From: narain@csa.bu.edu (narain attili)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Re: Ancient Indian History
Keywords: Aryan, Dravidian, 4000 year old artifact, indus civilization
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:07:57 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.indian
Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <BxA0w9.v3@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
:
:In article <cey9m_200VBC83ZX4o@andrew.cmu.edu:, "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu: writes:
:: 
:: 
:: In what sense is the Aryan invasion theory a myth and in what
:: sense is it real ?
:: 
:: As bearers of a language group that is spread through Asia and
:: Europe, some people almost certainly came into India from the
:         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:: northwest.
:^^^^^^^^^^^
:
:      I too believe so!
:      This is indisputable !
:
:
:: 
:: The usual claim is that these were the Vedic people -- i.e. composers
:: of the Rig Veda.
:: The other theory says that the composers of the Vedas were not
:: Johny-come-latelies to India, but had been there for centuries,
:: and had already begun assimilating into an Indian as opposed to
:: an Indo-European culture (the Aryan Dravidian proponents call
:: this Indian culture - Vedas = Dravidian).
:
:      You have not addresed the two possibilities consistently, i think.
:      [1]  These people who migrated to India by northwest ( probably
:           not by invasion but more like peaceful influx).
:
:     [2]  The second possibility you had given above leaves open 
:          who the incoming  people is. If you meant the same vedic
:          people BUT they composed their Vedas after settling there
:          for a sufficiently long time, that would make sense too.
:
:    I don't understand why either one of these two should be important.
:    The fact nobody disputes is these vedic people have been living with 
:    the rest of non-vedic people for 3500 plus years. Vedas were composed
:    within India or not is NOT important for the issue at hand. The
:    vedic people constitute less than 10% to day in India just as they were in
:    more ancient period ( assuming equal fertility, no major selective
:    calamities..). Vedic culture is a part of india's culture and NOT
:    a foundational culture.
:
:      I believe that this Dravidian-Aryan dichotomy is real and exists
:      even today ( at least in psyche !) . It appears that 90% Indian
:      culture minus Vedas = Dravidian would be a close description.
:


    What SelvaKumar has been missing throughout the debate is that the
debate is not about what the relative contributions of aryan-dravidian
civilizations to the now prevailing culture...but about the theories and
origins of Indian Culture. If at all any comparison is made between
the contributions of aryan - non aryan cultures (to the indian culture)
it is only to see if that can help in determining anything about the date 
or origin of a certain race/civilization..thats all. I dont think the
debate is about opportioning blame..or claiming superiority. Even if the
Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy were true...(I dont believe so.. as you said only
in psyche) this should not come in the way of determining what is what
then.. 


:: 
:: The whole controversy has new life because of the artifact found
:: and dated to 4500-3000 BC.
:
:     It is absolutely amazing how the new artifact can stir anything !!
:     The artifact of 3000-4500 old human head has nothing to link with
:     either dravidian or aryan and why should it give 'a new life'
:     to a 'controvesy'? Well there were so many artifacts and scripts !!
:     What is so special about this ? You found the nose more straight ?
:     It somehow looks like an aryan to you ? It looks like a handsome
:     Tamil king to *me* ! (-; (-; Who knows it could be the statue 
:     of the Great Paandian King 'VeNdEr Sezhiyan' who is said to have 
:     ruled 7,552 years ago ! Or he could be the Paandian King 
:     MudaththirumaaRan who ruled 3852 years ago! 
:     [ I am saying these in a lighter vein- just to joke
:     about some equally baseless claims made by Prof. Kak in the
:     Yoga Journal (-; (-; ]  [ However, it is true that names of these
:     Kings are mentioned in a commentary written for a tamil work 
:     called iRayanaar akapporuL (=: roughly dated to 300 A.D.) and the 
:     dates quoted for the kings are approximately correct,
:     but there is NO proof to substantiate any of these. 
:     This is just a speculation except that the Tamil track record
:     for factual statements is very high. ]
:     
:: 
:: -arun
:
:      Regards,
:      Selva Selvakumar


Certainly it gives a new life. It is like this. An artifact that *might* be
an evidence of aryan presence before the presently accepted time of arrival
is discovered. If this were to be proved conclusive..then this proves that
aryans were in india even before the period of indus valley civilization.
If indeed as you said the artifact were to be of a tamil king then it will
prove something else..the point here is that is it not significant that
an artifact of that sort is found? And the artcle about the dating of the
artifact is not from some althu-falthu magazine but from a journal which
has been found to be a "authentic" one..Now, what should should it be
dismissed as baseless? I certainly would not dismiss that as baseless just
because someone was unable to answer some query here on the net. The theory
propounded in the said journal is proven baseless only if someone can point
out the loopholes in an nequally decent journal.

-Narain




Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian