A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (subscription required) offers a counter theory to the long held Aryan Invasion Theory (thanks for the tip “Gujjubhai” and “Mauritious”). But before I get into that, I want to address a pet peeve of mine. The word “theory” is one of the most mis-used words in the English language. When most people use the word theory, they actually mean to use “hypothesis” or “hunch.” A theory by definition means:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
By definition a theory has already stood up to repeated challenges, and on the basis of scientific evidence has held true despite many assaults on its validity. Therefore the Theory of Evolution isn’t just some willy-nilly hunch. It has taken on and turned aside all would-be challengers. Everybody “knows” that gravity is real, but did you know that Newton’s gravity is in fact a theory? When dealing with physics that approach the speed of light, the Newtonian Theory of Gravity fails, and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity takes over. Now that we are past that let’s go back to the PNAS paper. First, what is the “Aryan Invasion Theory”:
… a term that refers to the theory developed by 19th Century European linguists to explain the similarity between Sanskrit and European languages, by hypothesising that peoples originating outside India invaded or migrated to India. Another view is that this theory was developed as a means to show the superiority of European Aryan race. Max Muller and other western scholars who studied Sanskrit were very impressed with it and wanted to develop a link of this brilliant language with there own race i.e Europeans. They found some roots common in german and sanskrit and invented AIT. There is no archaeological evidence for the invasion. In ancient times there were abundant contact between civilization in India and Europe and European languages borrowed lot of words/roots from Sanskrit. Interesting fact is that modern non-Indians still cling to this theory even though it has no locus standi or a scientific basis. [Link]
You see? Even the great Wikipedia perpetuates the inaccuracy. The so-called “Aryan Invasion Theory” has no archaeological evidence supporting it. Therefore, it should have been called the “Aryan Invasion Hunch.” The PNAS paper however forwards a real theory based on actual scientific evidence which throws cold water on the Aryan Invasion Hunch:
Understanding the genetic origins and demographic history of Indian populations is important both for questions concerning the early settlement of Eurasia and more recent events, including the appearance of Indo-Aryan languages and settled agriculture in the subcontinent. Although there is general agreement that Indian caste and tribal populations share a common late Pleistocene maternal ancestry in India, some studies of the Y-chromosome markers have suggested a recent, substantial incursion from Central or West Eurasia. To investigate the origin of paternal lineages of Indian populations, 936 Y chromosomes, representing 32 tribal and 45 caste groups from all four major linguistic groups of India, were analyzed for 38 single-nucleotide polymorphic markers. Phylogeography of the major Y-chromosomal haplogroups in India, genetic distance, and admixture analyses all indicate that the recent external contribution to Dravidian- and Hindi-speaking caste groups has been low. The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward. The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family. The dyadic Y-chromosome composition of Tibeto-Burman speakers of India, however, can be attributed to a recent demographic process, which appears to have absorbed and overlain populations who previously spoke Austro-Asiatic languages. [Link]
Is there a Razib in the house? For you non-science types here is an article from National Geographic for the layman.
Most modern Indians descended from South Asians, not invading Central Asian steppe dwellers, a new genetic study reports.
The Indian subcontinent may have acquired agricultural techniques and languages–but it absorbed few genes–from the west, said Vijendra Kashyap, director of India’s National Institute of Biologicals in Noida… The finding disputes a long-held theory that a large invasion of central Asians, traveling through a northwest Indian corridor, shaped the language, culture, and gene pool of many modern Indians within the past 10,000 years…Testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups throughout India, Kashyap’s team examined 936 Y chromosomes. (The chromosome determines gender; males carry it, but women do not.)
The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived some 10,000 years ago…Kashyap and his colleagues say their findings may explain the prevalence of Indo-European languages, such as Hindi and Bengali, in northern India and their relative absence in the south.
“The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct contact with the Indo-European migrants, where they could have a stronger influence on the native populations to adopt their language and other cultural entities,” Kashyap said. [Link]
Very interesting stuff. Despite the close contacts with Aryan populations, this evidence suggestes that South Asians and Aryans didn’t “get it on” nearly as much as some people thought they did.
