substratum.  Too simple
>to view all retroflex consonants as Dravidian and all palatals as
>Indo-European.  I would argue, in fact, that it is not misguided, but a
>categorical imperative to view the "substrate" idea as the apposite of
>Aryan Romanticism.  This does not mean that substrates do not exist.  But
>we have to be careful and not use them as a kind of compost pile in which
>all things that seem not to fit into the dominant, recorded culture are
>heaped.
>
>W. Trimble

        I agree. It's absolutely ridiculous to see the Eurindians as "male
warriors" only. They knew many Goddesses and I have established strong
links between Aphrodite and Sri (unpublished but quoted in Bernard Sergent,
Genese de l'Inde). We have the same plague in Greek studies where all
Goddesses are commonly supposed from a "creto-aegean substratum", a
post-romantic idea of a neolithic "Great Mother". Without any proof, except
perhaps in the unconscious of some scholars ;-)
        Regards,
Dominique

Dominique THILLAUD
Universite' de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France