Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 22:51:53 GMT
Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
[snip]
: Hello, both Ben and Peter,
: Well, at last I have been able to spare some time and to get to those
: books and do some more research. Now I can give those refs about the seals
: that Needham was using.
: Here are the publications he cites in his TRANS-PACIFIC ECHOES, p. 16:
: D. H. Kelley, A CILINDER-SEAL FROM TLATILCO, American Antiquity, 31
: (1966), p. 744.
: George F. Carter & S. Heinemann, PRE-COLUMBIAN SELLOS: Another Artifact
: Showing Possible Cultural Contact and Trans-Pacific Diffusion,
: Anthropological Journ. of Canada, 15 (no. 3), (1977), p. 2.
Okay, now I have read the Carter cite, which is another breezy little 2
page job using some kind of art historical "analysis" based essentially on
Barry Fell to suggest diffusion.
Carter and Heinemann recycle Kelley's Tlatilco seal, apparently because
Fell offered an interpretation of it, which explains Needham's interest in
the seal. They extend this sample of 1 out of context small find by adding
a few more; they show 12 in illustration, but touch on only a few and
seriously discuss none. A few of them have simple geometric designs,
either in a single chevron pattern or straight descending lines. One
depicts some sort of figure, and the rest are designs consisting of no
more than 8 elements, and generally only 2 or 3.
Carter asserts that these are "alphabetic", but offers no discussion. He
does not indicate whose alphabet, nor where the breaks are, nor in which
direction the signs should be read, nor even where the top and bottom are.
Certainly no evidence is offered to suggest that these have anything
whatever to do with Old World alphabets, and they bear no resemblance
whatever to anything Near Eastern in my experience. I'm not aware there
were alphabets in Asia at 500 BC.
Carter seems to suggest that these seals are actually related to Ban
Chiang seals, since these is what he provides for comparative material. I
suppose people can make their own minds up, but I see no particular
resemblance. Carter offers no coherent argument to link them, and no
archaeological or even art historical data is provided. None of these
seals appears to have any real provenience.
Pretty weak case for diffusion. In fact, no case at all.
The Anthropological Journal of Canada seemed to have a special interest in
topics related to diffusion; Carter is a frequent contributor, appearing
in almost every issue I looked at. He definitely appears to be a man with
an axe to grind.
There was, however, one other article in the same issue as the one Yuri
offered which did prove interesting. Curious that Needham (or Yuri)
neglected to mention it.
It was written by Thomas Lee, and examined in some detail a reading of
some Libyan "inscriptions" by Barry Fell. Lee shows pretty clearly that
Fell's methods leave much to be desired, and are, in fact, poised over
that line of academic fraud (if not far beyond it). Fell offers 4 readings
of the same inscription, which vary wildly from reading to reading, which
share no relationship to other Libyan inscriptions Fell "translates", and
which ultimately turn out to be natural cracks in an igneous rock.
Strike two, Yuri. Still waiting for that site report. Where are the
ceramics? I'm getting tired of these glyptic traditions floating on the
breeze. This is wasting my time.
Ben
Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: "Paul E. Pettennude"
Date: 5 Dec 1996 05:39:29 GMT
Group,
Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't Barry Feld in the Department of
Comparative Zoology at Harvard when he wrote his earth shattering
treatises?
If I'm right and I'm pretty sure I am, epigraphy of old world
civilizations' writings (emphasize the plural here) as well as those of
indigeneous Americans is quite a stretch for a Zoologist and even for a
Harvard man.
Fell was an amateur and should be given respect for what he attempted, but
I think he was in over his head here. All the Zoological training in the
world ain't going to make you an expert in dead languages. Since Professor
Fell was actively teaching at Harvard when he wrote his books, either his
classes suffered from lack of attention or his epigraphical research did or
both. I don't know where the man had the time to learn dead languages
while keeping up a full time course load.
Paul Pettennude
Benjamin H. Diebold wrote in article
<584va9$1ut@news.ycc.yale.edu>...
> Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
> [snip]
> : Hello, both Ben and Peter,
>
> : Well, at last I have been able to spare some time and to get to those
> : books and do some more research. Now I can give those refs about the
seals
> : that Needham was using.
>
> : Here are the publications he cites in his TRANS-PACIFIC ECHOES, p. 16:
>
> : D. H. Kelley, A CILINDER-SEAL FROM TLATILCO, American Antiquity, 31
> : (1966), p. 744.
>
> : George F. Carter & S. Heinemann, PRE-COLUMBIAN SELLOS: Another Artifact
> : Showing Possible Cultural Contact and Trans-Pacific Diffusion,
> : Anthropological Journ. of Canada, 15 (no. 3), (1977), p. 2.
>
> Okay, now I have read the Carter cite, which is another breezy little 2
> page job using some kind of art historical "analysis" based essentially
on
> Barry Fell to suggest diffusion.
>
> Carter and Heinemann recycle Kelley's Tlatilco seal, apparently because
> Fell offered an interpretation of it, which explains Needham's interest
in
> the seal. They extend this sample of 1 out of context small find by
adding
> a few more; they show 12 in illustration, but touch on only a few and
> seriously discuss none. A few of them have simple geometric designs,
> either in a single chevron pattern or straight descending lines. One
> depicts some sort of figure, and the rest are designs consisting of no
> more than 8 elements, and generally only 2 or 3.
>
> Carter asserts that these are "alphabetic", but offers no discussion. He
> does not indicate whose alphabet, nor where the breaks are, nor in which
> direction the signs should be read, nor even where the top and bottom
are.
> Certainly no evidence is offered to suggest that these have anything
> whatever to do with Old World alphabets, and they bear no resemblance
> whatever to anything Near Eastern in my experience. I'm not aware there
> were alphabets in Asia at 500 BC.
>
> Carter seems to suggest that these seals are actually related to Ban
> Chiang seals, since these is what he provides for comparative material. I
> suppose people can make their own minds up, but I see no particular
> resemblance. Carter offers no coherent argument to link them, and no
> archaeological or even art historical data is provided. None of these
> seals appears to have any real provenience.
>
> Pretty weak case for diffusion. In fact, no case at all.
>
> The Anthropological Journal of Canada seemed to have a special interest
in
> topics related to diffusion; Carter is a frequent contributor, appearing
> in almost every issue I looked at. He definitely appears to be a man with
> an axe to grind.
