Review by Dr. Horst Friedrich
TRUTHS is an extraordinaryly interesting and thought-provoking book. It should be easily accessible in every reputable public library at least in Western countries or, better still, worldwide. But TRUTHS is also an unusually provocative book. Even in a twofold sense.
On the one hand it is provocative with respect to the relationship between Western Europe and India during the last 500 years, vide subtitles like "War, Robbery, Murder, Genocide, Occupation, Exploitation" on the title page. On the other hand it is a harsh critique with regard to the well-organized indoctrination of India's population with so called "western values" (Christian sects and missionaries included) and the general Western world-view.
TRUTHS is also highly critial of the role, which organized Western science (from comparative linguistics to cosmology) has played in this respect, vide subtitles like "Churches, Universities, Demigods like Max Müller prepare the ground" on the title page. It is to be expected that, because of this, the "famous", stubbornly-doctrinaire, so-called "Skeptics" movement will probably attack this book as "unscientific". But this would be utter nonsense. As a historian of the sciences , and having been vividly interested in the philosophy and sociology of the sciences , I can only state that this truly extraordinary work, allegedly only about "Sanskritistics" and "Indology", is of exceptional interest and merit.
Luckily I have been able to acquire, as an indispensable prerequisite to be able to participate in the debate, to wit a rather good knowledge of India's unparalleled scientific-plus-spiritual heritage as found in the Veda/Upanishads and Mahayana Buddhism. Last but not least the vast fields of an obviously millennia-old ethno-linguistic diffusionism has been, for decades, one of my main fields of interest, including the role ancient India may probably have played in this respect. 
Quite obviously and naturally, with said background accumulated over several decades, it cannot possibly have escaped my attention that many of those so-called "authoritative", "scholarly" pronouncements on this or that aspect of India's age-old civilization, emanating from Western academic institutions and authors, were and still are, of a rather dubious quality.
In this respect I fully concur with Paul Feyerabend's critique of the role establishment science is playing today.  To take only one example: a serious discussion of India's ancient shipbuilding and seafaring activities - cotton e.g. was brought to Peru from N.W. India in prehistoric times  - is practically non existent. It is not the least merit of TRUTHS that it reminds us to be distrustful towards the continuous ideological "propaganda", emanating - via the media - in the guise of allegedly objective science. It is especially in this respect that I heartily welcome this meritorious book, to wit as a very necessary antidote against what in German is called "Schulwissenschaftsgläubigkeit", i.e. childlike or puerile trust in "Weltbild"-relevant pronouncements made by establishment science.
It is of really great merit that this book (for the first time, as far as I know) we find a realistic description of the alleged "competence" of those Western "Sanskritists" and "Indologists" of about 1600-1900, among them not the least the famous F. Max Müller from Dessau, who, in the author's scenario, had been a paid collaborator of the British East India Company. In the author's scenario said company (but also the other Dutch, Portugese and French "pirates" attacking India then, seizing Indian territories play a rather sinister role.
That may have been so, on the one hand, no doubt. Being myself a kind of a Taoist, I tend to regard those remarkable interactions between European powers and the Indian subcontinent during those centuries as somehow, so to speak, unavoidable manifestations of the "Tao". This is the first and main difference between TRUTHS and this reviewer. If we could attribute intent/design/aim/purpose to the "Tao", we might perhaps speculate if not the whole exercise had only one aim: namely to establish intense contact.
The second point, on which the reviewer tends to disagree with TRUTHS the problem of "science" during the 19th century. The authors describe in interesting details, how these mostly young men of the 19th century in Western countries tried to become "Sanskritists" and "Indologists". Obviously they seem to have been unable to acquire the necessary competence. Even worse, as time went on, "comparative linguistics" became a "science" at our universities , without ever being able to establish a sound scientific foundation for this "science". This has to do with the history and sociology of the sciences.
