| Steve wrote:
>>It is tedious to keep going over these materials, but if it’s one
thing
we’ve learned over the years, it is that these people *only* win if you
don’t stand up to them. When you do, ignoring the smears and just
giving the facts, their plans crumble.
>> Michael will have more on Rajaram’s Hindutva Love Fest at U. Mass
Dartmouth later today or tomorrow, I believe.
Indeed, I went down to Dartmouth, MA, to take a look at the
“Symposium on Aryan/Non-Aryan Origin of Indian Civilization.”
The Aryan invasion of India is a 19th c. theory that no serious
scholar today takes seriously, but that plays a great role in current
Indian and NRI (Indian immigrant) politics in the US (as we have seen
in California recently).
Scholarly speaking, what is to be explained is the introduction into
South Asia of an Indo-European language (Vedic Sanskrit), of
Indo-Iranian poetry, poetics and religion, as well as some of the Vedic
material culture (horses, chariots, etc.) This is fervently denied by
Hindutvavadins as the cannot allow that a central part of their culture
that continues until today has come from the outside. In their eyes,
this would threaten the supposedly indigenous character of the (North)
Indian Vedic civilization, and thus, much of the roots of later
Hinduism.
I went to Dartmouth as to take a stand in what promised to be a
Hindutva-centered meeting that was to propound the victory against the
so-called “Aryan invasion theory”.
Also, as not to leave our archeologist and geneticist colleagues alone,
exposed to severe doses of Hindutva and being unwittingly co-opted, as
has happened before (such as in the Long Beach conference some 3 years
ago).
People were flown in from as far as Europe and India to attend the
“symposium”. Clearly, some major funding is behind this effort “to
settle the theory of an Aryan Invasion” at c. 1500 BCE.
This so-called symposium was fun, if you can savor the nutty “theories”
these people propound. There were just a few exceptions among the
speakers from the Hindutva mindset (see list below):
* P. Eltsov, a young archeologist (PhD Harvard, now at Berlin) who gave
a grand view of indian civilization based on indigenous ideas of the
development of culture, from texts such as the Puranas (that have never
been used for that purpose).
* P. Underhill, well known Stanford geneticist, gave an overview of Y
chromosome studies relating to India (see below for details).
* V. K. Kashyap, of the National Institute of Biologicals at New Delhi,
gave a serious genetic paper (overview of recent mtDNA and NRY
studies related to India), but unfortunately his conclusions were again
quite Hindutva-like (see below)
* Makarand Paranjpe, (JL Nehru U., Delhi) gave a macro-civilizational,
post-colonialist speech, clearly inspired by measured nationalism . It
was a plea for the decolonizing of the Indian mind (now 50 years after
independence!), but he is not of a Hindutva mindset.
* Dr. Asiananda, Intercultural Open University, Netherlands, gave a
Blavatsky-inspired talk, free from Hindutva. Instead, he actually
quoted Parpola and Witzel with approval (what a combination!). He
proposed a grand scheme of ‘megacycles’ in history: the pre-vedic,
postvedic and transvedic civilization, into which we enter now,
supposedly: the beginning of a new Axial Age: a great Asian peace zone
expanding world wide. Sure. Just ask the emerging new powers in Asia
and South America.
As the last few cases show, the meeting was as nutty as expected. A few
characterizations about the hard core Hindutva characters and their
camp followers.
N. S. RAJARAM
was stuck, as is usual with him, in the 19th century (Max Mueller),
though now (after having posed a historian Indologist for the past 15
years) he wants to be a scientist again, using modern science to
explain the Vedic age.
He gave his usual erroneous overview of the word aarya in the Rigveda,
underlining that aarya does not mean a ‘race’ but just is cultural term
(as long explained, unbeknownst to him, by Kuiper, 1955), that and
means ‘noble’ (which is wrong as Thieme has shown long ago). He also
denies that the Aarya distinguished themselves from others in the RV
(again untrue) and maintained that seeing Arya a “race” was a product
of European thought and was necessary for German nationalism in the
19th c. and unification in 1870/71. (Well, ask Bismarck whether he ever
read the Vedas or studied comparative linguistics).