>
> There was, however, one other article in the same issue as the one Yuri
> offered which did prove interesting. Curious that Needham (or Yuri)
> neglected to mention it.
>
> It was written by Thomas Lee, and examined in some detail a reading of
> some Libyan "inscriptions" by Barry Fell. Lee shows pretty clearly that
> Fell's methods leave much to be desired, and are, in fact, poised over
> that line of academic fraud (if not far beyond it). Fell offers 4
readings
> of the same inscription, which vary wildly from reading to reading, which
> share no relationship to other Libyan inscriptions Fell "translates", and
> which ultimately turn out to be natural cracks in an igneous rock.
>
> Strike two, Yuri. Still waiting for that site report. Where are the
> ceramics? I'm getting tired of these glyptic traditions floating on the
> breeze. This is wasting my time.
>
> Ben
>
Subject: Re: Why didn't anyone know before Columbus?
From: Claudio De Diana
Date: 5 Dec 1996 09:28:17 GMT
Bart_Torbert@piics.com (Bart Torbert) wrote:
>In article <57uk4r$2f7@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>,
[snip]
[I have read also the other post but I start with this]
>I did not mean to imply utter stagnation or to ignore the spice/silk
>trade. The question is whether a culture's basic focus is inward or
>outward. Is state policy concerned with border clashes with your nearest
>neighbors or trying to conquer and hold lands halfway around the world?
>The "Age of Discovery" was concentrated just as much on the Old World as
>the New.
>The same motivations(spices,etc) and the mechanisms(ship building,
>navigation techniques, good footware) to follow through on them were
>simular for maybe 50+ years before and after 1492. Before 1492 Europe's
>contact with the rest of the Old World was trade.(an arm's length
>relationship) Afterwards it was "Let's go out and conquer the rest of
>the world!" The activities caried out in the 1500's could have been
>carried out in the 1400's. WHile the spice trade was nice for those
>involved in it, I have always seen it as a sweetener to the economic pie,
>not an indispensible part of it. After 1492 Europe started to move
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I am not sure, but I believe spices were so involved
in meat conservation that I think they were indispensable.
>rapidly towards a globally based economy.
Now I see your point, well I am not an expert of the history
of economy but yesterday night I took a glance to same books
which identified the period of the Crusade as the "Dawn
of Capitalism", quoting the foundation of the first "trade
companies" (I am not sure about the right translation) as a symptom
for this however.
>After 1492 the intensity of trade, travel, exploration, political
>involvement with even the Old World took political/economic center stage.
> Europe changed from local politics to global politics. The ferosity and
>rapidity with which this occured can only make me think that the European
>culture was primed for this type of activity, but needed some spectacular
>event to fully activate it. That event I see as Columbus's voyage and
>the publicity it generated. Somehow finding a "New World" made people
>realize that there was even an "Old WOrld" that needed more attention.
There is something that probably is more clear to me given
that I am European: very soon in Europe it was not possible
to move a border(*), even of few kilometers, without getting
involved in a time- and resources-consuming war. Even if
your target was locally weak other more powerful countries
would have taken countermeasures in order to prevent you
from reaching a too powerful position. With this guideline
you can understand why the enemies at certain time could
became your allies even within months (which is actually true also now).
The "New World" therefore represented a huge amount of
natural and human resources available with a comparatively
low effort. Do notice that the more technologically advanced
countries of that time did not have to compete between
themselves for the same pieces of the "New World" given
that there were more resources to exploit(**) or cities to plunder(**)
(in the case of SA) than combact-ready military units.
See end of the post for further comments, when land ends
ther is a clash for existing resources.
To summarize:
there was a strong push for "new markets" which were
reached by means of ground communication or, as in the case
of Venezia, by means of sea-trade limited in the Mediterranean
Sea. Which, for the available technology, was a big leap.
When it becomes feasible to cross the Atlantic other
"markets" come into view.
(*) with move a border I intend: to take control of the
human and natural resources present inside this border.
This not necessarly implies a war but could imply the
overthrowing of a government and the substitution of it with
a friendly one (as an example take USA vs. Allende's Chile).
(**) I hope that the choose of this two verbs makes clear
that I do not believe that the actions taken were justified
from an ethical point of view .
>
[crusades snipped for lack of time, maybe in another post]
>
>THe Euro-purists try to make the case that Europe got itself out of the
>funk of the Dark Ages by its own bootstraps. Other argue that they got
>lots of hints. I side with the latter view. The biggest outside
>influence to me was what the returning Crusaders brought back in the way
>of technology and philosophy.
Well, the best way to judge is to make a "a posteriori"
analysis of the clash between two cultures.
Basically we could have that (1) a culture/civilization is
technologically inferior to another and (2) a culture/civilization
does not have the necessary instrument to incorporate other's
culture technology and develop their own weapons.
The difference between victory and defeat is point (2)
if the initial difference is reasonably low. Native NA
Indians had too big a gap in (1) but, for example, SA Peoples
were not so technologically inferior compared to the Europeans
but, they lacked completly in (2), "research and development",
so to say, hence they were exterminated.
But take the example of Japan, what prevented this
country to become a western colony like other part of the
Far East? The fact that they imported the first fireguns BUT
soon they managed to start to develop their own.
So a comparison held "a posteriori" between Europe vs. Arabs&Turks;
in the Middle Age can only -IMHO- be solved in favour of the European:
the siege of Wien in 1683 demonstrates that we
were in balance for centuries, and only a biggest effort
in technological development and the change in the society structure
implied by this allowed us to solve this conflict in our favour.
This does not imply that we were the best from a moral point
of view, we had, at that time, better guns, and, in the
case of Wien, better militar leadership, and that's all.
>
>Maybe this is not all the standard take on things, but it is the gut
>level impressions I get of the flow of history.
>
I would like to make a final comment on your phrase:
>"The question is whether a culture's basic focus is inward or
>outward. Is state policy concerned with border clashes with your nearest
>neighbors or trying to conquer and hold lands halfway around the world?"
Border clashes or making a colony thousands of kilometrs away from
your homeland are the same thing. Having in mind
what I have said before consider the beginning of the 1900.