If steppe-dwelling Central Asians did lend language and technology, but not many genes, to northern India, the region may have changed far less over the centuries than previously believed.<
p>”I think if you could get into a time machine and visit northern India 10,000 years ago, you’d see people … similar to the people there today,” Underhill said. “They wouldn’t be similar to people from Bangalore [in the south].”
<
p>The larger relevance of this issue is that it was the most contentious point in the debate over corrections to California textbooks that I blogged about earlier. It seems the Hindu groups who slammed Harvard Sanskrit scholar Michael Witzel now have some formidable ammunition on their side:
One of the most contentious issues the Hindu groups and Witzel and his supporters locked horns over was whether there was any truth to the Aryan invasion theory, which maintains that a group of people from Central Asia who called themselves Aryans invaded India around 1,500 B.C., and that Hinduism grew out of the beliefs and practices of the Aryans. Witzel and his group support the theory; the Hindu groups do not. The Hindu groups say that more recent archeological and DNA findings debunk the theory and suggest that the Aryans were an indigenous people who did not invade. Moreover, say the Hindu groups, plenty of linguistic and other evidence indicates that Hinduism existed in India long before 1,500 B.C.
At a special meeting held by the Board of Education on Jan. 6, to which Witzel and Prof. Shiva Bajpai, whose views the Hindu groups support, were invited, a compromise was hammered out and accepted by both sides. The textbooks would reflect both views, and the word “invasion” would be replaced by migration. [Link]
<grin>
moi aussi, vij-ji. moi aussi. 😉
I refuse to believe this. I hold steadfast to my belief that my ancestors were white. If the above theory is proved correct, I will chose option B where my more immediate ancestors came from Uzbekistan (as my grandmom always claimed!).
I may have missed it, but is there a hunch/theory to explain the phenotypic differences between some South and North Indians? Is it just normal genetic variation carried out over time and isolated genetic groups?
I have to wonder if there was much intra-South Asian coupling going on? I assume there was much intra-SA trade happening and there must have been some boot knocking to come of it, right?? Yet the phenotypic difference persist? That’s what the Aryan invasion theory always seemed to help validate: the differences between North and South Indians were in some part due to these Aryan invaders throwing their seed into the genetic soup of the North. Apparently not so though.
I guess the environments between the North and South are so different that they produced relatively dramatic differences between populations rather quickly? Armchair anthropologist here will wait to see what others post and learn. Interesting post.
Tou…f’in…che! 🙂 :-).
Gujjubhai on January 15, 2006 07:47 PM ·
Men descended from apes..double grin
Come again..Tou..f’in..che:-))
Punjabi JAG, et al
Could it just be due to a slower migration of fairer-skinned Central Asians? I’m just going on geography here..
Recently, my brother gave his DNA to Genographic Project. Anyone can do that $100.00. They are building an excellent data base.
The results are agreement with NAS proceedings.
Maybe, we will hear from Razib and other biologists/ genetists on board.
So, like, South Asians = bandars and Indians = insaan? ROTFLMAO!!!
Oh yeah, and Triple tou..fi’n..che with cherry on top right back at ya 🙂 :-).
PS:Apologies for the double post earlier. PPS: This post is just a (possibly lame) attempt at humor. Not intended to start another SA vs. Indian flame.
They probably caught Wikipedia during its Hindu moment. Otherwise this is a highly politicized issue and one that is probably continually subjected to the so-called “revert wars” in Wikipedia where no sooner than one side of an issue is published the folks on the other side replace it with their version of the truth.
Don’t know about the genes, but I find it hard to believe that people (that too nomads) from a colder climate could have brought a culture, complete with poetry and ritual into a warmer climate. Besides, there is no such race as Aryan. In Sanskrit the word simply means “noble” and the civilizational ideal was ayra conduct. It’s odd that there would be a race with such a name when other race names are not based on such an etymology.
