Fwd: Re [Indo-Eurasia] Zoroastrianism and the BMAC

[Guest guest]

" I wonder if the Central Asian middle men on the Harappan-

Mesopotamian

trade

route might not have decided to take advantage of the weakening

Harappan hegemony to set up shop for themselves. "

 

Can I comment? -- The Harappans & the Mesopotamians _produced_

goods

for exchange with each other. _Because_ this exchange went on,

Central

Asians found they _could_ serve as middlemen. Production is

necessary to

produce the goods to be traded. What products did the BMAC produce

more

of? what new products did they turn out? so as to also participate in

trade, rather than just provide services? In *this* instance, was

there

perhaps a migration of Harappans from areas that could no longer

produce

adequate agricultural output?

 

I put this forward simply as possible lines of questioning. I hope it

helps.

 

Sudha R. Shenoy

Hon'y Associate in Economic History

School of Policy

University of Newcastle

Callaghan NSW 2308

Australia

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer

<saf wrote:

 

Sudha Shenoy writes:

 

> -- The Harappans & the Mesopotamians _produced_ goods

> for exchange with each other. _Because_ this exchange went on,

> Central Asians found they _could_ serve as middlemen.

 

We're moving pretty fast here now -- maybe too fast? It might help

to

slow down and deal with one BMAC/Indus topic at a time -- at least

if

we hope to solve things and don't want to turn into another Internet

Yak group. Festina lente...

 

What evidence exists for the thesis that Central Asians were acting

as

middlemen in economic exchanges between Mesopotamia and the Indus

Valley? So far as I can tell, there isn't any.

 

As Bob Simpkins rightly noted in an earlier post this morning (a

little

background: Bob dug for a number of years in Harappa; now he is

studying trade-route issues in medieval India), all our current

evidence suggests that trade between the Indus Valley and

Mesopotamia

was conducted nearly *exclusively* via the Persian Gulf. The

evidence

for this, found in the distribution of Indus seals and sealings

outside

of Indus territories, is exceptionally strong.

 

Moreover, while we know from the distribution of Indus stamp seals

that

the Indus were trading with the Mesopotamians, we know absolutely

nothing -- and let me stress *nothing* -- about what goods traveled

from Mesopotamia to the Indus Valley: the near total absence of

Mesopotamian artifacts of any kind in Indus sites (no seals, no seal

impressions, etc.) has long been a key problem for Indus-Valley

specialists. Moreover, leaving aside Mesopotamian artifacts, there

are

few clear *Central Asian* artifacts that show up at Indus sites, not

even artifacts that reflect Central Asian influence, until near the

end

of the mature period of Indus civilization. (Ironically, one of the

best-known " Indus " artifacts -- the famous so-called Priest King

statue, which seems to show up on the cover of half the books on the

Indus Valley, is one of these -- it doesn't look at all like what

we

find in earlier Indus statues, but does strongly resemble Central

Asian

statues!)

 

Whatever this means, at present the evidence suggests that

throughout

most of its existence (right up to the end of the so-called

integration

era), Indus civilization was unusually well insulated from its

neighbors. This is an issue whose potential significance Michael

Witzel, Richard Sproat, and I discuss at length near the end of " The

Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis "

(http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf

).

 

The upshot is that before we talk about the BMAC (or whatever else

we

want to call Central-Asian urban centers) acting as middle men in

Mesopotamian/Indus trade exchanges, we have to know something about

those exchanges. And at present the only thing we know for sure,

coming

from studies of the distribution of Indus seals outside Indus

territories (also *possibly* a few Mesopotamian inscriptions)

strongly

suggests that all or most of that trade took place through the

Persian

Gulf -- as Bob rightly pointed out.

 

How many Indus seals/inscriptions have we found so far in SE Iran,

for

example? One (!) that I know of, from Tepe Yahya, but there are

oddities in that one piece (a seal inscriptionn) that, as I've

argued

elsewhere, makes it questionable whether it did indeed come from an

Indus seal. Possibly the new excavations now underway in SE Iran

will

change this picture, but nothing that I know of contradicts at this

point what Bob had to say in his post.