Italy conquers Libia which is one of the last piece
of Africa available (the other one, Etiopia, will conquered
again by the Italians between the two WW). Say that after the 1900
basically there are no more lands available with low-level war
and the growing economies of the industrialized need to expand.
Hence the 1 WW, for the first time people do not fight
only for posses of territory but also for the destruction
of the economical system of the other countries. The problems
are not solved by the 1 WW, and the 2 WW is caused by
the necessity to solve the conflict between Japan and USA
for the control of the Pacific
and between Germany, Great Britain, CCCP, Italy and France
for the "leadership" in continental europe.
Do you still see differences between "border clash"
and "making colonies"? I do not see any, except
in the scale of the event involved, it is always economy
the driving force of history so that we can say that in
"1492" there was not only the wind pushing Colombo to
the West but strong economical forces too, clearly one
can make what the technology allows, if spaceship travel
would be available - now - one would colonize other worlds in order
to gain new markets :=)... and in 1492 the three Caravellas
were, actually, three "starships" :=)
best Regards,
Claudio De Diana
Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 07:49:18 GMT
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:04:16 GMT, hmccullo@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu
McCulloch) wrote:
>In article <32a dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) writes:
>>(Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>>> Bart_Torbert@piics.com (Bart Torbert) writes:
>>>>dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk says...
>>>
>>>On the Grave Creek stone from W. Va, identified above as a "famous fraud"
>>>by Doug Weller, see Terry
>>>A. Barnhart, "Curious Antiquity? The Grave Creek Controversy Revisited,"
>>>_West Virginia History_, 1986, 103-124. Barnhart, an historian formerly with
>>>the Ohio Historical Society, concludes that there is no serious reason to
>>>doubt that the stone came from the mound as reported.
>
>>How does he deal with Matthew Read's account, in which he says that he wrote
>>to P.B. Catlett, who claimed to have discovered it, and Colonel Wharton, who
>>said he saw the discovery, and they both agree it was found in a pile of dirt
>>dumped from a wheelbarrow. Yes, the site owner, Tomlinson, denies this, but
>>evidently his account of the diggin doesn't match any statements made by any
>>of those who observed the excavations.
>
>Barnhart appears to agree with MacLean, that "Regardless of who found
>the stone or whether it was discoverd inside or outside the mound, all
>professed witnesses agreed it had come _from_ the mound." (Barnhart,
>p. 122, summarising MacLean).
Sorry Hu, I don't follow this reasoning, Read had statements from 2 witnesses,
one of whom said *he* found it in a pile of dirt dumped from the site, the
other who said he saw that happen. Even if they thought it came from within
the mound, that could only be a guess.
[SNIP]
>Lest I have overwhelmed Doug with these arguments, I should
>caution that Kelley merely concludes, "My major point, however,
>is not to argue that the [Grave Creek, Braxton, and Ohio Co.] inscriptions
>are, indeed, genuine, but rather that I do not find it fantastic to think that
>they may be." (p. 13)
>
Whew, thanks!
Subject: Ancient South Asian Archaeology (1/2)
From: joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:34:27 +0000
Usenet followups set. Posted and e-mailed. This is a fantastically long
post split into two parts; if you would like to reply, please do read the
part at the end with more details about the distribution. This is in
minimal digest format. The subjects are:
Part 1:
1. Invocation
2. References on Harappa
3. The Gangetic problem
4. The Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities
Part 2:
5. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia
6. More references on the Gangetic civilisation
7. Distribution
------------------------------
Subject: 1. Invocation
I'm close to finishing an FAQ for Usenet newsgroup news.groups, one of my
bigger accomplishments in the past year on the nets. The thing that first
brought me there was the proposal for sci.archaeology.moderated. And the
things that brought me to the archaeology newsgroups were a set of
questions I've had for ten years.
What's become of Indian archaeology, and the particular archaeologists I
admired, in the last ten years? Have the theories of cultural evolution I
studied been completely forgotten? Is the stupendous challenge Harappa
presents those theories yet resolved?
I'm nearer answers to these questions than I have been in a decade, thanks
to the debates on the origins of Sanskrit recently held on the RISA-L
mailing list and on the newsgroups sci.archaeology and sci.lang. But
that's ironic in two ways. First, I've done a fair chunk of the debating
myself. With the notable exception of Edwin Bryant (for which reason he's
cc'd), I've had to come up with much of the archaeological info in the
discussion.
Second, the origin of Sanskrit is really tangential to my interests.
Obviously the question of who did what, where, when, is fundamental to
history. I don't want to downgrade the concern with whether the Aryans
did what to whomever... But there's an entirely different mystique
available in the archaeology of ancient South Asia. It has to do with
questions about how society works.
In the first major work of social science I read, , Robert McCormick Adams presented a picture of the early
civilisations as consistently following a single path into the world of
emperors and slaves: into inequality. Without being particularly
assertive about causes, he described processes by which equals became
inequal. He, and those who elaborated and disputed his views in later
years, offered me a perspective I badly needed to make sense of the world:
that society was a historical artifact.
A year later, I tried to make sense of inequality by studying the history
of India. This led me to an effort to apply Adams' theories and similar
ones to that history, to the civilisation of the Ganga valley.
Now, it's a commonplace among people who talk about "urban origins" or
"state origins" - this study of the birth of inequalities - to distinguish
between "pristine" or "primary" beginnings and "secondary" ones. And very
exactingly, at that. The typical list of "pristine" civilisations runs
something like this: Mesopotamia; maybe Egypt and Harappa; China;
Mexico/Guatemala; Peru.
Philip Kohl has made enough of a case for the Oxus valley that I needn't
repeat it here. But we continue to take it for granted that civilisation
elsewhere has obvious origins.
Students of India, however, don't. The reigning orthodoxy hasn't admitted
the possibility of urban continuity between the Indus valley and the
Ganga, and thus has had to argue the case for the latter as "pristine".
Typically, the rise of states and cities has been dated to something like
800 - 600 BC, and attributed to the invading "Aryans" and their iron tools
which enabled the exploitation of the Ganga valley.
Now, there's just one oddity about this. Sanskrit literature - Aryan
literature - reaches back, by most accounts, long before these
foundations. If the standard account is true, then in South Asia, and
South Asia *alone*, we have a textual tradition spanning the entire
process of the urban revolution. It's as if we had books from Gilgamesh's
time, or from the Shang emperors'. Isn't that even a little interesting?