As they say a theory never dies, but sooner or later its opponents simply drop dead. The AIT issue will likely go on for a generation or two longer since the west is rather attached to this concoction of theirs.
Sorry, make that “adherents” instead of “opponents” in my last post.
Gujjubhai
Nope. It’s like:
South Asians = Barbaric, nomadic tribesmen Indians = Evolved, enlightened individuals with a 5000 year old civilization to boot
If your evolution has brought you to a state of pride and achievement, why would you want to regress to an earlier, primitive identity?:-)
A very good Tou-F’in-Che to the power of infinity to you:-)
Actually, theory has multiple definitions, one of which is:
So the Aryan Invasion Theory is just that, a theory. It’s interesting (and confusing) that one word can have almost diametrically opposed meanings.
You know the distance from Dushanbe, Tajikistan to lets say in Gujranwala, Punjab is less then Gujranwala, Punjab to Bombay. I dont know how far Tashkent, Uzbekistan is from major west/ north West Indian cities. There can always be some cases where populations from Central Asian countries settled in what is India.
In the Mahabharat, a city called “Gandhar” is mentioned (Where uncle ‘Shakuni’ is from). That is actually present day Kandahar, Afghanistan.
A lot of races have migrated into india. you have folks who are dark as africans, whitish(iranian,greekish,italian looking), asian looking folks and i’m describing my extended family.
Perhaps, but in the context of science, as in this case, there is only one single definition.
I am not sure if it’s just the “Hindu groups” who are against the Aryan Invasion “Theory.” In fact, the historian Romila Thapar, who is considered “Leftist” by the saffronists, is against it too. She uses the term Indo-Aryan speakers and not Aryans.
Thanks for underlining that point, Divya. I notice that the Wikipedia article has been replaced with something more scholarly and responsible. Another point I’d like to make is that, irrespective of the genetic indigeneity of North Indian Hindus to South Asia, its an absurdity to say something like, “plenty of linguistic and other evidence indicates that Hinduism existed in India long before 1,500 B.C.” What exactly was the nature of the Hinduism that existed at that point? A religion that probably didnt read the Mahabharatha or the Ramayana, at least not in the forms we read them today, and worshipped a pantheon of (mostly nature) Gods who have vanished from religious consideration. In fact, most of the Vedas have very little bearing on modern Hindu religious practice.
Hindu extremists may consider themselves to have scored a point with this genetic study, but the fact is that rational historical analysis isnt going to do any favours to their revisionist originalism, that is, the notion that there exists an original canon or religious tradition that we can call Hinduism and that is continuous with Hindu practice today. The fact that this study does not erase is that a cultural-linguistic influence from somewhere to the West of “Bharath” seems to have substantially altered the nature of Hinduism itself, even if it didnt alter the nature of Hindu genes.
ok.
1) Y and mtDNA lineage studies are tracing two lines of descent. the Y traces the DIRECT PATERNAL LINE, i.e., father->son->son->son->son->son…. while mtDNA traces mother->daugher->daughter->daughter. ergo, one must take these studies with a grain of salt, because they are telling you about the history of genes, not peoples, as peoples are dynamic coalitions of genes which are in constant flux. as a example, if you looked at Y & mtDNA of mexican americans, overall, you would see that vast majority of Y chromosomal lineages of mexican americans cluster with iberian europeans, while the vast majority of mtDNA lineages cluster with the indigenous peoples of central america. we know the history of this group (spanish men kept indigenous concubines, and brought over few spanish women and marginalized indigenous men), so it isn’t surprising, but too often people extrapolate just from one lineage without the context of the whole genome.
2) these are putatively neutral ancestral markers, but genes do operate under selection. for example, a common assertion is that ~70% of north indians are lactose tolerant, while ~30% of south indians are. ~90% of northern europeans are lactose tolerant. in eurasia the genes for lactose tolerance seem to have increased in frequency first in northern europe and spread to the rest of eurasia. so the frequency of lactose tolerance in northern india is probably derived from northern europe via deme-to-deme transmission of genes, and positive selection for that gene within the population. my point is that selection matters, and indians, northern and southern, have changed a lot in situ over the past ~10,000 (for example, all populations who have transitioned to agriculture have tended toward reduction in teeth size in comparison to their ancestral median).
