Aryan invasion debate

[Koenraad Elst]

    A lot of mails pointing my way.  Brief reply:
    Prof. Witzel objects to my comment on mere excerpts from the
Michigan conf  book.  I promise a detailed review once I have a copy.  Prof.
Witzel, meanwhile, passed judgment on S. Talageri's book in Erdosy's
Indo-Aryans of
Ancient South Asia (p.116), denouncing it as "Hindu exegetical or apologetic
religious writing" (still mild next to Erdosy's dismissing Talageri as a
"lunatic", no
less, p.x),-- all without having seen Talageri's book.  How else shall we
explain
his total ignorance of Talageri's arguments (though these specifically clash
with
Witzel's approach to reconstructing Vedic history), and more pointedly, the
error in
Talageri's name (Telagiri) and the misidentification of his publisher
(Aditya instead of Voice of India), both identical to the errors in the
Times of India (17 June 1993) review of the book?
Basing opinions on second-hand reports yet pretending otherwise in the
footnote is no big deal, but please confine it to neutral references, not
one underpinning
such sweeping condemnation.
    Prof. Witzel also favours integration of different types of evidence.
But what can such synthesis deliver when all the separate types of evidence
fail to support the AIT?  Archaeologists and anthropologists have not
identified any findings as distinctly Aryan-invader.  Linguistics offers
only soft evidence and doesn't yield a consensus.  In Vedic literature,
again no trace of the invasion (as for Prof. Witzel's attempt to
find one such reference, see my website), and no non-IE reading of the
Harappan seals has succeeded.  The AIT may be true, but it is entirely
unproven.  Therefore, it is too early to act bored with this debate.
    Dr. Thompson requests one RV verse proving indigenousness.  Numerous
scholars (tenured at the best univs with the best-equipped libraries,
funding, research assistents, and a prestige opening many doors in India)
have taught the AIT for decades, yet failed to identify a single RV verse
proving the invasion.  This when there is obviously more chance of finding a
reference to an event (invasion) than to a non-event (absence of invasion).
    Dr. Martinez-Reimann, on second thought I don't expect acceptance of
Jha's decipherment of Harappan as Sanskritic to end the quarrel: the
trenches would simply move to the AIT's next line of defence, viz. a
pre-Harappan
Aryan invasion;-- which is indeed a legitimate possibility.
    Incidentally, Dr. Thompson, you seem to identify me as a headstrong
champion of the non-AIT cause, like Prof. Rajaram.  To clarify my position:
I have no
axe to grind in this matter, and I don't care where my ancestors got their
language from.  I am not even sure of the Indian homeland hypothesis, though
at present it has the best cards.  I am
simply having a good time pulling the leg of people who are far too sure of
their case relative to their meagre evidence.

Yours sincerely,
Koenraad Elst
http://members.xoom.com/KoenraadElst/