I eventually concluded that the standard account wasn't true, and that we
don't really have the founders' grandparents' works. But in the course of
reaching that conclusion - which remains a disputed one, to say the least
- I found a still more bizarre conundrum in the archaeology of South
Asia. Above, I've emphasised the rise of inequality, rather than the rise
of (say) literature or law, in my descriptions of early civilisations.
That's because it's practically a given in the archaeological and
anthropological literature that civilisation *means* inequality. Unequal
malnutrition in children is a standard indicator, for example. It's
absent only in modern Scandinavia.
And, as it turns out, Harappa.
Harappa used to be stereotyped as a caste-ridden society. But during the
1970s and 1980s, that stereotype among many others was exploded. Scholars
started noticing that there was something *odd* about the continued
failure to find royal tombs. Then, that there wasn't much sign of social
differentiation in grave goods generally. For that matter, a meticulous
re-analysis of the records of digs at Mohenjo-daro showed every sign of
showing that gold and other presumed valuables were distributed *randomly*
among the dwellings there.
Civilisation without inequality. Not in the workers' paradise, but at the
very beginning. Not proven, no - but surely the most serious test case
yet.
And yet all we can find to talk about is the origins of Sanskrit?
Well, there's reasons for that. For one thing, obviously, who wrote the
texts and when is crucial at least to the issue of Gilgamesh's hymns, and
probably also to that of equality at Harappa. So the origins of Sanskrit,
while tangential, is hardly trivial to my interests.
For another, we're short staffed. I know of at most one or two people on
Usenet who've read the Harappan site reports: Ben Diebold, perhaps,
though for whatever reason he doesn't participate in these debates; and
Moin Ansari, also cc'd, who's studied them a lot more than I have but who
hasn't been free lately. As for the later reports on the Iron Age, unless
Mr. Bryant has read them, I seem to be alone on the nets. And the
millennium between the two? I just don't know. So there isn't much room
for discussion.
This post has three purposes, then. The first is to increase the
audience. Surely I can't be the only person who thinks these issues
matter? who wants to find out about them, and maybe do some research for
it?
The second is to recruit my replacements. Don't any of you reading this
have any colleagues who can speak to these issues, archaeology professors
or graduate students familiar with South Asia? It's kind of sad that Mr.
Ansari and I, both amateurs, are representing their field to the nets.
My third purpose is to apologise. In the Usenet post I'm following up to,
I offered to provide information as current as I can on early rice and
iron in India, and on 2nd millennium BC geography and cultures of northern
India and Pakistan. It turns out I haven't the time for that; the real
world must reimpose itself eventually, and the book I'm working on has
nothing to do with archaeology. I intend to keep participating in
discussions, but I can't offer any more than my memories and what research
I've already done for at least a month. And even then, I'll have no
library access to many of the references given so far or below. (Don't
even ask about inter-library loan through the Chicago Public Library!)
So here's something of a consolation offer. This post attempts, besides
the cheerleading above, to do the following: collect some basic, current
references on the topics; and review two of these in detail, one of which
may well be unfamiliar.
Hope it's worth it.
------------------------------
Subject: 2. References on Harappa
I won't pretend I've suddenly become the expert on this civilisation.
Moreover, there doesn't appear to be a recent full-scale synthesis I'm
prepared to advertise.
But for the sake of completeness, I should point out the following
references:
Meadow, Richard H., ed. 1991. Harappa Excavations 1986-1990:JA
Multidisciplinary Approach to Third Millennium Urbanism. Monographs in
World Archaeology No. 3. Prehistory Press. Madison, WI.
Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark. 1991a. "The Indus Valley Tradition of Pakistan
and Western India." Journal of World Prehistory. 5:4:331-385.
These are from Ben Diebold's post, Message-ID
<4bul5h$2v6@news.ycc.yale.edu>, December 28, 1995.
To all intents and purposes, the Meadow appears to be the most current
major work, the current synthesis, though it's mainly an interim site
report. I haven't examined it much at all, except for the Hemphill paper
previously discussed on these fora. Kenoyer's paper, which I've glanced
through but not read, shows every sign of being a very solid survey, and
dense with references, as befits the journal in which it appeared.
Mr. Diebold's post had a number of other references in it, and Moin
Ansari's bibliographic post, Message-ID
<4ct802$kfb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, of January 9, 1996 has quite a few
more. I will gladly e-mail these to anyone who can't get them via
DejaNews, as well as my own prior bibliographic posting, Message-ID
I think, previously on
sci.archaeology.moderated and INDOLOGY.
I did notice in my glances at the Meadow book that there seem to be, after
all, some signs of social stratification at Harappa; but I have no idea
how solidly founded these are, nor whether they in fact mean what they
seemed to at first glance. To the best of my knowledge, the question
remains open. In any event, the following paper title, found in one of
the books reviewed below, piques my interest considerably:
Possehl, Gregory L. 1991. "Revolution in the urban revolution: the
emergence of Harappan urbanism." Annual Review of Anthropology. 19:
------------------------------
Subject: 3. The Gangetic problem
I don't mean to imply by my remarks above that it's perfectly obvious to
everyone how urban origins theories and standard accounts of Gangetic
urbanism conflict. Indeed, my position is not shared by Romila Thapar,
whose 1984 book remains the best synthetic study
of the first millennium I've seen.
It was also the first study to join the two subjects in a powerful and
effective way. Thapar didn't just apply the theories to her context; she
also solved, to my mind quite effectively, theoretical problems that had
remained open in the transition she titled her book after. Although her
focus is primarily that of a historian, she is also the best-informed
historian now working in India as far as archaeology is concerned. For an
elementary discussion of ancient India, the standard recommendation of A.
L. Basham's probably sounds goofy, but is in
fact essentially sound (I believe there's an early 1980s revision); but
anyone who has enough Sanskrit terms to read it will benefit greatly from
Thapar's analysis.
In her wake, lots of other works appeared. I've previously referred to
those I'd seen in my 1986-87 research. It turns out others were being
published at the same time, notably (going by later citations; I still
haven't seen these):
Lal, Makkhan. 1987. "The stages of human colonisation in the
Ganga-Yamuna Doab: archaeological evidence." South Asian Studies. 3:
25-32.