Of course, Dr. R. is unaware of the fact that arya, aarya – he
mentions only aarya– in the RV means something else, (probably
‘hospitable’, i.e. “us’) and he is unaware of the seminal study of the
term by Thieme ( Der Fremdling im Rigveda. Leipzig 1938; Mitra and
Aryaman. New Haven 1957; JAOS 80, 1960, 301-17 the latter two in
English).
Once again, he expressed his nonacceptance of comparative historical
linguistics, which “would not exist without Sanskrit”. A typical
Indo-centric view, that neglects that other language families were
discovered earlier than the Indo-European one, and that the
establishment of IE ling. could have proceeded without the knowledge
of Sanskrit: it merely was facilitated by Skt as the constituent
elements of words (root, stem suffix, endings) are a little clearer
their than, say in Greek or Latin.
In short, historical and technical ignorance, which characterized all
of his writings of the past 15 years. (He cannot even get the
intellectual history of the 19th c., right as he depends on secondary
and tertiary sources).
Then, he cherry-picked from other sciences, such as genetics (“which
shows that there was no recent immigration into India!” — see below),
archaeology, etc. Again, without clear understanding of the procedure
of these sciences and the way some of their “results’ are arrived at,
by speculation. Thus, when he talks about the connection between the
Harappan civilization and the Veda (“by one group of people”), he
cherry-picks some similarities and neglects the fundamental differences
between the city civilization of the Harappans and the (largely)
pastoral, semi-nomadic Rgvedic culture.
All of this as to show that a “paradigm change” in understanding early
Indian history is underway. Well, just in his own mind and that of his
camp followers. (I will not go into details here. I have discussed all
of this madness of alleged paradigm change in along and tedious
fashion in EJVS 2001)
Instead, as he has now noticed that the Rigveda represents a maritime
civilization (see below, BB Lal’s talk), he wants to move on and study
the connections between Harappan and Rgvedic civilization on the one
hand, and the S.E. Asian (such as Cambodia) ones on the other. He is
clearly inspired by the popular books of S. Oppenheimer, and his failed
“paradise in the east”, based on the Toba explosion of c. 75,000 BCE
(ironically when Homo Sap., sap. had not yet left Africa).
Focusing, like Oppenheimer, on SE Asia Rajaram attributes, against
recent botanical data, the origin of rice agriculture to the Cambodian
Tonle Sap area some 12 kya ago, thus at 10,000 BCE. But we know that
domesticated oryza japonica originated in S. China and oryza indica in
the eastern parts of N. Indian plains, all quite a few millennia later
than 12 Kya.
Obviously I opposed these points in the discussion period (as mentioned
above) and ironically encouraged him to get all departments of
linguistics abolished world wide….
(By the way, no words by Rajaram about his proposed 2nd vol. of
“translations” of the Indus signs. Unfortunately, I forgot to ask him
about it. What a pity!)
S. BAJPAI
This former, rather unproductive Prof. of history at the CA State
University (Northridge) was very active in the long ranging CA
schoolbook debate that he “won” — of course, only in his mind. He
wanted to show that the theory of an “Aryan” invasion or even influx
into India was just a myth, and that the Vedic and Harappan (Indus)
civilizations were connected: by identifying the area of the Seven
Rivers (Sapta Sindhavah), the Sarasvati River, and the epicenter of
Rgvedic culture.
In doing so, he did not repeat what specialists have known for long,
that the 7 rivers define the greater Panjab area, but he propounded the
strange idea that the western Panjab rivers (Jhelum, Indus etc.) were
excluded… Note that this “result” excludes much of Pakistan and E.