Modern "comparative linguistics" took its present form mainly during the second half of the 19th century. We should perhaps not expect too much from "scholars" or "scientists" of that time. It was the time of Napoleon III and Bismarck, of Darwin and Lyell, of Karl May and Karl Marx, of Queen Victoria and king Ludwig II of Bavaria, of H.P. Blavatsky and Mary Baker Eddy, Maxwell and Trotsky, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Freud and F. Max Müller.
Though lip-service with respect to "science" (cf. "Christian Science"), much of the "sciences" of that time left much to be desired. Not only in the field of "comparative linguistics"! Marxism and Darwinism come to mind, allegedly "sciences", too. It is e.g. becoming more and more obvious that the Darwinian theory of "evolution" belongs perhaps more to the field of "charlatanry" than of "science". The same can be said of "Lyellism", a version of geology which denies the former existence of a catastrophic or cataclysmic past of mankind. Or think only of the theories and speculations about "electrical" phenomena and magnetism.
Let these examples suffice. In other words: It would have been an almost unexplainable miracle, if, in that quasi-"scientific" climate or "atmosphere", of the 2nd half of the 19th century, "scholars", like F. Max Müller etc. would have been able to create a true science of "comparative linguistics" or "Indology".
One Problem remains, which causes me headaches. From this meritorious work TRUTHS, it has become absolutely clear that Western "Indologists" and "Sanskritists" were unable to really understand the contents of those "Sanskrit" works, of which they pretended to be able to divine, quasi word-for-word, the contents. After having read TRUTHS, I am convinced that they were unable to do so.
How then has it become possible at all that, immediately after 1900, we do find high-quality translations from Sankrit e.g. in the form of Paul Deussen's SECHZIG UPANISHADS DES VEDA (Leipzig 1905) and VIER PHILOSOPHISCHE TEXTE DES MAHABHARATAM (Leipzig 1906) and then, e.g. in 1934, we have already the high level of understanding Sanskrit as shown in W.Y. Evans-Wentz' TIBETAN YOGA AND SECRET DOCTRINES.
Could it be that Sanskrit texts were only really available for Western scholars, when they began to get into contact with the Tibetan tradition? Tibetan scholars were absolutely familiar with Sanskrit. And they were absolutely part of the Indian Mahayana tradition. I feel more research is needed in this field.
LIES WITH LONG LEGS
Review by Dosabandit
Book review: Lies with long legs
I came across this title last year while I was looking for a book on the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). There is plenty material exploring the scientific, geological, archaeological evidence debunking the theory. However I wanted something that examined those who proposed this theory, scrutinized their scholarship and saw how the theory held its own against such an examination. This book does exactly that and I am glad I came across this book.
Prof. Prodosh Aich embarked on a journey to find out who the “Aryans” were. Who the “Indo-Europeans” were who had given birth to the curious AIT theory and had launched a lucrative career industry, both in terms of money and awards, in Indology.
In his painstaking research spanning almost a decade Prof. Aich, along with those who assisted him, examine a breathtaking amount of material about (and by) almost every prominent Indologist, or anyone who claimed scholarship in Sanskrit and ancient Indian knowledge. The objective of this exercise was very simple. To put the alleged “scientific” scholarship to, well, scientific test. And much of the book is about how this scholarship holds up against such scientific scrutiny.
Among the people examined in the book include such luminaries as Max Muller, William Jones and Macaulay. What Prof. Aich finds is rather familiar to what we have seen happen in the scholarly circles of Marxist variety. The nature of their scholarship was anything but scientific. Prof. Aich encounters such techniques as disingenuity, progressive myth making, selective quoting, truth by repeated assertion, mutual admiration etc. And all of this went unchallenged in the “scientific” pursuit of scholarship in Indology.
There is one contrast that is impossible to miss as is evident in the book. The writings on India before the advent of Christianity were markedly different than the writings after Christianity was installed in Europe. Where earlier Greek writings about India come across as remarkably free from prejudice, the writings after Christianity took root are dramatically different in tone and attitude. (Covered in some detail here).
Almost every Indologist who studied or wrote about India exhibited one common trait. They were all Jesuits. This is not a conspiracy theory but is abundantly clear from the writings, letters etc. as produced in the book, by the scholars themselves.
