SV: SV: Date of the Buddha and RV

[Lars Martin Fosse]

Koenraad Elst [SMTP:ke.raadsrots at UNICALL.BE] skrev 04. september 1999 14:32:

Prof. Fosse,

First of all: I am not a professor! Only a humble dr.

> The remarkable continuity between Vedic and Harappan culture, given
> susbtance by ever more discoveries, is a cornerstone of Asko Parpola's
> explanations of stellar lore in Harappa: more often than not, he explains
> seemingly astronomical data from Harappa with related data in vedic
> literature, on the assumption that the Vedas have incorporated native
> Harappan knowledge and beliefs.  However, this seems to be a case of
> multiplying entities beyond necessity.  If Vedic and Harappan have so much
> in common, why not assume that they are two instances of one single
> civilization?

Interpreting the data related to the migration of Indo-Aryans into South Asia
in my opinion has to do not only with the data themselves, but with the models
we use to organize the data. The "classical" invasion theory was, in my
opinion, (and I emphasize that this is a *guess*) influenced by the history of
European intrusion into Latin America, where important and impressive cultures
were crushed under the influx of European conquistadors bringing with them
their own priesthood, which certainly had nothing to learn from the pagans. The
new version of the theory is a migration theory emphasizing a slower influx
where locals were *co-opted*. In other words, the upper crust of the late
Harappan culture amalgamated with the upper crust of the Indo-Aryans, adopting
their ideology and adding a bit of their own. This model offers new
interpretative possibilities, and is based on a model which can be observed in
other cases where cultures merge.

So why insist on an "invasion" - or a migration? The reason is of course the
language and the cultural elements that Indo-Aryans have in common with other
Indo-Europeans. All aspects of this problem would seem to have been thoroughly
debated on this list more than a year ago, and I am sure that you are familiar
with most of the arguments. I see no point in rehashing them once more. So I
suggest a "division of labour": Those on the list who think that the Aryans are
indigenous, please go on discussing among yourself! You may for instance try to
establish a Great Theory which accounts for the whole Indo-European situation,
the spread of the languages, the common cultural features etc. This is what the
migrationists/invasionsist have done, and I doubt that you will be heard unless
you are able to come up with a counter-model that is intellectually credible.
In the mean-time, those of us who don't think that the Indigenist hypothesis
has reached anything like maturity should go on debating the migrationist
version of the Indo-Aryan question.

One possible argument for multiplying the entities and
> positing the non-kinship of Vedic and Harappan would be any proof that the
> Harappans spoke a non-Indo-Aryan language; this language would then
> obviously show up in the Vedas, esp. in the cultural lore borrowed from the
> Harappans.  But that borrowed cultural vocabulary (e.g. in names of
> constellations and astronomical concepts) is conspicuously missing in Vedic
> literature (much in contrast with e.g. the Greek loanwords in later
> astrological treatises).

I disagree with the premise. Concepts may be borrowed, but not necessarily
words. Here I would like to refer to Dixon, R. M. W. (1997). The rise and fall
of languages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. This small book contains a
lot of useful information on linguistic questions. It shows, among other
things, that there are no absolute laws for borrowing between languages:
sometimes, vocabulary is borrowed, sometimes not, sometimes structures,
sometime not. Sometimes, both are borrowed. The Indo-Aryans may already have
had words for most of the astronomical phenomena that the Harappans taught them
about (e.g. constellations), but may have adopted "Harappan concepts and
solutions". We simply don't know what happened. But your argument does not
automatically follow.

Best regards,

Lars Martin Fosse


Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse
Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,
0674 Oslo
Norway
Phone/Fax: +47 22 32 12 19
Email: lmfosse at online.no