Afghanistan (whose rivers are of course clearly mentioned in the text)
As for the Sarasvati, he tried to show that this is a “mighty” river in
Haryana State (northwest of Delhi), again something well known to
specialists. He propounded the typical Hindutva theory that this river
flowed from the mountains (Himalaya) to the ocean (samudra), neglecting
the studies of K. Klaus (in the Eighties) that showed that samudra
means many things in the Veda, including lakes. Thus, he overlooked the
point that the Sarasvati (Sarsuti)-Ghaggar-Hakra river ended in a delta
and in terminal lakes in the Cholistan/Ft.Derawar area in Pakistan,
well east of the Indus. He also overlooked the recent studies by two
Indian and two German geologists who have pointed out (Current science
2004) that the “great river” of the Harappan and Vedic period could
not have been so large anymore as its area does not show mineral
deposits of Himalayan glaciers. This renders a perennial glacier-fed
river into a smaller, monsoon fed one that could not fill the 10 km
wide river bed of former times.
Hindutvavadins need the big river, that they say dried up in c. 2000
BCE, as they want to make it the center of the Harappan Civilization,
that they call the Sindhu (Indus) –Sarasvati civilization. (But, it
has been shown by R. Mughal in 1977 that this drying up happened in
stages, with several reversals. Not mentioned of course).
Bajpai had the great idea (not substantiated by historical leveling of
the RV) that the original Sapta Sindhu region was in the Sarasvati
area, (called “the best place on earth” in RV 3 ) and that the concept
was later expanded to include areas west and east of it. Strange that
the Avesta also has it (Videvdad), but Avestan was never mentioned by
this Indocentric person (who told me during a CA meeting that he is not
interested in materials from outside India). Nor was any attention
paid to the fact that RV 3 is a book that deals with the victorious
Bharata tribe, who settled in the Sarasvati area and naturally praised
this river to the skies… Such is the lack of background and scholarly
sense of this great historian.
His conclusion was that the Rigvedic civilization and the Harappan one
overlapped in one geographical area and also in time, as the RV “must
be older than 2000 BCE” since it still mentions the great Sarasvati
flowing to the ocean.
In sum, he now wants to reconstitute the history of the Harappan and
Vedic times: “the myth and baggage” of the Aryans as coming from the
outside must be given up. In the question period, BB. Lal (see below)
honed in on this erroneous idea that must be discarded, and Rajaram
added that scholars now need to take one more step: join archeological
and literary evidence (as if we and others had not done that, for
example at Toronto 1990 (Erdosy 1995) and in the yearly Harvard Round
Tables (since 1999).
Again, it became clear how narrow, Indocentric and uniformed the
Hindutva proponents are and how much they lack proper information on
past studies. P. Eltsov and I criticized some of the points mentioned
above. Time however always was too short during the meeting to go into
any detailed discussion of the many points mentioned, so I had to pick
and choose among some obviously inane proposals and the lack of
information and vision.
B.B. Lal
Lal is the former Dir. Gen. of the Indian archaeological service. At
that time, he has done some very good work, though he has published
little of it and is doing so only now, after severe public criticism in
India some 2 years ago.
However, after his retirement he became religious and Hindutva-like. I
still must make a streaming video of interviews he gave in 1985 to a
Japanese TV crew about his digs that were meant to follow the footsteps
of the (god!) Rama , from Ayodhya southwards across the Ganges and
beyond… Maybe I can do so this summer.
Lal too propounds the identity of the Vedic and Harappan civilizations.
Anyhow, he also billed himself as a Sanskritist this time — but he
has never heard that Vedic Sanskrit is as different from the commonly
taught Classical one as Homeric Greek is different from Classical
Greek. Consequently, he made serious mistakes in his long discussion
of Rgvedic culture.