 

Why the apparent strong insularity of Indus civilization? Taking a

long

view at Indian civilization, it looks suspiciously familiar... :^)

 

Best,

Steve

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , Sudha Shenoy

<sudha.shenoy wrote:

 

 

Steve:

 

Sorry -- I was trying to make a purely logical point: 'middlemen'

cannot

simply 'set up shop' -- they have to _produce_ goods in order to

trade. I _did_ ask about _what_ goods they could have produced --

ie,

I was simply trying to suggest a more orderly set of questions. (As

I

said at the end.)

 

Hope this clarifies things.

 

Sudha R. Shenoy

Hon'y Associate in Economic History

School of Policy

University of Newcastle

Callaghan NSW 2308

Australia

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer

<saf wrote:

 

Good and important point, Sudha. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

Cheers,

Steve

 

On Friday, April 8, 2005, at 08:09 AM, Sudha Shenoy wrote:

 

>

> Steve:

>

> Sorry -- I was trying to make a purely logical point: 'middlemen'

> cannot

> simply 'set up shop' -- they have to _produce_ goods in order to

> trade. I _did_ ask about _what_ goods they could have produced -

-

> ie, I was simply trying to suggest a more orderly set of

questions.

> (As I

> said at the end.)

>

> Hope this clarifies things.

>

> Sudha R. Shenoy

> Hon'y Associate in Economic History

> School of Policy

> University of Newcastle

> Callaghan NSW 2308

> Australia

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , " Steve Farmer "

<saf wrote:

 

 

On second look, a question for Sudha, who writes:

 

> Sorry -- I was trying to make a purely logical point: 'middlemen'

> cannot simply 'set up shop' -- they have to _produce_ goods in

order to

> trade.

 

Leaving aside putative BMAC/Indus trade, is this really true? I

don't know much about

trade issues, but it isn't obvious to me why traders have to produce

anything -- they can

economically gain just by trading goods involving exchanges through

many

intermediaries, can't they? That is my impression as being one of

the major lessons of the

Uluburun shipwreck, which contained goods from many cultures; e.g.:

 

http://ina.tamu.edu/ub_main.htm

 

Again, this is just a question: I know far less than I wish I knew

about ancient long-distant

trade (outside of suspecting that it usually involved many stages).

 

Best,

Steve

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , Sharon Huestis

<gaea wrote:

 

 

 

On Apr 8, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Steve Farmer wrote:

 

>

> On second look, a question for Sudha, who writes:

>

> > Sorry -- I was trying to make a purely logical

point: 'middlemen'

> > cannot simply 'set up shop' -- they have to _produce_ goods

in

> order to

> > trade.

>

> Leaving aside putative BMAC/Indus trade, is this really true? I

don't

> know much about

> trade issues, but it isn't obvious to me why traders have to

produce

> anything -- they can

> economically gain just by trading goods involving exchanges

through

> many

> intermediaries, can't they? That is my impression as being one of

the

> major lessons of the

> Uluburun shipwreck, which contained goods from many cultures;

e.g.:

>

> http://ina.tamu.edu/ub_main.htm

>

> Again, this is just a question: I know far less than I wish I

knew

> about ancient long-distant

> trade (outside of suspecting that it usually involved many

stages).

 

I'm not sure if this can be directly applied to the more ancient

time

period that the group is discussing, but here is what I have

gathered

in my studies, regarding post-Han dynasty Chinese-Indian trade.

 

Central Asians involved in the " silk route " were not members of

highly

industrialized societies... while they did produce goods, those

goods

tended to stay closer to home than the higher quality goods produced

for trade at either end of the route. What they provided was the

service of navigating the desert. These seem to have been

short " hops "

between one trading center and another, rather than long continuous

hauls.