Erdosy, George. 1987. "Early historic cities of Northern India." South
Asian Studies. 3: 1-23.
idem. 1989. "Ethnicity in the Rigveda and its bearing on the question of
Indo- European origins." South Asian Studies. 5: 35-47.
Additional references, that I have seen, include:
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1988. Theoretical Issues in Indian Archaeology.
New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
This has separate chapters on diffusion; literature and archaeology;
geography; cultural evolution; agriculture; metallurgy; and trade. I
expect to find it of great value; see below for much more on Chakrabarti.
R. K. Varma. 1989. "Pre-Agricultural Mesolithic Society of the Ganga
Valley." Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South
Asia, edited by J.M.Kenoyer, Wisconsin Archaeological Reports Vol 2, 1989.
This is most recent paper I was familiar with on early settlement of the
Ganga (having heard the paper given in 1986). At the same conference and
in the same volume, by the way, the paper I've remembered or misremembered
as showing that rice caused the fall of Harappa:
Richard Meadow. 1989. "Continuity and Change in the Agriculture of the
Greater Indus Valley." Ibid.
Anyway. What seems clear from the books I *have* looked at is that the
second millennium BC, the crucial period whose chronology, ethnic
movements, settlement hierarchies, and who-knows-what-else will be
decisive in the judgement as to whether Gangetic urbanism is in fact
"pristine" - that millennium remains not only too little researched and
still less published, but that little is itself not adequately synthesised
in anything more recent than the Allchins' 1982 book, it appears. (That
book is, however, a fine guide.)
In particular, the edited by A.
Ghosh, which I've previously mentioned, is good but not nearly enough. It
proves to be current only to the late 1970s though published in 1989, and
its organisation makes it difficult to pull together views of periods or
regions as pottery-typed cultures are privileged.
There is a solution, though. It involves the recent book on Gangetic
urbanism you probably *haven't* heard of: Dilip Chakrabarti's
.
------------------------------
Subject: 4. The Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities
A cursory review.
This is an example of why I wish there were a real South Asian
archaeologist on the nets. I'm by no means equipped to give this book a
full review with appropriate scholarly approvals, but I'm about as
qualified as anyone available to explain why all the libraries out there
that've bought the other book I'm reviewing really should buy this one
too. Sigh...
As it is, while a variety of local libraries here in Chicago have
Allchin's new book (reviewed below), this one turned up only on a
shelf-reading at Loyola. Not Northwestern!
Press RETURN for more...
It's unfortunate, because while I'd have to give the Allchin book a slight
edge for the most cash-strapped library, Chakrabarti's is much better for
some purposes, and the two complement each other well.
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1995. The Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities.
Delhi (and Bombay, Calcutta, Madras): Oxford. ISBN 0 19 563472 1.
This book was written 1992-93, on the basis (usually not readily detected)
of a 1972-73 dissertation at the University of Calcutta. Chakrabarti
went on from that dissertation to become a foremost opponent of
diffusionist arguments in South Asian archaeology (his explanations for
the native origin of iron are the standard ones still), based usually on
exacting knowledge of specific technologies, geographies, or whatever else
was germane. Here he comes full circle.
Its contents:
I. Introduction
This is a ten-page review of theoretical issues, in which Chakrabarti
contrasts Gordon Childe with Adams, discusses a synthesis of sorts which
he found in Renfrew (though it derives from the work of Kent Flannery, I
gather), and finally says that although he intends to keep these
considerations in mind, his paramount definition for an urban setting is
literacy.
II. Background and Origin of the Indus Civilization
Thirty-five pages of what Chakrabarti does over and over in this book,
namely an exhaustive review of available evidence with copious references,
are followed by a few pages in which he offers his own views on
causation. This is the chapter I read most closely, and the best place
for me to indicate one reason I'm biased in Chakrabarti's favour: he
writes clear, vigorous English, and calls a spade a spade. He is
trenchant in condemning careless work or thought, and clear in his praise
for those who merit it. He makes his own biases plain - it's clear that
he has no patience with the idea of Mesopotamian trade as a causative
factor in Harappan urbanism - and I'm not going to say he's right every
time. But he quotes generously from those he disputes, and summarises
their results concisely but fully.
Bibliography in South Asian archaeology is a work of suffering, in my
experience. What Chakrabarti does in this chapter, and throughout the
book, is gather all the references together, and summarise them. I know
of no other book which provides such full access to the archaeological
literature of early South Asian urbanism between two covers, and it's
complete with a (usually fair) critique.
It remains to get through the rest of the table of contents, and back
this up...
III. Harappan Settlements
This time, it's 53 pages of evidence and 18 of conclusions. The evidence
is surveyed by region, with the major sites described at length and
surface surveys and the like duly noted: North Afghanistan and
Baluchistan; Sind; Cholistan; Western Panjab; Rajasthan, Haryana, East
Panjab and U.P.; Kutch, Kathiawar and Mainland Gujarat. The conclusions
discuss site distribution and size; chronology; planning; and the "social
framework" (briefly!).
IV. Prelude to Early Historic Urban Growth
The first dozen pages discuss the decline of Harappa; I am embarrassed to
have to admit that I've forgotten his proposal, but again he begins with a
review of the evidence. Next follow 23 pages on the non-Harappan neolithic
and chalcolithic cultures of the rest of the subcontinent. Interestingly,
in the conclusion which follows, while he generally disdains trade as a
cause, here he attributes the flowering of these cultures throughout this
region around 2000 BC to trade with Harappa.
V. Early Historical Cities
And here they all are... I did notice one glaring omission.
Atranjikhera, whose excavation report I've previously referenced, gets
only one paragraph. This is an absurdity, given that that site is the
most extensively published and one of the most extensively excavated since
World War II in north India; I can only think the author took for granted
that his readers would already have a copy of the report.
Otherwise, I could only think "Had this only existed when I
started..." This time the review of the evidence is 72 pages, ranging
from the Northwest Frontier to Tamil Nadu and Assam, followed by a
discussion of the growth of urban civilisation, of town size and planning
(including textual discussion, unlike the rest of the book), and of the
character of the cities.