After blaming Max Mueller and M. Wheeler as originators of the Aryan
theory, and rejecting the old explanation that the invading Aryans had
driven the Dravidians southwards, he stressed the continuity of the
Harappan and Vedic cultures, and went on a textual spree:
If the Aryan Invasion theory was right, then how come that among
Rigvedic place names there are no Dravidian ones? (He never mentioned
the fact that many words have a third language origin, loans from a
prefixing, Austro-Asiatic like language). He then talked about plants
and animals as typical Indian (forgetting about temperate climate IE
words such as those for the wolf, otter, beaver, willow, oak, etc.),
and merely mentioned that the birch tree (another IE word) is not
found in the RV (it of course occurs prominently in post-RV texts, with
derivates to this day…)
Next came M. Witzel’s “abortive attempt” to find the immigration in a
Sutra text. The passage in question (BS’S 18) has found various
interpretations, and Lal, as a non-specialist, was of course not aware
of the fact that the Brahmana-like texts play with popular etymologies:
in case that of “going, moving” (I, ay) and staying at home (amaa vas),
which is found in the tribal names involved (Ayu, Amavasu), which I
had to point out to him. His summary, predicable again, was: no Aryan
invasion.
Next a discussion some terracotta “spoked wheels” in Harappan layers:
remember we need horses and chariots in pre-RV times! (An Indian
archaeologist had described them to me recently as spindle whirls,
confirming my own interpretation).
As expected he also found horses in archeology (figurines and the
Surkotada skeleton). I had to point out to him that the horse is a
steppe animal that was introduced into the near East and S. Asia only
around 2000 BCE, and that only by finding the phalanges of equids one
can decide whether we deal with a donkey, a horse or a half-ass
(onager, hemione) skeleton. Onagers still are found in the Rann of
Cutch.
Further a discussion of pur ”fort”, and sea trade with 100-oared boats.
As an archeologist, he had never heard that 100, 1000 are commonly used
as ‘many’ in Vedic texts and anyhow, the boat in question is a
mythological one, not one of human traders.
He also saw great rulers in the RV, just because samraat means
‘emperor’, in post-Vedic texts., Again philological failure. And so on
and so forth.
Finally, the Sarasvati again, drying up at 2000 BCE. Thus the RV must
be dated before that event. Indeed, Haryana settlements (the center of
RV culture, see above) go back to excavations showing a date of 6431
BCE (!) And genetics were thrown in for good measure (Sahoo 2006)
In sum, though the RV occupied only the northwest of the subcontinent,
it “overlaps in time and area with the Harappan civilianization”.
It is surprising how an established archaeologist can be so naïve, in
his old age, about facts from outside his field (palaeontology,
genetics, texts, linguistics) and still loudly proclaim his
‘revolutionary’ result (also in his latest book “The Sarasvati flows
on”.) I felt sorry for him that I had to point this out, but since he
is a well respected authority, it had to be done.
N. KAZANAS
Kazanas is the head of a new age-like institution in Athens (Greece).
He has studied some Sanskrit way back in Britain, and has joined the
anti-Migration bandwagon in recent years.
Interestingly, his talk put the RV not at 2000 BCE but at 3000 BCE and
earlier, but he still made the same assertion of a link between the
Harappan and Vedic civilization.
No problem: he has spoked wheels in an Indus sign where a man stands
above to ‘spoked’ circles; he has “plenty” horses in India, since
17,000 BCE (but, the Sivalik horse disappeared, like its American
relatives, in the megafaunal extinction around 10,000 BCE), all of
which fits the RV evidence of horses and chariots.
However, as indicated, he has the RV well before the Indus civ. : thus,
istaka ‘brick” is not found in the RV (never mind that it also is found
in Avestan and Tocharian, an old BMAC loan); pur does not mean fort or
town (W. Rau has shown in the Seventies that it means exactly that:
‘fort’); Rgvedic people were oceangoing; the RV has no fixed, built up
altars like the (supposed) Harappan ones at Kalibangan (well, what
about, e.g., RV 2.3.7 with 3 ‘ backs/hills’ for the 3 sacred fires?);
and echoing Sethna, the word for cotton is found only in the late Vedic
Sutra, while it has been found in the Indus civ.