3) in regards to south asia, i think the general thrust of the paper is correct, as a recent stream of papers have pointed to this likelihood. but let me make it clear what this means, if you generated a family tree of yourself (brown) and back-projected 10,000 years, the majority of individuals would probably reside within the borders of “south asia.” there is also a straightforward genetic interpretation in terms of the phylogeography of alleles 10 K before the present. but in any case….
4) i do not think this refutes an “aryan invasion” theory, insofar as if you imagine that there was a 5% transfer of population between central asia and northern india in one generation that is actually pretty non-trivial on a world-wide scale. a regular problem with these “discoveries” is that words like “few” “many” or “invasion” are non-quantitative and don’t really tell you much more precise factual information. the magyar tribes, for example, obviously invaded the plains of pannonia and imposed their language upon the latin and slavic speaking indigenous peoples, but left little genetic imprint (less than 10% of the ancestry). we know the magyars invaded because we have historical records of the size of their hordes (a few hundred thousand people). just because there wasn’t genetic replacement doesn’t imply that there wasn’t an “invasion.” i think the concept of “invasion” is probably wrong in and of itself, though it seems obviously to me from a philological vantage point that in the long term indo-european languages are exogenous to southern asia. but the spread of latin was not accompanied by concomitant expansion of italian genes, so cultures can move. also, note that ‘waves of advance’ of tribes are subject to dilution, but just because the genetic configuration at point A is not maintained by point Z doesn’t mean that tribe->to->tribe invasion & replacement is not occurring. just because the genetic studies seem to suggest that europeans, overall, are about ~25% middle eastern farmer, does not negate the idea that there was a massive migration of an expanding farming population into europe. rather, the genetic expansion was diluted over time as the wave of advance was picked up ‘local’ genes via admixture. no doubt the culture admixed too, but if you imagine that the farmer’s culture had higher status, then the demographic expansion might have been tightly coupled to middle eastern farmer culture (in colin renfrew’s model this would be anatolian derived indo-european language).
5) this work is still somewhat provisional. but, i think that if you checked coalescents on south asian genes* most of the time the genes would coalesce first with other brown people (though not all the time). in other words, if you have a bunch of iranians, a bunch of punjabis and a bunch of tamils, the expectation for me is that gene X from these three groups would exhbit a tamil-punjabi clade and then a (tamil-punjabi)-iranian clade. but this wouldn’t be universal, and many punjabi individuals would cluster with iranians on some genes (if they were recent immigrants from iran, they would cluster with iranians are most genes!). punjabis would be more likely to cluster with iranians than tamils, though even some genes carried by tamils would cluster with iranians vis-a-vi other tamils. the key is to imagine the individual’s genome as a discrete collection of genetic bits & pieces of information. similarly, populations are collections of bits & pieces of information, and one should be careful of one-size-fits-all narratives, especially in a historical vacuum as some of this genetic data is interpreted (one genetic study of the MHC of iyers in tamil nadu postulated an invasion from central asia via southeast asia by iyers because of the genetics. this was stupid, it doesn’t make sense).
6) one thing, a lot of these ‘admixture’ studies assume that the genes of say, central asians, today are the same as those in the past, and that there hasn’t been much gradual continuous gene flow. this is probably a false assertion, though it works well in many models. but keep this is in mind, as that’s why these studies are rarely definitive alone.
well, let’s see. perhaps someone would want that identity because it’s only YOUR OPINION that to make such a choice would be regression? wait, let me finish off with an emoticon so you can’t get mad —> :o) there.
I just wanted to say that I logged in to Sepia Mutiny from a crowded internet cafe in Kolkata JUST TO READ RAZIB’s comment on what I KNEW would already have been posted, having read the citation of the article in yesterday’s Telegraph. I would have been very disappointed had I logged on and not found a comment from Razib, but it looks my timing was correct. 😀
Vij:–more grin–
I think there’s a whole lot more work to do on this topic.
at last, razib hath spoken.
saheli, yes, and more sampling (936 is pretty good though 🙂 )
Razib said, “..one genetic study of the MHC of iyers in tamil nadu postulated an invasion from central asia via southeast asia by iyers because of the genetics. this was stupid, it doesn’t make sense).”
I wouldn’t count much on these studies. Heck, even Iyers are not a monolithic group. Dravidianists would use anything to prove them alien.
One point that seems to be obscured. The linked National Geographic article says that India acquired “language not genes” from the west. This article assumes some sort of importance to language over genes, with respect to the supposed Aryan Invasion Theory. I’m not sure I buy this. The “superiority” of the Aryas, according to the Aryan Invasion Theory or otherwise is rooted in the language. The Vedas are written in Sanskrit and whether you subscribe to the Aryan Invasion Theory or not the Vedas are an important part of the equation — i.e., even the Saffron crowd must place heavy emphasis on language (and Sanskrit is widely acclaimed as a higher level language). So the central point — that the Southies only exchanged language and not bodily fluids with the Northies — does little to refute the central point of Aryan dominance. If anything it strengthens it.
I personally would be looking for something that traced the linguistic patterns in order to determine whether Sanskrit was adopted by the invaders or otherwise became a part of the Indo-European language tree or vice versa. I’m guessing vice versa, but then again I have my own prejudices.
I meant to say that the National Geographic article ascribes some importance to genes over language.
I agree that genes are important but the linguistic analysis should be equally – if not more- imporant.
Sorry for the multiple comments, but one final point that I intended to make earlier:
I think the wealth of Sanskrit literature as compared to that of other “Indo-European” languages stands against the Aryan Invasion Theory – from a linguistic perspective.
I am glad that this is now a theory as opposed to a mere hypothesis or hunch, with more systematic evidence.
I grew up in India studying Aryan Invasion as an accepted “truth”, so it was really confusing for me to read the counter-arguments. For a while it seemed to be a choice between Western Colonialist vs Hardcore Hindutva mindsets, and I wasn’t sure which one I hated more 🙂
Raghu – Most of us are laymen as far as this topic is concerned so on what basis do you consider the revert in Wikipedia to be “more scholarly and responsible” – other than a personal predisposition to believe the other side? Here’s a different stance (not that I have too much respect for the BBC either).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml
If you read the personal correspondence of Max Mueller you will note how racist he was and how devoted to converting the heathens. Besides he was an employee of the Church and obligated to produce evidence in its favor. It is imperative for the Church to place the origin of Indian culture within a certain time frame and that is what the AIT does and will fight tooth and nail to preserve its stance. In any case, I’ll take the word of a hangman over a missionary. Politically too, at the time, it was essential for the Brits to perpetuate this theory to provide them with the moral justification to conquer India. The Germans were interested in this theory because they wanted to prove that they were superior (aryan) to the Semites. This is the most racist theory ever to have been developed and the only reason it persists today is because of the vested political interest.
Your critique that Hinduism was different before the Ramayana and Mahabharata is invalid. Hinduism is a fluid “religion” and not bound by any canon. Neither is it bound by the Vedas. Our colonial masters wrote our history and defined Hinduism and the rest of us just parrot what they told us. Even if the Vedas did not exist some yogi would crawl out of a cave and perpetuate the practices. The Indian traditions are not theory bound but are practice oriented. The works of Aurobindo or Ramana Maharishi are “canon” as much as something written 5,000 years ago.
Part of where the Aryan invasion draws its evidence from is the disappearance of the northern Harappan civilization that suddenly disappeared around the time of the appearance of the Aryan civilization.
You can talk about the later times, but the disappearance of the Harappan civilization was too abrupt to have been natural.
I’m not about to go against evidence contradicting the Aryan theory, but its a start. I don’t why, with the complication of Sanskrit language, they didn’t write anything. Perhaps Brahmins felt they didn’t need to. Its interesting to think about.
I would advise caution with regards to how such views are phrased, as they can be (mis)interpreted by some as stating that Hinduism is basically “making it up as one goes along”.
This isn’t exactly true, as there are certain other non-Hindu religions originating in India which do not quite fall into this kind of “either/or” definition.
Interesting point. Some possible contributing factors include the following:
I for one would love it if that were definately the case. That would make it more scientific and less dogmatic… As opposed to humans not having “learned” anything in the last ~2000 years in spiritual matters. Anyways, inflammatory topic .. which I usually refrain from commenting to.
Jai:
This is a criticism I have heard before but I don’t see how it holds. When Ramana Maharishi talks of moksha he means pretty much the same thing as Mahavira meant 3000 years ago. They simply adopt different paths to the same goal. I even heard of one yogi who slept his way to nirvana. Assuming this is true, sleeping your way to nirvana must definitely be added as a valid path whether we are accused of making it up as we go along or not. Any poetry or prose composed by this sleeping yogi would qualify as canon for his devotees. This is the beauty of the indigenous Indian traditions, imo.
I don’t see anything either/or about my above statement. Not being theory bound does not mean that a vast repertoire of theory does not exist. However, if the Indian traditions were theory bound, they would be way too elitist since not too many people are inclined to upanishadic study and the majority of the population would be excluded. In reality, most of the hindu population gets by on stories and ritual and simple bhakti (devotion) and have never heard of the Vedas or Upanishads.
Divya,
The key word is “assuming”. It’s only a valid path if a) it’s factually, historically correct, and b) if such practices genuinely confer any level of spiritual awareness to the person concerned.
Yes, except when certain indigenous faiths specifically contradict the spiritual validity of such practices. In any case, I should mention at this stage that I am neither a Hindu nor a Jain in terms of my religious beliefs, even though I’m fairly liberal in my day-to-day practice of the faith. I’m just saying this to place my own comments into context, not to trigger some kind of off-topic “my religion vs your religion” argument. And no this doesn’t mean I’m a Muslim or a Christian either 😉
As far as I knew, the Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) states that Aryans were nomads and small in number. It also states that ‘Aryans’ helped shape only the culture, language and not the gene pool of indegenous people.
If these are true, then the genetic findings doesnt, at all, disprove AIT. In fact, they strengthens the AIT theory. Can someone explain on how Mr. Kashyap concludes that AIT is wrong?
Until she signed Mr. Witzels petition which approves AIT.
The Indian traditions are not theory bound but are practice oriented
Depends on what Indian/Hindu you talk to. Yes, what is widely known of our culture emanates from that which is perceivable, but your statement gives little importance to, say, millenia of Hindu thought in the form of Vedanta and the oral tradition. Which brings me to the next point …
I don’t why, with the complication of Sanskrit language, they didn’t write anything. Perhaps Brahmins felt they didn’t need to.
The oral tradition is considered very important (even to this day), given their knowledge of the impermananence of writing on leaves and parchment.
As for the paths/yoga to the goal of liberation, jnana (knowledge/innate understanding of the truth) is argued to be the most exalted. Let’s not turn the philosophy and its attendant religion into an excuse for relativism.
I don’t know about this new counter theory…I think its full of contradictions, the biggest being the lack of explanation for the Indus Valley Civilization.
You can’t come to such a sweeping conclusion just based on one discipline. This sort of thing especially needs an interdisciplinary approach.
There is a clear lack of archeological and historical evidence and this particular study is too narrowly focused on genetics and even then at today’s level of sophistication in biology, genetics can’t be taken as the gospel truth in explaining the past, because modern genetics is still very subject to uncertainties and inaccuracies.