VI. Problems and Perspectives
A summary, focused particularly on the shortcomings of Indian archaeology
(a standard jeremiad) and also on causes of Gangetic urbanism.
This book didn't exist when I did my research. It does now. I recommend
it very strongly.
end part 1
joe bernstein
Subject: Ancient South Asian Archaeology (2/2)
From: joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:29:32 +0000
Usenet followups set. Posted and e-mailed. This is a fantastically long
post split into two parts; if you would like to reply, please do read the
part at the end with more details about the distribution. This is in
minimal digest format. The subjects are:
Part 1:
1. Invocation
2. References on Harappa
3. The Gangetic problem
4. The Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities
Part 2:
5. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia
6. More references on the Gangetic civilisation
7. Distribution
Subject: 5. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia
A slightly less cursory review.
If you're at all interested in the subject, you've probably heard of this
book already. I'm going to develop a critique here, therefore, more fully
than in the case of Chakrabarti's book. (Also, because I had more time in
the library where I examined this one...)
Allchin, F. R. 1995. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The
Emergence of Cities and States. With contributions from George Erdosy, R.
A. E. Coningham, D. K. Chakrabarti and Bridget Allchin. Cambridge (and
New York, Melbourne): Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0 521 37547 9
(hardcover) or 0 521 37695 5 (paper).
Note that George Erdosy has changed his name to Muhammad Usman Erdosy.
Allchin did not require unanimity of his contributors, nor did he attempt
the same sort of magisterial survey in his own chapters which he and his
wife accomplished in their earlier book. The result is a strangely patchy
work. I suppose it is, at the moment, the best source on early Gangetic
civilisation's archaeology, but it's far from the grand synthesis I'd
hoped for.
Contents:
PART I The background
I. The archaeology of early historic South Asia - 7 pp.
The obligatory history and jeremiad.
II. The environmental context (Bridget Allchin) - 16 pp.
An excellent treatment for the user, though I haven't the background to
evaluate the scientific accuracy. She moves region by region, and in each
region describes the specific geographic context of at least the most
important urban sites.
III. The end of Harappan urbanism and its legacy - 15 pp.
There is a fairly impressionistic review by region, covering the
archaeology of essentially the whole second millennium BC. (This is why I
prefer Chakrabarti's for research purposes!) Allchin's basic thesis is
that there was a major decline, but it turned around before everyone died;
then some centuries later there was another decline, this time wiping out
cultures everywhere but the Punjab; he blames the former largely on
tectonic and environmental causes, and the latter on a claim that the
rains must have diminished sharply, since nearby coastal cultures also
declined at the end of the second millennium.
IV. Language, culture and the concept of ethnicity - 13 pp.
This is the book's treatment of the Aryans' arrival in the Punjab. My
notes read, "Appallingly vague and speculative." He argues that the
Aryans, who might have arrived in waves, were in each case a minority
taking advantage of disorder and decline to conquer and then acculturate
the population; thus he argues that Sanskrit came from elsewhere but the
early Aryans (the acculturated descendants) were indigenous.
V. Dark Age or continuum? An archaeological analysis of the second
emergence of urbanism in South Asia (R. A. E. Coningham) - 19 pp.
Using a sample of about a dozen second millennium sites from all over the
subcontinent, and a list of traits of urban society similar to Childe's
but more sophisticated, Coningham argues that most of these traits were
found someplace or other sometime during the millennium, so it wasn't a
Dark Age. The implication that Gangetic urbanism didn't come out of
nowhere is not explicitly defended, and it's a good thing, as a given
trait might be found at only two sites at opposite ends of the
subcontinent. Another impression I left with was that what urbanism there
was in the second millennium was practically anywhere *but* the Ganga
valley.
PART II The rise of cities and states
VI. The prelude to urbanism: ethnicity and the rise of Late Vedic
chiefdoms (George Erdosy) - 24 pp.
This chapter covers only the Ganga valley, for the first half of the first
millennium BC. There's a brief note on chronology, but the rest of the
topical survey which dominates the chapter is excellent, treating
settlement patterns, material culture, and textual evidence on early
politics, in order. Erdosy then proceeds to argue that "Aryan-ness", at
least in this region (but by implication also elsewhere) was no ethnic
trait but an ideological one, which fits in with his general argument that
later Vedic society was an authority-based chiefdom.
I was very unimpressed with Erdosy's first publications, in the middle
1980s, and am surprised to find myself saying this, but this is the best
chapter in the book.
That said, I don't agree with it at a fairly basic level. Erdosy
accepts, as I never have, the argument that the state is represented
archaeologically by a four- level central place hierarchy. He therefore
is obligated to find no states in the later Vedic texts, whose
archaeological correlates lack such a settlement hierarchy.
My own interest has always focused on the process through the lens of
the city, and I'm convinced from his own and other settlement surveys that
there were indeed central places in this era which I would take as the
nuclei of states.
In other words, the fact that he later develops a very short chronology
for urbanism fails to persuade me.
VII. City states of North India and Pakistan at the time of the Buddha
(George Erdosy) - 24 pp.
The topical survey in this chapter doesn't equal the prior one but is
quite good, proceeding through chronology, settlement patterns, urban
planning, economics, and then literary discussions of cities and states.
The conclusion, which essentially says the constant warfare among the
latter looks like a conceivable cause for the urban/state process, is less
impressive.
In this chapter, the effort towards a short chronology gathers much
force. Erdosy accepts arguments from one Bechert that the Buddha's
mahaparinirvana really occurred in 368, not 486. He also applies a very
solid-looking set of radiocarbon dates to demonstrate not that Northern
Black Polished Ware appears in 400 BC (as at first appears) but rather,
and probably correctly from what I know of the radiocarbon record, around
550 BC. (At least at most sites.) In turn, since much of the evidence we
have for truly urban character is tied to the NBP ware and not even its
beginning, he concludes that true urbanism begins perhaps 400 BC.
I shouldn't judge in ignorance, but this looks suspect to me on a few
grounds. First of all, I haven't seen Bechert's arguments yet, and always
found the date of 486 pretty persuasive! Beyond that, Erdosy makes light
of the very old stupas (he mentions Vaisali but not Sravasti and
Kapilavastu as being probably as old as the parinirvana), while I found
those site reports convincing. I will need to examine the radiocarbon
dates myself before I really believe that his "early NBP" sites represent
the ware's earliest stages. And, with Paul Wheatley, I've generally
preferred to define urbanism in relation to central places, not urban
character.
