The Aryans (again); 19th century discourse.

[George Cronk]

Isn't the first half of the 2nd millenium BC the 500-year period PRIOR TO
1500?

-----Original Message-----
From: SNS <sns at IX.NETCOM.COM>
To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: The Aryans (again); 19th century discourse.


>>
>>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
>