Another thing in common among almost all Indologists was their spectacular lack of knowledge of the language they claimed expertise in. Sanskrit. (See this post on Max Muller). By the time these European Indologists started writing about or visited India, Sanskrit had vanished from daily life in India. It was confined to the Brahmins who preserved ancient Indic knowledge through the oral tradition of reciting Sanskrit hymns handed down through the generations.
The Indologists found it difficult to gain access to this critical knowledge owing to obvious cultural and language differences as well as obvious apprehensions the Brahmins had in allowing access to hymns. So the Indologists compiled a rudimentary Sanskrit dictionary from whoever they could talk to and this formed the basis of their scholarship in Sanskrit.
The quality of this dictionary was naturally far from acceptable. The Indologists transcribed whatever they could lay their hands on and sent it back to European institutes where the field of Indology had begun flourishing. In the absence of any authoritative scrutiny or validation, what the Indologists passed was held valid. Thus took birth a “scientific” branch of scholarship. Indology.
The circumstance under which these Indologists either came to India or took up studying India is worth noting. Almost every scholar examined in the book was driven not by a hunger for scholarship but something else. They all were desperate to better their own financial situations. Writing was popular during their time and almost every other field was taken. “Oriental studies” was nascent and emerging. The budding Indologists sensed their chance to strike big here knowing there would be hardly anyone to put their work to test.
The Jesuit influence on the scholars and visiting luminaries like Macaulay meant that their supremist tendencies held Indic beliefs, knowledge in contempt declaring them wrong and invalid. The Indians had to be introduced to the “correct” belief system and saved from catastrophe. Macaulay designed his program for what Prof. Aich calls manufacturing “cultural clones”. (Covered in more detail here). These “cultural clones” were Indians with European minds. Indians uprooted from their own culture and moulded to be more like the likes of Macaulay. Our first Prime Minister was a product of this “cultural cloning” program and the results are all too evident now.
Put to scientific test, popular scholarship in Indology fails miserably. Prof. Aich uses nothing else but material, the writings, memoirs, letters, speeches and other such trails left behind by the scholars themselves. The hollow edifice comes crumbling down as do myths like the “Aryans” built upon “lies with long legs“.
Interview with Prof Prodosh Aich by Satish Misra
"Fundamentals of Indology wrong" , "Max Mueller a Swindler" -
Interview with Prof Prodosh Aich by Satish Misra
Indian Professor Prodosh Aich, calls Indologist Max Mueller a "swindler". He describes yet another Indologist William Jones a "fraud". He throws a serious challenge to Europeans scholars who wrote tomes on ancient India. In his book "Lies with long legs", Prof Aich has unraveled and exposed many such self claimed Indologists who claimed to know ancient Indian texts. Seventy two year old Indian Professor, who studied in India and Germany Sociology, Ethnology and Philosophy, came to these startling revelations accidentally as his curiosity to know about "Aryans", "Indo-Europeans and "Indo-Aryans" chanced him into new facts of the existing studies of ancient India and its people.
Review by Dr. Satish Misra
"The book, 'Lies with long legs', is a well-researched and sufficiently documented effort to bring to light a reality about ancient India, which is contrary to prevalent and generally accepted world view of a civilization.
In his painstakingly long academic journey through mountains of source material available in Europe, Prof. Aich has succeeded in establishing that entire understanding of India of the western world developed by self claimed scholars is totally erroneous since the initial attempt to comprehend ancient India through Vedas was itself faulty.
He has built his thesis on a simple fact that if the basic parameters or fundamentals are wrong, then the conclusions derived from them cannot obviously be correct.
In this backdrop, Prof. Aich has very rightfully questioned the validity of the works of the famous western scholars who went on to translate Vedic literature from Sanskrit language into Italian, English and German. Majority of them did not even set their foot on the Indian soil and those, who came to India, did not learn ancient language in any organized manner but in an auto didactic fashion.
