Jim G. Shaffer Quotes

We have already noted that the scholarly paradigm of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in conflating language, culture, race, and population movements has continued, with historical linguistic scholars still assiduously attempting to reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European language and attempting to link that language to a specific “homeland,” in order to define population migration away from that seminal geographic base

At present, the archaeological record indicates no cultural discontinuities separating PGW from the indigenous protohistoric culture. That is, PGW culture represents an indigenous cultural development and does not reflect any cultural intrusion from the West, that is, an Indo-Aryan invasion. Therefore, there is no archaeological evidence corroborating the fact of an Indo-Aryan invasion.

However, in South Asian studies the concept of an Indo-Aryan invasion continues to be the main explanation for the cultural history of that region. The importance of these invasions is linked to the persistent opinion that the Indo-Aryan invaders were the authors of early Vedic (Sanskrit) literature, which is viewed as the foundation for all subsequent' 'Indian civilization. "

These factors suggest, given the increasingly arid savanna ecology of the Grea­ter Indus Valley after ca. 4000 B.C., that this continued preference for cattle was a deliberate cultural decision by the social groups in the area, and that cattle were objects of important cultural wealth.

It is argued that current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia at any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural development from prehistoric to historic periods. The early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of indigenous society that saw the rise of hereditary social elites.

...thus there is no “Vedic night” separating the prehistoric/protohistoric from the early historic periods of South Asian culture history. These data reinforce what the site of Mehrgarh describes - an indigenous cultural continuity in South Asia of several millennia.

Academic discourse in philology, ethnology, archaeology, paleontology, biology, and religion was plumbed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to substantiate a sense of self and shared identity in a newly expanded view of the known geographic world and in a reassessment of a chronology of human antiquity beyond a Biblical interpretation of human origins.

The modern archaeological record for South Asia indicates a cultural history of continuity rather than the earlier eighteenth through twentieth century scholarly interpretations of discontinuity and South Asian dependence upon Western influences. The cultural and political conditions of Europe's nineteenth and twentieth centuries were strong influences in sustaining this interpretation. It is possible now to discern cultural continuities linking specific social entities in South Asia into one cultural tradition. This is not to propose social isolation nor deny any outside cultural influence. Outside cultural influences did affect South Asian cultural development in later historic periods, but an identifiable cultural tradition has continued, an Indo-Gangetic Tradition linking diverse social entities which span a time period from the development of food production in the seventh millennium BC to the present.

Given these characteristics, a preference for cattle, after 5000 B.C., undoubtedly influenced other social, economic and political rela­tionships, and suggests that cultural developments in South Asia did not simply parallel those in Southwest Asia, where groups did not have a comparable bias.

Although generalisation is difficult, the economic importance o f cattle was not paralleled by their use as a motif on craft objects such as painted pottery; indeed, cattle motifs were rare on “mature” Harappan pottery. On the other hand, terra­ cotta cattle figurines are ubiquitous at m ost sites, especially Harappan sites, attributed to this cultural tradition. Traditionally these figurines, and those of other animals and “bullock” carts, are designated “toys” since m ost are only summarily crafted. A few cattle figurines were, however, finely sculptured and may not be “toys” in the same sense as the others. Moreover, cattle figurines, along with cart frames, occur by the hundreds even at small Harappan sites such as Allahdino.

A diffusion or migration of a culturally complex ‘Indo-Aryan‘ people into South Asia is not described by the archaeological record.

The current archaeological and paleoanthropological data simply do not support these centuries old interpretative paradigms suggesting Western, intrusive, cultural influence as responsible for the supposed major discontinuities in the South Asian cultural prehistoric record.

“No material culture is found to move from west to east across the Indus”. [in the relevant time period]

There has been further discussion of the position of the Oxus Civilisation regarding the problem of the Indo-Aryans in relation to the Indus Civilisation, and its problems regarding the connections between the Indian Subcontinent and Central Asia, especially Bactria.255 The literature is abundant, but the archaeological material does not support the theory of the crossing of the Hindu Kush by Indo-Aryan or Aryan tribes, whether they are identified as the ‘Oxus people’, or with the ‘Andronovo tribes’. Andronovo-type pottery has been found at Shortughaï and in the Dashli sites in Afghanistan, as well as almost everywhere in Central Asia north of the Hindu Kush, after around 1800 bc, but there is no reported evidence for this ware to the south of the Hindu Kush. On the other hand, there is evidence for Oxus Civilisation material to the south of the Hindu Kush, but no conclusive proof that the distribution of this material represents a migration rather than other types of exchange or trade.

Most prior interpretations attributed significant cultural developments, except early hunting-gathering adaptations, to external factors such as ethnic intrusions or invasions, diffusing ideas and technologies developed outside the region, usually in the West. Current information, however, suggests that these earlier, still persisting interpretations cannot explain the cultural complexities now found in the archaeological record.