 

-Sharon Huestis

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer

<saf wrote:

 

Thanks, Sharon. That's also my impression about the putative long-

range

trade the Indus conducted -- probably conducted in intermediate

hops,

and not long-distant trade in the way a lot of people imagine it.

(Call

this the non-FedEx model.)

 

There is prima facie support for this in the skewed geographical

distribution of Indus seals & impressions. Dennys Frenez, who is

currently studying seal impressions from Lothal, and I have

discussed

this a bit. (I don't think Dennys is on the List yet.)

 

Steve

 

> I'm not sure if this can be directly applied to the more ancient

time

> period that the group is discussing, but here is what I have

gathered

> in my studies, regarding post-Han dynasty Chinese-Indian trade.

>

> Central Asians involved in the " silk route " were not members of

highly

> industrialized societies... while they did produce goods, those

goods

> tended to stay closer to home than the higher quality goods

produced

> for trade at either end of the route. What they provided was the

> service of navigating the desert. These seem to have been

short " hops "

> between one trading center and another, rather than long continuous

> hauls.

>

> -Sharon Huestis

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , Sudha Shenoy

<sudha.shenoy wrote:

 

Steve:

 

Sorry -- I was speaking in terms of the 'group' as a whole. --

'Middlemen' refers to (a function performed by) people who pass goods

from one trader to another, or to another middleman. 'Traders'

refers to

(a function performed by) people who buy goods directly from

producers

& /or sell directly to 'consumers' (final buyers.) Middlemen may be

necessary (depending on circumstances) to get the goods from

producer to

final buyer. For middlemen to become traders, they must have access

to

producers - who produce the goods to be sold (ultimately) to final

buyers. -- Where particular _groups_ act as middlemen, they are (by

definition) passing along goods produced by _other groups_. The

middlemen _groups_ would have to produce goods themselves - should

they

wish to trade ( & not just pass along goods from one group to

another.)

 

Certainly a trade network - with traders & intermediaries - can link

together many different groups & cultures. But the network exists

because it brings together producers & final users (of the goods

produced.) -- I should like to stress here that I am speaking of

_functions_. The same person can perform several functions, of

course.

Eg, he can trade in some goods & act as intermediary with other

goods ,

& so on. And all this can change, of course, according to

circumstances.

 

 

Again, the above is meant simply to clarify thinking & especially to

suggest some systematic questions to ask of the

historical/archaeological evidence.

 

The shipwreck: [http://ina.tamu.edu/ub_main.htm]

seems to consist of goods available or produced only in specific

areas,

with specific skills. Clearly they were being taken to areas which

lacked eg mineral resources (tin etc.) & which also lacked specific

skills ( eg glass-making.) The metal & glass ingots were clearly to

be

used further in production. Their standard sizes suggests

well-established users -- ie, a secure, continuing supply network.

The

beads, jewellery, turtle shells (for making musical instruments) --

are

all clearly 'consumer' goods - ie, for final use. (There are other

items

of course.)

 

I've gone on long enough. I hope it's been useful.

 

Sudha R. Shenoy

Hon'y Associate in Economic History

School of Policy

University of Newcastle

Callaghan NSW 2308

Australia

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , Robert Simpkins

<bobsahib wrote:

 

I think we've started to move away a bit from Dean Anderson's

original

posting on the topic, so I will posit the question again, in a

slightly

different way:

 

What elements of later Zoroastrianism might have been contributed,

if any,

by the pre-Indo-Iranian-speaking populations of the Bactria-Margiana

area?

 

The article Dean posted on Sarianidi's work, despite its headline,

really

said little about this issue. Of course he has written elsewhere,

but I

would enjoy seeing other perspectives. The recent substrate

discussion for

this region on the Indology list suggests a direction for a

reconstruction

of cultural layers as has frequently been discussed for India, but I

would

prefer to see a more nuanced modeling of cultural interaction and

syncretism

in Eastern Iran and Afghanistan, etc., particularly one that goes

beyond

textual religious traditions and focuses on historically attested

popular

ritual practices. I tire of rigid ethnonyms that are used as fixed

categories over periods of several centuries or more, floating over

landscapes along giant arrows that we imagine are meaningful.

