IVC on Indology list

[Dean Anderson]

I believe that the IVC is directly relevant to Indology even if one does
not subscribe to some of the more extreme views that would seek to
identify the Harappans as Aryans. There are unmistakable connections
between the Harappans and later Indic systems that are almost
universally accepted by the most mainstream of scholars.

A few examples: the Harappan weight system is still used in India today.
A field at the Harappan city of Kalibangan was ploughed in distinct way
still in use in that part of South Asia. There are undeniable
connections between designs of carts, boats, clothing styles including
the practice among women of wearing red ochre in the part of their hair;
and of religious practices such as the veneration of the pipal and
banyan trees, etc. More speculative, but still widely accepted, are the
identification among Harappan remains of proto-Ziva, Pazupati (or
MahiSa); the Mother Goddess/Durga; the seven rishis/krittikas;
nakSatras, yoga asanas, etc. These are generally, but not universally,
considered to be part of a Dravidian substratum that mixed with Aryanism
to give rise to later Indic/Vedic/Hindu thoughts and practices.

Regarding some of the other lists, unfortunately they usually have a
rather low signal-to-noise ratio and one is often forced to wade through
pages of uniformed speculation by those who have not taken the time to
do the most basic research. This, combined with the highly emotional
attacks (sadly prevalent among mainstream academics as well as
traditionalists) has tended to drive most professional Indologists away.
Having said that, however, there some very valuable and well-informed
opinions on those sites.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] On Behalf Of
>Plamen Gradinarov
>Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 1:46 AM
>To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: IVC on Indology list
>
>I really wonder why academics are so retrofascinated by
>such primitive forms of scholarly communication like lists and
>quasi-usenet groups.

What alternative would you suggest? I personally would like to see
scholarly discussion move more in the direction of electronic
communication such as that in Witzel's EJVS. I feel that the old system
of print journals with limited distribution and access only impede
academic progress. We have seen that on this list with members having
difficulty in accessing the discussions in Science about the Witzel,
Farmer, Sproat article. Certain fast moving fields like physics or one
of my old areas of research, neuroscience, have tended to move away from
print journals to a remarkable degree because the internet is so much
more conducive to rapid exchange of ideas.

Respectfully,

Dean Anderson