His simpl(istic) summary: the RV must be older than the Harappan civ.
He also believes that many ideas and myths of the RV have been
forgotten after 3000 BCE, that the genealogies (which ALWAYS are
subject to expansion and contraction) found in the Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad add up to a Vedic period of some 900 years; that Achar’s
calculation of the date of the Mahabharata at 3067 (see below) shows
the age of Indian civ..
Then, that the mighty Sarasvati (see above) leads to a period of 3200
or 3800 BCE, his time of the RV (never mind the other Hindutva dates
given above). Additionally, saras in Saras-vati does not mean a lake
but the root sr means to ‘rush’. Well, Mayrhofer’s etymological
dictionary (which he quoted!) lists saras itself and links it with a
different root, as seen in Greek helos ‘swamp,’ which he –as a Greek–
did not mention. (See my discussion of his ideas in JIES 31, (2003),
107-185).
Finally, the “full agreement of “all archeologist’’ in not accepting an
Aryan invasion as there “never can be any peaceful immigration” Huh?
Which was “possible only thorough conquest by nomadic horse riding
barbarians.”
In sum, the usual omnium gatherum of disjointed elements that all can
be disputed (as I did of course), point by point.
Simply put: horses and chariots in South Asia at 3500 BCE (before they
actually appear, after 2000 BCE)?
N. ACHAR
N. Achar gave another version of his paper (already widely distributed
on the net) that dates the Mahabharata tale to 3067 BCE, based on
the description of the movement of some planets, some eclipses, etc.
If we were to take these descriptions (found in post-Vedic,
non-standard Epic Sanskrit) as a given, the (unanswered) question would
arise: how this knowledge would have been transmitted, from its form in
the Harappan language, to Vedic and post-Vedic Sanskrit, in an ever
changing medium like the epic.
Anyhow: what would the Mahabharata be without horses and chariots (at
3067 BCE??)
In discussion, he maintained his belief that the astronomical data are
based on actual observation and somehow made it into our present
version of the Mahabharata (compiled probably only around 100 BCE.!)
Y. “Rani” ROSSER
She was, in a certain way, the most amusing highlight of the meeting.
Talking at high volume, shouting at times, she complained about the
state of schoolbooks with regard to the ‘debunked Aryan Invasion
Theory’ and that the ‘paradigm shift’ away from it does not appear in
American schoolbooks or in Summer school-like meetings that inform US
high school teachers. She has started a project collecting statements
about various scholars about the theory.
More amusingly, she took pot shots at me three or four times, laced
with faulty memory and confabulation as well as plainly wrong
information, and including even personal items. As it turned out later
she was confusing my website (where she does not figure) with that of
a second generation India group on the web (IPAC). I had to tell her “
first read, then speak…” several times.
Not satisfied with this, she accosted me in the break period, loudly
calling me, quote, “an asshole” (twice) . So much spiritualism for this
sari-clad, self-professed Ganesha worshipper.
(Others had contended themselves with complaints that I had not
answered their email (Kazanas), etc., or that I had not taken up their
invitation to speak at the meeting. Why should I legitimize them in
doing so? — After all his slander & libeling, Rajaram did not say
anything about me, of course not about his role in CA, but I
confronted him, and told him what I think of his defamation and
libeling since December. And too bad that Harvard did not buy his
libeling. No answer.).
Some such amusement apart, Rani Rosser clearly is very angry that I
disturbed her nicely planned scheme to saffronize CA schoolbooks (she
was involved in the planning and writing of the edits), and that I had
shown her ignorance on another list some 5 years ago. Another
Rajaram-like “forget me not” case.
Finally coming to some actual science:
P. UNDERHILL
Is a geneticist at Stanford U., and participant in our yearly Round
Tables. He gave an overview of the genetic data presently known for
India. It was loaded with caveats about what genetics can say about
ancient populations and how limited our knowledge actually is at this
moment. (Interestingly, Rajaram often interrupted and asked follow up
questions, as he now fancies himself as budding population geneticist).