 

Bob Simpkins

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer

<saf wrote:

 

Bob Simpkins writes, reframing Dean's question:

 

> What elements of later Zoroastrianism might have been contributed,

if

> any, by the pre-Indo-Iranian-speaking populations of the

> Bactria-Margiana area?

....

> I would prefer to see a more nuanced modeling of cultural

interaction

> and syncretism in Eastern Iran and Afghanistan, etc., particularly

one

> that goes beyond textual religious traditions and focuses on

> historically attested popular ritual practices.

 

Dear Bob --

 

Why just popular ritual practices? And how are these historically

attested except in iconography? How do we know this iconography is

not

influenced by literate influences?

 

The BMAC itself (again pace Sarianidi) was apparently another early

urban civilizations that lacked (or eschewed) writing, but that

doesn't

mean that the religious traditions of literate civilizations didn't

have an impact on it. Studies of BMAC iconography certainly show

that

the civilization was deeply affected by Near Eastern traditions,

especially those coming from Elam. Way back in his 1994 article in

_Antiquity_, in his own syncretic model of the BMAC, Francfort

already

made much of these influences. We tend to instinctively think of

Central Asian influences flowing 'downwards', but in fact the BMAC

reflected a lot of literate influences from Mesopotamia and Elam as

well -- much more clearly than the Indus Valley, in fact.

 

Abstract of Francfort's paper, still very useful, which makes many

of

the same points:

 

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/abstracts.html (scroll down to get to

it)

 

Cheers,

Steve

 

PS to " sebstride " and other posters in this and future threads: if

who

you are is not evident from your email address, could you please

sign

your name? We don't want any anonymous posters on the List.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , Robert Simpkins

<bobsahib wrote:

 

Steve,

 

" Why just popular ritual practices? "

 

I didn't say " just " , I only suggested that we go beyond the Avesta

and other

primary texts (the " Great Tradition " ) and see what evidence among

popular

religious practices (the " Little Traditions " ) might betray pre-

Zoroastrian

roots.

 

" And how are these historically attested except in iconography? "

 

Are you serious? In archaeological evidence, in later historical

writings,

in ethnographic studies, etc - I'm not only speaking of the BMAC

here. My

point is that the written tradition, especially the primary,

prescriptive

texts of a religious tradition, may have little relevance to the

actual

religious practices of the majority of the population (just look at

Buddhist

scripture versus ritual and worship in early historic India), many

of whom,

although considered Zoroastrian, may be continuing pre-Avestan

religious

practices in some form.

 

" How do we know this iconography is not influenced by literate

influences? "

 

Since I didn't talk about iconography, I think you're attributing to

me a

position I didn't take.

 

" The BMAC itself (again pace Sarianidi) was apparently another early

urban

civilizations that lacked (or eschewed) writing, but that doesn't

mean that

the religious traditions of literate civilizations didn't have an

impact on

it. "

 

Again, I didn't claim otherwise. But I do think that the written

record

badly skews our sense of early cultures when the vast majority of the

population were not literate, but were the ones producing most of the

archaeological record.

 

" Studies of BMAC iconography certainly show that the civilization

was deeply

affected by Near Eastern traditions, especially those coming from

Elam. Way

back in his 1994 article in _Antiquity_, in his own syncretic model

of the

BMAC, Francfort already made much of these influences. We tend to

instinctively think of Central Asian influences flowing 'downwards',

but in

fact the BMAC reflected a lot of literate influences from

Mesopotamia and

Elam as well -- much more clearly than the Indus Valley, in fact. "

 

Yes, but it's not likely that they were simply passive recipients of

outside

religion, either. With a settled, agricultural base in the Kopet

Dagh going

back 7-8,000 years or more, they are likely to have had independent

developments as well, and early interactions with other parts of

Central

Asia too.