That said. These two chapters are excellent complements to
Chakrabarti's site-by-site treatment, and the picture they paint of a
rather late development, while unpersuasive to me, is hardly a trivially
researched one.
VIII. Early cities and states beyond the Ganges Valley - 29 pp.
This is a detailed site-by-site survey across the first millennium (but
mainly its second half) and the rest of the subcontinent. Allchin
advances few major arguments and relies quite heavily on pottery-typed
cultures. If any settlement surveys are available to him, he doesn't
mention them as best I recall.
IX. The rise of cities in Sri Lanka (R. A. E. Coningham and F. R.
Allchin) - 33 pp.
Yes, I'm serious: this topic gets more pages than any of the above
chapters. They're devoted mostly to the authors' current excavations at
Anuradhapura, with some discussion of textual evidence and some of other
sites.
PART III The Mauryan empire and its aftermath
X. The Maurya state and empire - 35 pp.
Here, finally, we get settlement hierarchies, as well as extensive
discussion of the ancient world's megalopolis, Pataliputra. There's also
a lot about the textual evidence of the , which
Allchin (like most scholars) accepts as essentially a genuine 4th-3rd
century BC record.
Since that document implies a stupendously developed country where (per
Erdosy) three centuries earlier there were neither cities nor states, I
tend to accept the minority view that it was written much later. Ah,
well.
In any event, there are also discussions of early writing and coinage
on the subcontinent, and on what archaeology and the tell us
of weights and measures.
XI. Mauryan architecture and art - 52 pp. (with many illustrations)
Being no art historian, I'm not qualified to say much about this chapter,
except that it has lots of nice pictures :-). The survey appears to be
quite comprehensive. Unlike the rest of the book, Allchin here favours
early dates consistently and also likes diffusionist arguments.
XII. Post-Mauryan states of mainland South Asia (c. BC 185 - AD 320) (D.
K. Chakrabarti) - 53 pp.
Yes, that's right, that's the crowning joke of this whole awkward
situation where two books are required for the job of one. In case my
strictures (which, it must be obvious, are moved to some extent at least
by simple disagreements) had persuaded you that Allchin's book was
dispensable, the kicker is, that it contains the last chapter of
Chakrabarti's!
Chakrabarti actually begins here with a fairly thorough review of the
political history; there follows his standard site-by-site review of the
evidence, which dominates the chapter. Some pages at the end take up
writing, coinage, architecture, and art; unlike the site-by-site review,
these are almost devoid of references, and I find myself wondering whether
they were required burdens.
PART IV. Conclusion
XIII. The emergence of cities and states: concluding synthesis
If I understand correctly, Allchin's synthesis of the uncomfortable
distance between himself and Erdosy is as follows: The Aryans, as an
ethnic group, *did* win conquests in the Punjab, thereafter acculturating
the people there, whence their ideology and its language spread to the
rest of South Asia.
I find myself recalling my sarcasm in my 1987 paper: "Well, Sanskrit did
have an ancient grammatical tradition that might have appealed."
Subject: 6. More references on the Gangetic civilisation
This is basically a miscellany, to fulfill past promises and make a few
notes before I go back to non-research mode.
First of all, Dilip Chakrabarti has been *very* prolific relatively
recently, and the books in question include a couple for which I
previously failed to give cites plus one which is evidently the current
reference on early iron in India:
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1993. Archaeology of Eastern India. New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal. This, his book about West Bengal, turns out to be a
site survey on the Chota Nagpur plateau and an adjoining district in
Bengal. Sorry for the mixup.
idem. 1990. The External Trade of the Indus Civilization. New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal. Haven't seen it.
idem. 1992. The Early Use of Iron in India. Delhi: Oxford. Haven't seen
it.
idem. 1992. Ancient Bangladesh. Delhi: Oxford. A full survey of
minimal material.
I think Erdosy's recent book is already in the RISA-L bibliography (and if
you haven't yet, please DO check out the debate and bibliography c/o
it IS worth it!) - anyway, I think it's already in there, but just in case:
Erdosy, George, editor. 1995. Language, Material Culture, and
Ethnicity: the Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia. Berlin: W. de
Gruyter.
Finally, to make up for aiming D. K. Chakrabarti at Steve Whittet's
concerns for sea trade, here are a couple of references which between them
make a pretty good case for direct contact between Gujarat and Africa
(but, Mr. Whittet, please *read* them before citing...):
Possehl, Gregory L. 1987. "African Millets in South Asian Prehistory."
Studies in the Archaeology of India and Pakistan, edited by Jerome
Jacobson. New Delhi (and Bombay, Calcutta): Oxford & IBH.
Singh, H. 1982. History and Archaeology of Black-and-Red Ware
(Chalcolithic Period). Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan.
Subject: 7. Distribution
First of all, Edwin Bryant and Moin Ansari are cc'd for reasons already
indicated. I hope they'll forgive me the size of this thing. I hope
they'll show up on Usenet or at least INDOLOGY to discuss these topics,
but whatever. Mr. Ansari is also a moderator of
soc.culture.pakistan.history, and Mr. Bryant subscribes to RISA-L; I have
no objections to redistribution of any or all of these sections and would
actually, of course, be flattered if they're worth it.
I'm posting this to the INDOLOGY mailing list. Please note that this is a
closed list: as best I understand it, non-subscribers can't post. I
recommend contacting the owner if you wish to find a way around this. My
apologies to any subscribers who don't want this much about the subject,
but hey, at least it's not about Hindi...
I should think the easiest way to discuss this is to use Usenet. I've
been hesitant to forward to INDOLOGY anything like the full context of the
arguments there, which is why I wind up making mega-posts like this. The
Usenet debate to date does not merit archiving in the way the RISA-L
debate did, but it began November 17 and has all (to the best of my
knowledge) been posted to sci.archaeology, so it should be recoverable via
Dejanews despite the proliferation of threads.
This is posted to sci.archaeology.moderated because it seems to fit, and
also to sci.archaeology and sci.lang because those are where most of the
discussion thus far has been. I have, however, *removed* sci.lang from
followups, in the considered opinion that this document really doesn't say
much about linguistics and there are existing threads which are better for
use to discuss that study. I'm only cross-posting this one there as a
courtesy which I hope is not misguided.
