Stefan Arvidsson

"The historian of religions Ulf Drobin clarifies Trubetskoy's point: "all classification must stem from criteria. The followers of the language tree theory avoid definite criteria and replace them with a concept of language that is BOTH changeable (in time) and constant (Indo-European). In the final analysis they end up in paradoxes and mysticism. Ur-Indo-European must either lack prehistory, or it must have a non-Indo-European prehistory. The latter, however, cannot be explained with out some form of criteria" (Arvidsson 2006, p.297, emphasis and parentheses in the original)."

"Renfrew thus argues that Europe’s prehistory is not distinguished by warlike migrations or cultural-heroic elites. In the last few decades, the historiogra­ phy in which the Indo-Europeans are presented as conquerors has also been questioned by scholars in other geographical areas. In the Indian area, it is still mainly laymen who have opposed describing South Asia's prehistory as a struggle between white conquerors and peaceful, dark-skinned farmers.(298)"

"The sometimes interwoven traditions that have dominated the postwar period-personified by Dumezil and Gimbutas—have generally been considered to represent an objective, scientific body of research that contrasts sharply with the Nazis' misuse of the Indo-Europeans. But as we have seen in this chapter, there is no reason to stop critically analyzing the ideology of Indo-European scholarship. If Dumezil and Gimbutas have each represented a constructive research tradition, Bruce Lincoln can represent the tradition of ideological critique among scholars of Indo-European heritage (Arvidsson 2006, pp. 301-302)."

"According to Lincoln, then, Indo-European research misses what is instructive about studying myths and religious texts in the first place, since it demand that the researchers leave the historically and socially determined place in which they were used in order to reach the imagined Ancient Arya., "the never-never land east of the asterisk," to use the expression of Lincoln's colleague Wendy Doniger (Arvidsson 2006, p. 303)."

"It is easy-as is evident from a critical reading of, for example. the foremost work about the Aryan discourse, Leon Poliakov's The Aryan Myth-to interpret all praise of the Aryan mentality as an expression of the naturalistic critique of the Semites, that is to say, as true anti-Semitism. But during the nineteenth century, especially, and even into the twentieth century, there did exist an Aryanist tradition that had very little in common with the naturalistic tradition and its Nazi anticlimax. This Aryanism had liberal and universalist overtones, and interpreted. the Semitic tradition as the incarnation of conservatism and antiquated. pluralistic chauvinism. Scholars such as Renan and Müller would probably have criticized. Nazism in the same way that they criticized traditionalistic Semitic religions: it stands in the way of the realization of universal humanity. From this perspective, the Aryan becomes the same as the consummate human being. 317"

"Several people who have examined Indo-European scholarship have drawn parallels between research about the Proto-Indo-European world and myths, in the sense of narratives about origin. Indo-European research has, in many ways, been an attempt to write the origin narrative of the bourgeois class - a narrative that, by talking about how things originally were, has sanctioned a certain kind of behavior, idealized a certain type of person, and affirmed certain feelings. Certainly, there have been some scholars who have not identified themselves with the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but they are few."