Translation from one language to another, it is universally accepted, needs almost an equal command on both the languages. But majority of the Western Sanskrit scholars did not learn or rather could not learn Sanskrit. Since Sanskrit was not a spoken language, it was all the more difficult for them to develop language skills required for translation.
Based on this fact, the author has undertaken a research that leads to the prevalent and popular viewpoint that colonialist Imperial England had prepared a concerted and well conceived design to establish the superiority of white-blue eyed-blond-christian culture over all other cultures which they opted to define as "primitive" and particularly that of India.
The methodology, employed by Prof. Aich, is indeed unique and novel as he avoids making his own comments on any single issue. Rather he prefers to use the technique of juxtaposition to drive a point home. He prefers to leave to readers to make their own judgement rather than imposing a certain thesis which is the usual practice normally followed by scholars.
In his treatment of the subject, he has followed an interesting approach that of framing a question and then providing answers by using the primary source material.
Nonetheless, the book is a seminal contribution to the world of knowledge as it is bound to start an academic debate in the West also. It would go a long way to establish once for all that much-trumpeted and self-championed discipline of Indology in the West has in fact been based on wrong facts and false premises.
Not only this, reading the book, one cannot but reach a conclusion that it must have been a design that none of the scholars so far bothered to use the existing material, so abundantly available, which could have helped to unravel the truth about the colonial powers and imperial administration and bureaucracy. Scholars after scholars, even after the rolling back of colonial empire, have continued to overlook the material that would have gone a long way to remove well laid myths and negative understanding about Indian society, polity and culture.
Moreover, it would raise questions on popularly accepted theories on India such as Aryans came to this part of the world from the North or they emigrated here and then pushed back the original inhabitants from north to south of India. The book also puts a serious question mark on the anthropological understanding of the ancient Indian society according to which, Indian society is sought to be explained on the basis of skin colour.
In what may be termed as a pioneering attempt at interpreting the efforts of western scholars to decipher and portray ancient India, the author has asked in the book since when words and concepts like white, black, blond, not blond, blue eyed and other racial features have come to be used by social scientists to differ between "us" "them".
Prof. Aich has gone deep into methods adopted by different well-known and world famous Indologists for collecting materials for their renowned works, research papers and other books. Beginning from the process of acquiring their knowledge of Sanskrit, the author has also made rightful inquires to their source material.
In an eye opening revelation, the author has successfully established that a Jesuit father Roberto de Nobili, in his missionary zeal, went to the extent of claiming that he was able to find out the lost Yajurveda which in fact was got written by him to establish that there was indeed a relationship between Christianity and ancient Indian practices that were being preserved and followed by Brahmins. Roberto de Nobili, in order to win the confidence of the local Brahmin community, even calls himself as Brahmin from Rome.
The author has put almost every Indologist under his investigating microscope to find out the veracity of their claims of knowing Sanskrit. In this process, he has succeeded in exposing majority of Indologists who have been regarded and accepted in the academic world as the sole sources of information over India and ancient Indian society, culture and way of life.
Comparing their descriptions and findings with Greek writings of Megasthenes and others, the author throws enough light on the methods and intentions of 18 and 19th century Indologists who, in his opinion, did irreparable damage to people of India.
Many of the English, German or French Indologists, made tall claims about their knowledge of Sanskrit and Prof. Aich has exposed them by tracing back their entire process of acquiring the competence of language.
For example, detailed exposition on Sir William Jones make startling revelations that he could befool not only his superiors but the entire academic community by claiming that he knew 32 languages, including Sanskrit.
Sir Williams, who came to India as one of the judges and went on to set up the Asiatic Society of Bengal, which was closed rather barred for Asians, on January 15, 1784, came to be celebrated as the Father of Indology in the United Kingdom.
By following Sir Williams educational career and his different stages of life, the author has made bare the self proclaimed Father of Indology leaving readers in no doubt whatsoever that the Sir William’s fame may have entailed, it was actually based on exaggerated claims, braggadocio and self projections.
The same Sir Williams has produced so much of literature, disseminating so much of false information about India that an entirely wrong image of this ancient society was painted in the popular mind.
Similarly, German Indologist Friedrich Maximilian Mueller, popularly known in India as Max Mueller, has been exposed as a person who despite never visiting India, came to be known as the most authoritative expert of Sanskrit.
The author has scored a major victory by establishing that it was indeed an English conspiracy, which was hatched by none other than Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay who wanted to control Indian minds by ensuring that they should know, comprehend and understand India through books written in English. Indian sources of knowledge about India should never be indigenous but should be through English translations.
Max Mueller became an instrument of Lord Macaulay in his plan to control the Indian mind for all times to come. Macaulay is convinced that the majority of the local population has to be brought to a point where they start believing that the English alien rule is better for them.
Macaulay had written in 1835 in absolutely clear terms: 'We are not content to leave the natives to the influence of their own heredity prejudices. (…) it is possible to make natives of this country thoroughly good English scholars… We must at present do out best to form a class, who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indians in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class, we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render then by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.'
The book has established beyond any doubt that Macaulay and the rest of English colonialists of his time employed every means bad or good, dirty or clean to ensure that Indians were subjugated not only physically but were dominated mentally and spiritually as well.
By undertaking a thorough study of colonisation of India in the backdrop of the emerging racism, the author has also sown seeds of further academic exercises. He has established that till the 16th century social studies including historical studies did not use racial terminology.
Racial terminology was used to create a conscious divide between the ruled and the ruling classes by terming them as "us" and "them". So much so that a new discipline called as "Ethnography" came to be established at the European academic institutions.
"Us" and "them", alien and local, Aryans and non-Aryans, Indo-European or Indo-German, were employed by hired scholars or rather court writers to create an impression or an illusion that the Europeans were racially superior to all others.
Even physical descriptions like skin colour, types of lips, noses and eyes and other features were consciously used to drive a wedge between peoples. Irrespective of status of culture existing in any particular society, the colonial administration declared that a particular society was primitive.
'Why did British occupants narrate a (hi)story from far off Bengal, which was eagerly taken up by many Europeans to embroider and elaborate that tale in many fanciful facets? It was just a harmless story of a conquest. No. All these stories were designed as the "historical justification" for looting, building strongholds, colonising foreign lands with the purpose of sustained exploitation. And they were presented as an inherent law of evolutionary development of mankind. The conquerors, the deliberate killers, the occupants, the exploiters from Christian Europe were hailed for having brought culture and civilisation into the "colonies". They were just following the same pattern of those nomads on grazing grounds, the "Aryans" from the Central Asiatic steppes, who came in some "pre historic" period and brought civilisation into India. The Christians "ruffians" were just treading on the footprints of the "Aryans". What could have been wrong with that?' the author poses an interesting observation.
The book, by using unflinching and convincing source material, has gone on to prove that a concerted and conscious effort was made to establish the superiority of the white-blond-blue eyed-Christian culture over all other cultures, societies and people.
'It is remarkable too that Marco Polo narrated so much in great details but nothing about human "races". This term, "Razza" in Italian, "raza" in Spanish, "raca" in Portuguese, "race" in English, "Rasse" in German was invented by the Franconians in the 14th century to justify their rule over the Gauls in France. After the expulsions of Jews from Spain towards the end of 15th century, the term was increasingly used in the contemporary meaning of racism.' Observations such as above open new vistas and horizons for further academic pursuit so that many myths about so called primitive societies deliberately perpetrated by the colonial powers could be removed and cleared.
At the same time, it would also sow seeds for conflict management and conflict resolution as a balanced view about traditional and ancient culture and societies is bound to assert itself.
Written in simple yet effective style, the book is guaranteed to make a seminal if not revolutionary contribution to the understanding and comprehension of the human race as one global citizen.
The book overall has succeeded in showing mirror to the western academic system and has exposed the western scholars who are never tired of claiming their objectivity and impartiality."
