American archaeologist
Jim G. Shaffer (born 1944) is an American archaeologist and professor of anthropology at Case Western Reserve University.
From: Wikiquote (CC BY-SA 4.0)
The academic investment in this hypothesis [i.e. AIT] is so great that the distinguished scholar Colin Renfrew (1987) opts to distort the archaeological record rather than to challenge it... The South Asian archaeological record reviewed here does not support Renfrew's position or any version of the migration / invasion hypothesis. Rather, the physical distribution of sites and artifacts, stratigraphic data, radiometric dates and geological data can account for the Vedic oral tradition describing an internal cultural discontinuity of indigenous population movement.
That the archaeological record and ancient oral and literate traditions of South Asia (ie. the Vedic tradition) are now converging has significant implications for regional cultural history. A few scholars have proposed that there is nothing in the 'literature' firmly placing the Indo-Aryans, the generally perceived founders of the modern South Asian cultural tradition(s), outside of South Asia, and now the archaeological record is confirming this. Within the context of cultural continuity described here, an archaeologically significant indigenous discontinuity occurs due to ecological factors (ie. the drying up of the Sarasvati river). This cultural discontinuity was a regional population shift from the Indus Valley, in the west, to locations east and southeast, a phenomenon also recorded in ancient oral (ie. Vedic) traditions. As data accumulates to support cultural continuity in South Asian prehistoric and historic periods, a considerable restructuring of existing interpretive paradigms must take place. We reject most strongly the simplistic historical interpretations, which date back to the eighteenth century, that continue to be imposed on South Asian culture history. These still prevailing interpretations are significantly diminished by European ethnocentrism, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism. Surely, as South Asian studies approaches the twenty-first century, it is time to describe emerging data objectively rather than perpetuate interpretations without regard to the data archaeologists have worked so hard to reveal.
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.
Limited Time Offer
Premium members can get their quote collection automatically imported into their Quotewise collections.
Cattle, like other wealth objects, may be accumulated and inherited; however, like other animal wealth, they must ultimately be spent before becoming a liability or dying. Land and craft items, such as metals, as wealth objects have a longevity and accumulability absent in animal wealth. Given these limitations, the focus on cattle as wealth may have fostered a perception of all wealth objects as being ultimately temporary, items that must be spent during life and redistributed after death, like the herd (e.g., Goldschmidt 1969). It is possible that social status symbols were not elaborate tombs or monumental works as in other ancient societies, but, rather the extent and solidarity o f secular and sacred relationships constructed by individuals and larger social units, through astutely spending their live wealth before it died. Social status itself might have been perceived as temporary, waxing and waning with fortunes of the herd, and it was the relationships rather than the physical symbols of such status that were perpetual. Cattle as an important wealth aspect of the Indo-Gangetic cultural tradition's structure constantly posed the problems of how to spend, or divide, live wealth to the maximum of individual and larger social unit advantage, generating a social, political, economic and religious organisation unlike others in the ancient world.
Since stamp seals were not available to everyone in a social group, and because their inscriptions most likely reflect titles and/or personal names, it is reasonable to conclude that cattle were invested with social importance and cultural identity. Moreover, if seals were also a marriage talisman, as Fairservis argues, they suggest that cattle constituted a wealth category associated with forging important social relationships such as marriage. Furthermore, if cattle, as wealth, provided access to reproductive sources, they were probably also avenues to establishing, maintaining or breaking other important social, economic, political and religious relationships.
Cattle motifs frequently occur, however, on one culturally important object - Harappan stamp seals. Cattle motifs are the second most frequent (5%), and if “unicorn” motifs are included (66%), they are the most frequent. A debate persists as to whether the “unicorn” motifs are actually bull profiles or true “unicorns” , since a few terracotta “unicorn” figurines have been found.
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.