Aryan invasion debate

[Michael Witzel]

At 20:42 +0200 9/7/99, Koenraad Elst wrote:

>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"

this is not a quote but a paraphrase and shortcut of what I wrote, ... and
on p. 117...
On p. 116 I criticize 'western' scholars of all stripes, and on the bottom
ob p. 116 some S. Asian biases. Here Chowdhury and Telagiri (sic, indeed)
appear in a footnote devoted to westward migration of IA/IE; labeled as
'erroneous'.

On p. 117 I sum up various more or less recent (Tilak 1903 included)
'speculations ; as follows; "... Such speculations further cloud the
scientific evaluation of textual sources, and can only be regarded as
examples of modern Hindu exegetical or apologetic religious writing; even
if they do not always come with the requisite label warning us of their
real intentions."

To which I subscribe still. There are scholars and scholars. Some are
religionists, some are politicians. I would say the same about sectarian
Christian writings involving the Bible or their use by politicians in this
country and elsewehre.

In short, misreporting... Members are advised to read the passage
themselves. I can reproduce it in a separate message if someone asks for it.

>(still mild next to Erdosy's dismissing Talageri as a
>"lunatic", no
>less, p.x),-- all without having seen Talageri's book.
how do you know that? - Again,  Erdosy on p. x reads much more nuanced that
Elst's quote.

He talks about the older Aryan hypothesis and says "its support of the
status quo will probably insure its survival on the political stage" where
he adds the footonote:
" In spite of spirited opposition, which has intensified recently -- cf.
Biswas 1990, Chowdhury 1993; Telagiri (sic) 1993. ....
<finally he sums up some *other* approaches:>  Assertion of the indigenous
origin of Indo-Aryan languages and an insitence on a long chronology for
vedic and even Epic literature  are only a few of the most prominent tenets
of this emerging lunatic fringe."


> 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)

I had a vague memory that Telegiri was added to my paper by Erdosy, and on
checking, indeed, his name was not in my footnote of the original file.
Should not have allowed this. But the buck stops with me.
This is, unfortunately, not the only (printing) mistake in that paper.
I have already apologized for it in my paper in  "Inside the Texts"
(HOS-Opera Minora 2, 1997, note  21, and hope to reprint it in a correct
version soon).

and the misidentification of his publisher
>(Aditya instead of Voice of India),

The details of the bibliography were done, just as the rewriting of my
Germanic Engl. draft, to a large degree, by G. Erdosy, since I was
extremely busy  at the time.  Of course I am responsible for the outcome
(though I did not see the press proof). I do not wriggle out of this.
Again, my responsibility. -- One learns from mistakes.

>both identical to the errors in the
>Times of India (17 June 1993) review of the book?

I do not read the Times of India. See above.

>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.

See above; there is some misquoting here by Elst (of Erdosy's and my own
case) and undue generalisations  of his own.


>    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.

How many times do I have to repeat that I do not favor the "Aryan invasion"
theory??
I did a computer check on my 2 papers in the 1995 vol. and I have used  the
words  "invasion" & "invader"  7 times, --  never supporting the "Aryan
invasion" but characterizing other's ideas
such as Wheeler's and referring to *real* invasions (Turks in Bulgaria,
Alexander's  Greeks in S., Asia, Normans,  etc. -- Instead, I exhorted
scholars to give up the "vague concepts of 'tribal invasions',"  and I also
said:

" The idea of a cataclismic invasion has, in fact, been given up long ago
by Vedic scholars - "

How can Elst misread an English paper that much??

By now, we have to become very suspicious about ANY "quote" made by him!




 ==========================================================================
Michael Witzel                          Elect. Journ. of Vedic Studies
Harvard University                  www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
my direct line (also for messages) :  617- 496 2990
home page:     www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm