Judging from this clarification, it seems that a position is being created that the Indus valley civilisation was the sole active player in the separation of Dravidian from non-Dravidian communities, and that we should shun any attempt to use the word Indic, as that might show unnecessary respect to the Indus valley lot, in comparison. But is this true, or an accurate reflection of historical events, or is it just blurred hindsight, or even some agenda?
Here's the relevant excerpt from the page on the Indus valley civilisation: See also: Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit The IVC has been tentatively identified with the toponym Meluhha known from Sumerian records. It has been compared in particular with the civilizations of Elam (also in the context of the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis) and with Minoan Crete (because of isolated cultural parallels such as the ubiquitous goddess worship and depictions of bull-leaping).  The mature (Harappan) phase of the IVC is contemporary to the Early to Middle Bronze Age in the Ancient Near East, in particular the Old Elamite period, Early Dynastic to Ur III Mesopotamia, Prepalatial Minoan Crete and Old Kingdom to First Intermediate Period Egypt. After the discovery of the IVC in the 1920s, it was immediately associated with the indigenous Dasyu inimical to the Rigvedic tribes in numerous hymns of the Rigveda. Mortimer Wheeler interpreted the presence of many unburied corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-Daro as the victims of a warlike conquest, and famously stated that "Indra stands accused" of the destruction of the IVC. The association of the IVC with the city-dwelling Dasyus remains alluring because the assumed timeframe of the first Indo-Aryan migration into India corresponds neatly with the period of decline of the IVC seen in the archaeological record. The discovery of the advanced, urban IVC however changed the 19th century view of early Indo-Aryan migration as an "invasion" of an advanced culture at the expense of a "primitive" aboriginal population to a gradual acculturation of nomadic "barbarians" on an advanced urban civilization, comparable to the Germanic migrations after the Fall of Rome, or the Kassite invasion of Babylonia. This move away from simplistic "invasionist" scenarios parallels similar developments in thinking about language transfer and population movement in general, such as in the case of the migration of the proto-Greek speakers into Greece, or the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe. It was often suggested that the bearers of the IVC corresponded to proto-Dravidians linguistically, the breakup of proto-Dravidian corresponding to the breakup of the Late Harappan culture.  Today, the Dravidian language family is concentrated mostly in southern India and northern Sri Lanka, but pockets of it still remain throughout the rest of India and Pakistan (the Brahui language), which lends credence to the theory. Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people. However, in an interview with the Deccan Herald on August 12, 2012, Asko Parpola clarified his position by admitting that Sanskrit-speakers had contributed to the Indus Valley Civilization.  Proto-Munda (or Para-Munda) and a "lost phylum" (perhaps related or ancestral to the Nihali language)  have been proposed as other candidates. The civilization is sometimes referred to as the Indus Ghaggar-Hakra civilization  or the Indus-Sarasvati civilization by Hindutva groups, which is based on theories of Indigenous Aryans and the Out of India migration of Indo-European speakers. --------- It seems the jury is still out on this, and there is no value to adopting polarised viewpoints at this stage, just four months after the latest information about this issue, which is so ambivalent. Considering the history is of so many thousand years back, and that there is so little definitive data about this particular aspect of it, why should we get so didactic? Do we have a better (ie more inclusive) word at hand? -- Vickram Fool On The Hill "The cameras were all around. We've got you taped; you're in the play. Here's your I.D. (Ideal for identifying one and all.) Invest your life in the memory bank; ours the interest and we thank you." Jethro Tull: A Passion Play (1973) On Nov 14, 2012 1:02 PM, "Anirudh Bhati" <anirudh...@gmail.com> wrote: > My email was not directed at anyone personally. It was simply a response > to the observation Srikanth made and from what I glanced from Wikipedia > articles. In the context of linguistics, you will be hard-pressed to > find reliable sources that refer to Indic languages as a generic term for > all of Indian languages. > > The word 'Indic' itself is a derivative of the word "Hindus" or "Indus" > referring to the Indus Valley Civilization, which did not stretch as far as > Deccan India where the Dravidian family of languages have been prevalent. The > distinction between the Indic languages and Dravidian languages is an > important one, and they should not be confused to be one and the same. > > As a movement of individuals who are dedicated to the process of building > the world's largest repositories of information, we should be mindful of > lingual and cultural realities and sensitivities. This is not just about > being politically correct, but also accuracy in the representation of > _factual_ information. > > Again, this is simply my personal opinion and observation. :) > >  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages > > Cheers, > > Anirudh > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Amir E. Aharoni < > amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: > >> -- >> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי >> http://aharoni.wordpress.com >> “We're living in pieces, >> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore >> >> >> 2012/11/14 Anirudh Bhati <anirudh...@gmail.com>: >> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Amir E. Aharoni >> > <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: >> >> >> >> If he didn't explain it, then you can presume that it's wrong. There's >> >> nothing to discuss, and there's nothing wrong with saying "Indic >> >> languages". >> > >> > >> > The word "Indic" refers generally to the Indo-Aryan family of languages, >> > which does not include Dravidian languages prevalent in Southern India. >> >> Not necessarily. >> >> According to Meriam-Webster, the adjective "Indic" may refer to >> Indo-Aryan and to all of India. Moreover, "Indic scripts" refers to >> all Brahmic scripts, and that is the most common term today. >> >> The English Wikipedia redirected [[Indic languages]] to [[Indo-Aryan >> languages]], but that was a mistake, and I just fixed it. >> >> > Hence, bunching the entire system of Dravidian languages together with >> the >> > Indo-Aryan languages in India may seem derogatory to some, and >> reasonably >> > so. >> >> No, not derogatory. At worst, it's ambiguous. >> >> Making up bad connotations for normal words is not so constructive. >> >> -- >> Amir >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list >> Wikimediaindiaemail@example.com >> To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaindia-l mailing list > Wikimediaindiafirstname.lastname@example.org > To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindiaemail@example.com To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l