Rezensent: Dr. Satish Misra, Publizist
In: Sunday Tribune, Neu Delhi, Indien
Review by Dr. Horst Friedrich
The author of this article has just studied, with increasing fascination, a remarkable voluminous book (1) by Prodosh Aich, a Bengali Indian who has, however, for decades been a member of the German academic Establishment. He has studied ethnology, philosophy, and sociology at Cologne University and has taught sociology at universities in Cologne, Rajasthan (India), and Oldenburg. His "documentary story", as he calls it is a revealing report about the real origins and the de facto coming into existence of the Thesis of an (at first) "Indo-Germanic" or (later) "Indo-European" so-called "language family" and, by inference, of an Indo-European "race".
It is a rather shocking report indeed. One has to read it, to believe it. Although I have for years been highly sceptical of that Indo-European "story", as it is generally propagated by the that Indo-European "storv", as it is generally propagated by the mainstream, and have regarded it as rather "windy". I was nevertheless shocked by the degree of carelessness, combinedideological bias, which, as Aich demonstrates, has been a distinguishing feature of the work of all these Western "Indologists" and "Sanskntists".
Aich has meticulously studied the life and background, and the works of all the well-known scholars of the 17th to 19th centuries in this field, like e.g. Filippo Sassetti, Roberto de Nobili, Sir William Jones, Franz Bopp, Leonard de Chézv, Alexander Hamilton and F. Max Müller. Not one of them did possess the necessary linguistic and generally necessary, comprehensive scholarly competence to pronounce at their time about these matters in the way they did.
The invention of the "Aryan race"
It is Aich's thesis that all these scholars of the 17th – 19th centuries were heavily influenced by contemporary European superiority, supremacy and hegemony interests, at first more of a clerical-missionary, later of an imperialist-colonizing nature, and that they were expected to busily inflate that "balloon" of a superior "Aryan" (i.e. European) "race". Therefore incidentally the "Aryans" always had to have their origin in Europe. Because of all these rather suspect circumstances which have accompanied the coming into existence of the "Indo-European" and "Aryan" paradigm. Aich, when he uses the German word "Lügen" (lies) already in his book title; obviously does not simply mean an untrue or incorrect statement, but a deliberately misleading one.
It may well be that this concept of an "Indo-European" (or "Aryan") "race" has a rightful claim to the title of the most fatal, mental "balloon" of the history of the sciences. Because it is well-known that from it evolved, first within Establishment science and then also among non-Establishment "Weltbild" ideologists, the whole modern "race" hysteria: the idea of allegedly existing, distinctly different "races" of mankind, of which certain (especially of course the "Aryan race") were alleged to be of "superior", others of "inferior" quality.
Whereas originally it had only been a belief in the existence of an "Indo-European language family ", in the course of only a few centuries it had become belief in the undeniable fact of an "Aryan race": typical product of the strange European-Christian self-concept at least among the "élite", which had become used to regard themselves as a somehow chosen, superior race, with a mission to fulfil, namely to dominate the world. Almost nobody objected that the whole edifice rested on shaky foundations, to wit have linguistic arguments became confused wlth somatic considerations in an obviously “pseudoscientific” manner. As a sidelight we may mention in passing that, against this 17th – 19th century background, the "race" hysteria in Hitler's Germany (1933 – 1945) may well be understood as the culmination of an almost pan-European mental aberration.
The phantasm of an "Aryan invasion" of India
It seems that from the viewpoint of the "science of science" (history, philosophy, and sociology of the sciences, epistemology) all these scenarios of an Indo-European "race", and Indo-European "homeland", an Indo-European "language family", and an Indo-European migration from somewhere in the West (preferably Europe) as far as India, can only be regarded as highly suspect.
Especially in view of the fact that the enormously numerous and manifold Vedic and other Sanskrit works of ancient India never mention any "Aryan invasion" of India. A recent work by Feuerstein. Kak & Frawley (2) has two chapters with revealing titles: "The Aryans: Exploding a Scientific Myth", and "Why the Arian Invasion Never Happened: Seventeen Arguments". In accord with these authors I can therefore only recommend that we throw this "package" of untenable interrelated hypotheses overboard.
