The Aryans (again); 19th century discourse.

[SNS]

>
>Andronov began his first lecture, "Dravidian and Aryan: From the Typological
>Similarity to the Similarity of Forms" by saying,  "It is generally accepted
>at present that Dravidian languages served as a substratum, underlying the
Old
>Indo-Aryan language, when the latter appeared on the Indian soil in the first
>half of the second millennium B.C., and that the whole course of the
>subsequent development of both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian was largely
influenced
>and predetermined by this circumstance. Their mutual influence on each other,
>most probably, took shape of bilingualism of a great portion of themingling
>peoples. The numerical superiority was, obviously, on the side of the
>indigenous population, which is testified by the rapid change and complete
>dissolution of the the ethnic type of the newcomers. One can suggest also
that
>in the first period of contact  bilinguals were recruited chiefly from the
>native population."
>
>
This is again an example of retrofitting data to suit ones own
preconceived notions. Mr.Andoronov, seems to assume that somehow, so
called Dravidian Languages served as substratum and Indo-Aryan language
first appeared around 1500BC - on what basis is this done ?

How did Andronov come to the conclusion that Indo-Aryan Languages arrived
after 1500BC ?
The dating of the Rgveda ?  based on guesswork by Muller ?

Just say substratum and you have proved Aryan migration  !!!.

Realizing that there is no racial evidence,Mr.Andronov wants us to believe
a strong native tradition was overshadowed by a few nomadic migrants,
who then managed to impose their language and religion over a overwhelming
majority by  recruiting from the native population !!.
Just like their European descendants of today, I presume ? -
This is classic European supremacist nonsense that has to be avoided.

When in doubt, make an assumption and then make more assumptions to
prove whatever one wants.
Even Goebbels would have been impressed.

In a previous message this gem of
scholarly writing was quoted from the Indo-Aryans of South Asia:
>
> What is not yet clear is how the
>process of immigration actually took place. As suggested in my previous paper
>(Chapter 4), even a limited number of Indo-Aryan speakers could have
triggered
>a process of acculturation, especially if they enjoyed a dominant social
>position due to their superior (military) technology."
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
Agian,This is the kind of aryan supremacist nonsense that
Jim Shaffer has exposed and called into question.
What might this superior military technology be ?
Chariot Panzers, led by Indra Rommels, shooting Kulturekugels ?
Then surely, the neighing of horses must have sounded like the whistle
of diving Stuka bombers and frightened the Dravidians
 -Objective scholarship indeed!!.

It appears that colonial thinking, WWII and postwar military buildup
in Europe has greatly influenced these scholars.
Theories of Chariot Tanks,Culture Bullets etc indicates that many of
these scholars are basically projecting their adolescent
fantasies and childhood experience onto Indian history.

Those who attribute motives to others, should first look at their
own.

Subrahmanya