 

All this gets away from the issue I was raising - how much of

historical

Zoroastrian religious belief and practice has pre- or non-

Zoroastrian roots,

and how can we model the relative contributions of different groups

in this

region (Iranian and non-Iranian speakers, recent migrants and

descendants of

long-time residents) to the later historical religious traditions of

the

area? This question can be equally applied to this Indus Valley and

Gangetic region, but for some reason the area of early

Zoroastrianism has

not received the same level of attention for the same questions. I

would

love to hear Michael's views, although I know his availability now is

limited.

 

 

Bob Simpkins

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer

<saf wrote:

 

All central questions, Bob -- and searching for answers to them is

one

of the reasons the three of us started this List: In our opinion,

you

can't really separate Indian, Central Asian, and Iranian studies.

The

links continue into much later times, as witnessed by the recent

finds

(discussed in Shaul Shaked's recent book) of the Aramaic manuscripts

from late Achaemenid times recently discovered in Bactria -- just as

Indian literacy was being established and Vedic canonization

processes

were getting underway. Michael, George, and I hope that we explore

that

topic sometime in the next few months.

 

You write:

 

> All this gets away from the issue I was raising - how much of

> historical

> Zoroastrian religious belief and practice has pre- or non-

Zoroastrian

> roots, and how can we model the relative contributions of

different

> groups in this region (Iranian and non-Iranian speakers, recent

> migrants and descendants of long-time residents) to the later

> historical religious traditions of the area? This question can be

> equally applied to this Indus Valley and Gangetic region, but for

some

> reason the area of early Zoroastrianism has not received the same

> level of attention for the same questions. I would love to hear

> Michael's views, although I know his availability now is limited.

 

Michael will be back in email range by early next week, and I'm sure

he'll have a lot to say about all this. We're especially pleased to

see

a number of Central Asian archaeologists on the List who can help us

on

this issue.

 

Best,

Steve

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

GOOD VS EVIL

Let's Consider that goodness, growth, and being kind to one another,

is a superior force over the force of destruction, death, and being

mean to each other. (To do this, we consider all possibilities)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Let's consider a universe with only the force of destruction. As

death /destruction progress, they take whatever is alive, and kill

it, so that where life once was, now exists (is produced) nothing

and nothingness. Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. Pretty soon, life

becomes scarce, while a whole lot of empty space and inanimate

material is left behind. After awhile, all the life is killed, and

then what? With no life left to kill, the force of destruction comes

to a stop (no more destroying can be done), because from nothing,

this force can go no further from there. Here is a definite bottom

to the universe.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now

consider the force of good-and-growth as being the only force

around. As this force acts, it takes nothingness/lifeless matter

(dust), and creates life in its place. Soon everything starts to

come alive. Pretty soon we begin to run out of improvements to make.

Emptiness and undeveloped raw material (dust) starts to come into

short supply. If everything is alive, then no more growth can be

done, and thus the force of good is stopped, right? Well, there's

not so much an absolute ceiling, as there is an absolute bottom. You

see, life forms can advance/be advanced and become ever more capable

and alive; and this thus continues the force of growth/goodness.

And, a universe that is alive (full of life), is very capable -able

to do lots of things, (unlike a barren universe consisting of

nothingness). And with that life/capability, it can bridge barriers

and reach raw material (dust) that had previously been separated

from it by a barrier. Hence, the force of goodness and growth can

survive by itself much better than the force of destruction/death

can. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ALSO, it takes life-and-capability to do or be either the force of

good-and-growth, or the force of destruction. The lack of life can't

do/be either force. Since what the force of good produces is life,

such life can continue to do forces. But since what the force of

destruction produces is death, nothingness, voids in life; since

this cannot do or support either force, then the force of

destruction alone is destined to a quick end while the force of good

and growth alone is destined to continue.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ALSO,

since only life can do-be either force: When destruction experiences

what it produces, or is applied to itself, it doesn't grow, but

instead shrinks to nothing. xxxxxxxxxx But when goodness experiences

what it produces, (when goodness is good to itself) it does not die,

but instead, grows. So that the force of destruction needs something

other than just itself to exist (is a parasitic force), while the

force of good does not and is self sufficient with just itself. So

that when alone, good survives while destruction self eliminates and

vanishes. From this we can see that good and growth, is a superior

force to the force of death and destruction.