Please note that sci.archaeology.moderated is in the followups. If you
wish to follow up to this post, please consider whether it's likely to
pass the moderation filter; in particular, I'd recommend including some
references; or else remove sci.archaeology.moderated from the list of
newsgroups.
Have fun with this, folks!
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer, banker, bookseller joe@sfbooks.com
speaking for myself alone http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
But...co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now back under
discussion in news.groups!
Subject: Re: formal instruction: was: Vedas: was:The Punjab: was: "Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 13:54:56 GMT
In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <584c75$575@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>>>they pick up the language(s) spoken by those around
>>>them as they grow.
>>That is what I said
>
> But they do NOT acquire language by formal instruction; just read
>some of the literature on language acquisition some time. Mr. Whittet, if
>you expended about a tenth the effort on linguistics that you do on
>archeology, you'd know a heck of a lot more than you do now.
You are arguing against a point I didn't make. I said language
develops from interactions with significant others who act to
define and shape our worldview. Formal instruction just puts
the polish on what is cast in our childhood.
>
>>>And the large majority of us use the languages we use
>>>*without* concerning ourselves with what each linguistic feature is
>>>called. For example, I can describe what each word in this posting is
>>>supposed to be, but when I write, I do it without being consciously
>>>concerned about such things. I don't say to myself "be sure to keep the
>>>adjectives before the nouns they refer to" or "form negatives with 'not'
>>>between the first and second verbs of a verb phrase, and if there is only
>>>one verb, and it is not 'am/are/is', make it the second one and use 'do'
>>>as the first one"; I just do it.
>
>>You have also had a considerable amount of instruction to be able to
>>do that. Consider the great rapidity with which most of us learn
>>foreign languages while travelling overseas.
>
> Give us all a break, Mr. Whittet. It is much easier to learn a
>language as a child than an adult; there may be some sort of neurological
>switch that makes that happen.
That is the inference of what I said earlier. The use of language
beyond a childish level is the product of the investment we choose
to put into it.
> And when was the last time you heard people saying "The adjective
>goes before the noun, not after it"?
My recollection is it was Ms. Beasley, my fourth grade English teacher
about 10:15 AM October, 11, 1954.
>
>>> In what way? Mr. Whittet, you'll be in for a nasty surprise if
>>>you expect (say) some American Indian language to be childishly simple,
>>>which is what you seem to be implying.
>
>>You can put an American Indian Language anywhere on that scale
>>you choose. I have said absolutely nothing about such a language.
>>I have not characterised it as either childish or simple. I have
>>made no implication concerning such value judgements.
>
> That's what you've been implying with your theories of language
>formation, which mean that those without big cities don't have Real
>Languages.
No, I have neither said nor implied any such thing. What I have said
is that using language builds language. The more interactions people
have the more language they use. Urbanism involves more interactions.
Just like anything else, language builds on what has been established
in the past.
Writing is one of the ways that language establishes itself. Writing
a language down is equivalent to a city building a wall. An established
form now exists on which future developments can build and from which
they can evolve.
>
>>I expect English to be somewhat more advanced than Greek
>>Greek is somewhat more advanced than Akkadian
>>Akkadian is somewhat more advanced than something from the Neolithic
>>Something from the Neolithic is somewhat more advanced than whatever
>>was in use at the point man evolved the physical and mental ability
>>to use language c 200,000 BC
>
> Advanced in what way? Vocabulary size is NOT everything.
Think of it in terms of a city. Archaeologists judge the sucess
of a neolithic city by how many hectares of land it covered.
From that can be determined the maximum population the city
could support. Vocabulary allows a similar evaluation of
language.
>And if you think that Greek or Sanskrit or Akkadian grammar will be
>easy, you'll be in for a NASTY surprise.
Although grammar isn't a focus or concern of the method of evaluation
proposed, the establishment of a formal Grammar is a process we could look
at. I would expect it to generally be associated with
the emergence of writing and the result of the work of a small
group of scholars or scribes. It would be something that was taught.
This implies that the culture speaking that language has reached
the point of social stratification where at least some segment of
the population has leisure to think of such things and this is an
indicator of urbanism.
> Some linguists, like Bickerton, who have studied pidgins and
>creoles, have come to the view that the only "primitive" recorded
>languages are pidgins, because these are essentially makeshift languages
>created by people without some shared language.
What does it take socially for small isolated populations to share
a language? It would make sense for kin to share a language. That
allows a population of a few hundred speakers. There are some
languages like that. To share a language in an extended family, a
clan, or tribal social order is required. The more you extend the
language the more social order is required to establish it.
Akkadian and Sumerian are advanced over neolithic languages because
they have the social order to extend the language beyond a clan
or tribal structure.
Greek is advanced over Summerian or Akkadian because it has the social
order to extend the language beyond the influence of a city to a polis
or people.
English is advanced over Greek because it has the social order to
communicate internationally around the world.
>
>>Both the Urban and Pastoral nature of India were reflected in the
>>Vedas. I happen to think the descriptions of life tie in quite well
>>with what archaeology has found. India matured early.
>
> Do they describe living in big, Harappan-style cities? Do they
>describe writing?
Yes they do describe living in cities. Although to my knowledge they
do not describe writing, there is evidence to show that writing was
being used when the Vedas were being composed.
>
>>I admit I am attracted to the idea of the Aryans as having come
>>out of India to spread their culture to the west rather than
>>seeing it the other way around.
>
> Only because it is heretical. Martin Gardner in _Fads and
>Fallacies in the Name of Science_ notes that crackpots tend to propose the
>exact opposite of what is considered established wisdom.
Actually, the ability to resolve opposites by moving to a synthesis
begins with the ability to recognize and describe both similarities
and differences between opposites. This is the very essence of the
scientific method. Here both theories have similarities as well as
differences, and what is called for in such cases is generally an
adjustment of perspective.
>...some of Mr. Petrich's theories...
>Is Steve Whittet fundamentally different???
You can focus on the differences between us if you want,
it would be more interesting to focus on the differences
between preliterate and literate linguistics and their
relitive degrees of social order.
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