Underhill stressed the fact that we have little ancient DNA, and use
modern one as proxy material that is supposed to indicate actual
historical events. Second, that there is no direct connection between
genes, language and archaeology. Third, that different population
histories can create the same genetic landscape, that certain
demographic events may be hidden, and that late arrivals [such as the
Aryans] may not be easily detectable.
Fourth, that there always is the possibility that results of genetics
are cherry-picked to suit political desires (a clear hint of Hindutva
efforts), but that good science always is self-correcting.
He then proceeded to give some details of the Y chromosome landscape of
South Asia, pointing out some haplogroups that arose in India and
others that came for the outside.
Of special interest is R1a1-M17 (which he discovered in 1995) and that
has often been attributed to the spread of Indo-European (while
Hindutvavadins let it originate in India). That is a gross
simplification. According to him, it probably arose in the area around
the Hindukush around 10,000 BC (+/- 3000 years), and spread eastwards
and westwards. It has the largest impact on S. Asia (some 25%), but is
found from E. Europe to India.
However, its resolution, that means as subgroups of M17, still are too
inadequate, so that nothing specific can be said about a possible
(re-)introduction of a variety of M17 into S. Asia [along with the
Aryans].
He re-asserted this in the discussion, when BB Lal wanted to know more
about the chronology of this haplogroup. I also brought up the lack of
genetic resolution for any recent movements of people such as Aryans,
Turkic Muslims and British, as the error bar still is 3000 years for
events around 1000 BCE and later. He affirmed this, taking the wind
out of the sails of those who had used the Sengupta/Sahoo papers
(2005,2006) that dealt with events around 10,000 kya, as to refute an
Aryan invasion. I also brought up the Kivisild paper of 1999 that has
been used in the CA debate to show that “genetics had refuted an Aryan
migration” — well, at 60,000 BCE, not at the likely date of 1500 BCE.
One can only hope that this and other ridiculous statements will now
disappear. Not easily, though, see the following:
V. K. KASHYAP
Kashyap is a DNA specialist at a national institute in Delhi. He gave
an even more detailed, valuable overview of the Indian genetic
landscape based on his project of studying 415 Indian populations.
However, some strange features appeared in his talk:
Dravidian at 50,700 kya
Austroasiatic at “??”
Tibeto-Burmese at 8-10 kya
Aryan at 3.5 to 5,.5 kya.
Dravidian at 50, 000? At that time, not even the hypothetical Nostratic
ancestor language had developed, not to speak of its daughter families,
such as IE, Dravidian, etc,
He then quoted some genetic papers with pro and contra for an Aryan
migration from Central Asia, and proceeded to Sahoo (2006) and his own
study: with similar results as those in Underhill’s. So far so good.
However the local atmosphere must have shaped his actual interpretation
of the data. For, he used them to show that there are [currently, I
add] no data for an Aryan Immigration and that the Aryan gene pool is
a myth.
In the discussion, Underhill intervened and stressed again that his
agrees with Kashyap’s genetic data. But that he hesitated to put a
specific origin on some of them, such as M17-R1a1 [which Hindutvavadins
have used for an Out of India theory of IE – at 10 kya ! ]. M17
could just as easily have arisen on the Iranian plateau and then have
moved into India, just as other lineages did. The lack of informative
sub-haplogroups makes it impossible to say anything more.
In sum: genetics has nothing to say yet about the Aryan migration. Too
bad for the Rajaram’s of this world.
(Kak did not come; nor was our old favorite, Dr. K, present nor his
buddy, the budding self-appointed linguist Kelkar who lives close by in
the Boston area).
(I skipped the other sessions, such as the one on the Indian family
system — which, I hear, was just as nutty, apparently inspired by the
fear of loosing the joint family system and the Indian “racial”
identity when NRI children are intermarrying with Non-NRIs left and
right. And I skipped the “Workshop on Indian Civilization”, apparently
used for planning Hindutva style college text books,– which would have
been even a greater loss of time and energy).