 

REPRODUCTION

Consider the concept of supply and demand; as applied to human

beings. If there is a shortage of humans, then they will have a

higher value and will be treated better. But if there is a surplus

of humans, then their value will be low, and they will be treated

poorly, according to their low value according to supply and

demand. So that when women are considering how many humans to

produce in terms of how large a family to have; collectively, they

have quite an impact on how we all are treated by those economic

forces that rule over us all.

And then there is the conservative, religious rules over our

sexuality. But first let us consider sexual reproduction in

itself. Sexual reproduction produces offspring that are not exact

copies of their parents, but who are different from their parents to

some degree. So, sexual reproduction generates differences between

each of us. Now, if we were all to have sex with each other in

unrestricted sexual reproduction, then those differences would be

spread all back among our population and we would not build on or

accentuate those differences. But that's not the way sexual

reproduction works in our world. Sexual reproduction is restricted

to one man one woman and to form a family grouping to raise the

offspring produced. So that the differences generated by sexual

reproduction are preserved and compounded over each successive

generation; so that different groups of people are developed each

being good in one particular area, while not so good in the other

areas. So that as individuals they cannot function well, but only

as a group can they work together to combine their good areas to

make a complete and competent societal whole. Thus the rulers of a

society have at their beck and call, all the humans of the society

to do their bidding, because as individuals they are all unbalanced

in their skills, incapable of being self sufficient as individuals,

who can only survive and excel by joining as a group each to

contribute their best skill. So that what the conservative rules

over our sexual reproduction do is to breed individuals who are

slaves who are easily molded by the rulers of a society, who are

incapable of much independence as individuals, so that we are more

so a commodity to be used by those who rule over us. Sometimes one

may resent being part of this conservative religious breeding

program that has made us to be not free, but slaves to those who

rule over us.

TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, SEE THE WEBSITE:

http://www.geocities.com/feelosofree/ok.html

 

 

, " Kishore patnaik "

<kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

>

> Indo-Eurasian_research , Sharon Huestis

> <gaea@> wrote:

>

>

>

> On Apr 8, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Steve Farmer wrote:

>

> >

> > On second look, a question for Sudha, who writes:

> >

> > > Sorry -- I was trying to make a purely logical

> point: 'middlemen'

> > > cannot simply 'set up shop' -- they have to _produce_ goods

> in

> > order to

> > > trade.

> >

> > Leaving aside putative BMAC/Indus trade, is this really true? I

> don't

> > know much about

> > trade issues, but it isn't obvious to me why traders have to

> produce

> > anything -- they can

> > economically gain just by trading goods involving exchanges

> through

> > many

> > intermediaries, can't they? That is my impression as being one

of

> the

> > major lessons of the

> > Uluburun shipwreck, which contained goods from many cultures;

> e.g.:

> >

> > http://ina.tamu.edu/ub_main.htm

> >

> > Again, this is just a question: I know far less than I wish I

> knew

> > about ancient long-distant

> > trade (outside of suspecting that it usually involved many

> stages).

>

> I'm not sure if this can be directly applied to the more ancient

> time

> period that the group is discussing, but here is what I have

> gathered

> in my studies, regarding post-Han dynasty Chinese-Indian trade.

>

> Central Asians involved in the " silk route " were not members of

> highly

> industrialized societies... while they did produce goods, those

> goods

> tended to stay closer to home than the higher quality goods

produced

> for trade at either end of the route. What they provided was the

> service of navigating the desert. These seem to have been

> short " hops "

> between one trading center and another, rather than long

continuous

> hauls.

>

> -Sharon Huestis

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>