When there is no "Aryan race", there is of course also no "Indo– European Homeland". Besides, as Morgan Kelley (3) states:
"In attempting to reconstruct a genetic relationship among languages, Linguists amass a common vocabulary which itself can be used to reconstruct much about their material culture. Names for divinities and tribes, as well as for domestic items, animals, crops and trees indicate a common culture from a very early time. Yet even these basics do not lead all researchers in the same directions" (p.208).
Interpretations and "reconstructions" of prehistoric events dependent on assumptions and presuppositions
Exactly this is the problem: although a knowledge of such basics has doubtless a certain worth, it does not and cannot quasi-automatically lead scholars to the correct scenario. There are too many unknowns in the equation. After all we cannot expect more than qualified speculation, because we are dealing with a past which no one of us has personally witnessed. The interpretations of our basics and our "reconstructions" of die factual relevant circumstances and events in a far distant past are unavoidably heavily dependent on our assumptions and presuppositions. These may be correct, or wrong, or a mixture of both.
The thesis of so-called "language families" is such an a priori assumption or presupposition, which has an effect comparable to an instance of rail shunting: from now on all ensuing thinking has to go in only one direction, to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
Such "language families" are normally understood as a direct genetic relationship between languages, reminding one of the genealogical "trees" of palaeontology. We can visualize an ethnic entity (people, tribe), which for some reason split into two or more factions, which migrate by land or sea to distant regions, have in the course of time their original language may evolve in different directions.
Doubtless such events will have occurred repeatedly in the long history of the human race. But the present author is of the opinion that such instances will have played only a minor role in the unfolding of the bewilderingly multifarious linguistic "landscape" on our planet.
Superstrata, substrata, and adstrata
By far the most important factor in the development of this "landscape" will quite obviously have been instances of linguistic superstrata, substrata, and adstrata, i. e. instances where the language of a newly arrived ethno-linguistic superstratum has affected the language of the "indigenes" or "natives" of the substratum or, in the case of an adstratal influence, even the language of a neighbouring people.
I am quite convinced that most ethnic entities on our planet have been formed in a manner reminiscent of the layers or strata of geology, by layer upon layer of ethno-linguistic superstrata, with the difference that the strata of geology remain more or less separate and distinct, whereas the ethno-linguistic layers will, in the course of time, tend to result in an ethno-linguistic amalgam.
Probably great majority creolized or amalgam languages
Therefore I propose that we will have to take it as a fact that the great majority of today’s languages cannot belong to the kind of above-described. conventional "language families", but will have to be regarded as creolized or amalgam languages, formed by an amalgamation of quite different languages.
That such things can and do indeed occur, has been repeatedly shown. A creolized language shows features from two or more "unrelated" (i.e. only very distantly related) languages as a result of contact between different language communities. Typically we find such in the Caribbean region. But as I said above, I am today convinced that the great majority of today's spoken languages belong to this group. Most interesting cases abound. I remember having once studied a work by an eminent linguist about a certain region in central India, have three languages belonging to different "language families" (she still believed in that concept), by close contact between the three language communities, were in the process of forming a new creolized language even in our time. Sadly I have mislaid my Xerox copies I made then, and so cannot cite from, or name my source.
Quite naturally, as my readers will probably have sensed by now, I regard the so-called "Indo-European" languages, too, as creolized languages. They, i.e. the great majority of today’s European languages, plus some other languages (e.g. Persian). had been given the name "Indo-European" because in certain elements they seemed somehow related to the Sanskrit language of ancient India.
Vennemann's thesis of a pre-Indo-European, Vasconic and Proto-Semitic Europe
Before I can continue to proceed with the thread of my thesis that the "Indo-European" languages should be regarded a creolized languages, I have to digress a bit and invite my reader to a little detour or excursion.