In the summary session, I stressed again that the “Aryan Invasion
Theory” is dead and gone, it is a 19th c. theory. But, not to be
misquoted, that they still have to explain how a temperate climate
Indo-European language got into the subcontinent (and Iran), along with
its poetics, religion and rituals. That they finally must learn some
linguistics and philology, and explain their facts. Just to cherry-pick
and cut and paste the interpretations of the various sciences does not
do.
In sum, as expected, another event that brought out Hindutva goals and
methods. A loss of time, sure, but these guys had to be confronted…
Cheers, M.W.
PS:
Here the official list which does not quite reflect the actual list of
speakers, as give above.
————————————————————————
———-
Symposium on Aryan/Non-Aryan Origin of Indian Civilization
Session I Chair: Vanita Shastri
4:00 PM – Dr. Petr Eltsov, Deutches Archaeologische Institut, Germany-
From Harappa to Hastinapura: A study of the earliest South City and
civilization from the point of view of archaeology and ancient Indian
literature
4:45 PM – Dr. N. S. Rajaram, Indologist – The Aryan Myth In Perspective
-History, Science and Politics
5:30 PM – Dr. Asiananda, Intercultural Open University, Netherlands –
Situating Aryan/Non-Aryan Origins of Indian Civilization within a
Mega-cyclical View of Indian History
6:15 PM – Dr. Shiva Bajpai, California State University, Northridge –
Epicenter and Ecumene of the Rigvedic Aryans
Saturday June 24, 2006
Session II Chair: S. S. Chakravarti
7:30 AM – Registration and continental breakfast
8:30 AM – Dr. B. B. Lal, former Director General, Archeological Survey
of India – An Ostrich-Like Attitude Is Perpetuating -The ‘Aryan
Invasion’ Myth?
9:15 AM – Dr. Nicholas Kazanas, Omilos Meleton, Athens – Dating the
Rigveda and Indigenism
10:00 AM – Dr. Subhash Kak, Louisiana State University – Vedic
Astronomy and the Aryan Problem
10:45 AM – Break
Session III Chair: C. M. Bhandari
11: 00 AM – Dr. Yvette Rosser, UMass Dartmouth – Aryans and Ancestral
Angst.
11:45 AM – Dr. Peter Underhill, Stanford University – Patterns of
Y-chromosome diversity in the contemporary South Asian gene pool
12:30 PM – Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National Institute of Biologicals, New
Delhi, India – Aryan Gene Pool in India- Reality or Myth; Evidences
Revisited
1:15 PM – Lunch
2:15 PM – Dr. Makarand Paranjape, Jawaharlal Nehru University –
Symposium Roundup
3:00 PM – Break
==============
Michael Witzel
Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University
1 Bow Street , 3rd floor, Cambridge MA 02138
1-617-495 3295 Fax: 496 8571
direct line: 496 2990
<http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/>
< http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/> |
Fired by John Chadwick’s classic in archaeology, ‘The Decipherment of Linear-B’, that chronicles how the secrets of the late Minoan and Mycenaean civilisation in ancient Greece were unveiled, renowned Indologist Prof Asko Parpola set out on an equally challenging task over 45 years back to crack the script of the Indus Valley Civilisation. For someone who has done a lifetime of monumental research on ‘Deciphering the Indus Script’ even using modern computerised tools, Parpola, whose path-breaking study on ‘A Dravidian Solution to the Indus Script Problem’ had bagged the ‘Kalaignar M Karunanidhi Classical Tamil Research Award’ at the ‘World Classical Tamil Conference (WCTC)’ in Coimbatore, is remarkably self-effacing and realistic. A diligent scholar from Finland in both ‘Vedic’ and ‘Dravidian’ studies,spoke to M R Venkatesh of ‘Deccan Herald’.
ontogeny-phylogeny-epigenetics 