In a recent issue of the journal MIGRATION & DTFFUSION I have reported about the thesis by Theo Vennemann, who incidentally is a professor for Germanistic linguistics at the Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich, about the probable ethno-linguistic realities and movements in late prehistoric Europe (4). In his view, after the so-caIled "End of the Great Age" (in contemporary, i.e. non-catastrophic geological doctrine), a Vasconian, i.e. Basque-related population spreading r from south western France over almost all of Europe. They lived relatively unsophisticated, perhaps comparable to the way of the Berbers of Morocco. This population is designated (A), the accompanying map (Fig. 1),
Later on, from a centre designated (B) around the Strata Gibraltar, where Vennemann sees the original homeland centre of diffusion of all Hamito-Semitic peoples, an advanced sea-faring civilization colonized the Atlantic coastland of Europe. This people might be called Atlanto-Semites. Proto–Semites. Hamito-Semites, or Proto-Phoenicians, and they obviously also been the bearers of the Atlanto-European Megalithic culture.
Only as the last step did the "Indo-Europeans" arrive from the East in Vennemann's scenario. Vennemaan analyses by methodical reasoning in a really masterly and convincing manner Western and Central European languages like Insular Celtic, modern English, or the vocabulary of Germanic to demonstrate the most remarkable ethno-linguistic amalgams between Old Vasconians, Hamito-Semitic and "Indo-European" peoples, with which we will have to reckon in the gradual "nation building" of today's European peoples (5). The present author is of the opinion that Vennemann's reasoning is highly convincing.
The probable solution: A twofold ethno-linguistic influence from India on ancient Europe
He thinks, however, that in spite of this positive judgment Vennemann's scenario could and should be amended. To this end I have therefore tried to produce in the accompanying map (Fig. I) an amalgamation of Vennemann's and my own tentative scenario.
By (C) are designated migrations of less sophisticated, more war-like tribes from the Indian subcontinent, speaking Sanskritrelated languages. These tribes may have been forcibly expelled from India by the advanced civilization there. Perhaps the legendary tradition of Parashu-Rama, "Rama with the Battle-ax", an "avatar" or divine incarnation (not to be confused with the Rama of the Ramayana epic, another "avatar"), refers to such an event. He is said to have expelled war-like races from India.
It may well be that India at these late-prehistoric times may have been the most populated region on our planet. So such migrations by expelled tribes may have been rather substantial movements. And in view of the Tibetan landscape and the innumerable mountain ranges between India and China it would be only natural if these migrations took the routes indicated, to wit towards the West and Europe.
But I feel that we will also have to reckon with another colonizing influence from ancient India on Europe; designated (D) on the map, of quite another character. India has a very ancient seafaring tradition, and a most potent one at that, and the advanced civilizations there would probably very early have found the way around the Cape of Good Hope, to the Americas (which expeditions from India may also have reached via the Pacific) as well as to at least southwestern Europe.
From these considerations I propose that we should look for linguistic traces of colonizers from India, speaking Sanskritrelated languages, especially on the Iberian Peninsula, but also in the other Atlantic coastlands of Europe. Beside their much more advanced culture such seafarers and colonizers from ancient India may have impressed by their charisma the less sophisticated Vasconians in such a way that amalgam or creolized languages were a natural result. In which way, however, (B) and (D), i.e. the Atlanto-Semites or Proto-Phoenicians and the colonizers from India might have interacted, will not be easy to establish, especially in view of the fact that a tradition also exists according to which the Phoenicians themselves had their original homeland somewhere on the coasts of the Indian Ocean.
(2) Georg Feuerstein, Subhash Kak & David Frawley: IN SEARCH OF THE CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION. Wheaton (IIIinois) 1995 (ISBN: 0-8356-0720-8).
(3) E. Morgan Kelley: THE METAPHORICAL BASIS OF LANGUAGE, Lewiston (N.Y.), 1992 (ISBN: 0-7734-9534-7).
(4) Horst Friedrich: "A Linguistic Breakthrough for the Reconstruction of Europe's Prehistory" in: MIGR.ATION & DIFFUSION, Vol. 5/No.17, 2004 (pp. 6-15).
(5) cf; also by Theo Vennemann: EUROPA VASCONICA - EUROPA SMITICA, Berlin/New York, 2003 (ISBN: 3-M-017054-X).