I don’t see the idea of an Aryan Invasion being discredited by genetic studies. Genes are not language or culture. An invasion (or incursion) of a relatively small number of people (like the Muslim invasion on India) can lead to wholesale changes in language and culture. Just because everyone in Dhaka is not descended from Makkans does nto mean there was no Muslim incursion.
Linguistic and cultural evidence points to a large part of traditional South Asian culture (like the Sankrit language) being of extra-South Asian origin. So what. The English language also originates outside South Asia, but that doesn’t make it less ‘Indian’ a language.
But a lot of this debate is wrapped in in Hindutva politics — people tend to get very emotional.
Wow, this topic is very expansive it naturally manifests into so many different tangents. I have been studying the AIT “conjecture” for a while and have seen the political and the factual facets of it push and pull. The theory is so heavily politicized that the most minute fact can be used by one side to dismantle the other. Here are some points I feel should be highlighted:
The “theory” was created at a time when the world was deep in the midst of being ‘christianized’ by the European powers and in SA/India’s case ‘anglo-cized’ (once the British gained a stronghold in the region). —-“This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India’s indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.”—- http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml
The theory was archaeologically based for example on an excavation conducted during the initial indus valley excavations done by Sir Mortimer Wheeler in which 37 skeletons found at one site were explained as evidence of the massive invasion!
The dissemination of this theory and the superiority of the “theory” was rooted in Colonialist/Christian/European hegemony at the time. There was no opposition to it and therefore generations upon generation of Indians and humanity were fed this theory without any kind of digression from it (until now). This directly reinfored the divide and conquer method of the British Colonial rule and served to even sever SA/Indian indigenous claims/attachments to its own civilization in terms of its cultural antiquity, innovation, creativity, and indigenous racial origins. The theory successfully initiated a chasm between north/south, dark-skinned/light-skinned (black/white), IE-language/non IE-languages. And most importantly to this day has led the brown man (that includes those of you were are more of a tan shade) to question his self-identity in so many different ways.
Back to the political and religious implications. I think this issue is so paramount and should be in the forefront of our consciousness. Don’t even try to peg me as some kind of right-wing revisionist! I remember being young and being told of my “aryan” origins long ago by elders. It is amazing that this “theory” is so entrenched in the brown man’s psyche and powerful when it has never been proven as fact. This reflects the persistent hegemonic realities of the present day. In light of all this revisionism is good it brings another side to the story. I remember when I began first reseraching this topic about five years ago, it was very very political and it seemed that any revisionist angle was catering to the Hindu extremists or considered less credible in the world of academia. I remember some of the debates and it literally turned into name-calling and cheap shots toward the other side. And by the way, when one party (the brown man) has historically been assigned a lower rung in the evolutionary ladder their arguments must be twice as solid, twice as loud, and twice as numerous, and given the nod by a white man (i.e. David Frawley, Konraad Elst) for it to begin to be considered in the elitist scientific circles!
-Peoples CAREERS were built upon these conjectures. It is doubtful that they will ever “give-in” to the opposition’s conjectures or assertions even if based on factual evidence.
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1133889165 (This was one of the first website to pop up during a google search for AIT, thank you GOOGLE …)
-Recent DNA evidence points to South Asia being the first residence for all Non-African peoples as they beachcombed migrated along the coasts and eventually led our of africa. See: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/
-South Asia and its components of India, Pakistan, Bangaldesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives and are very diverse racially, culturally, linguistically, historically and in terms of religion. I think if anything the AIT conjecture forces South Asians to remember that our ancestry is unique and linked together beyond our current nationalistic, religious, linguistic, tribal/civilized,racial, cultural and political persuasions and/or divides.
-Do we have an identity crisis? The AIT conjecture has perhaps instilled in us a tendancy to (I know this is a loaded word) “assimilate”, conform, and cater to Euro-centric media, prejudices, and values. The AIT stems from an intent to assert absolute superiority. White over black, christian over non-christian, written cultures over non-written cultures, monotheism over polytheism, etc. Thus we have an obsessive preference of light-skinned over dark-skinned. Bollywood is the best example of this as up until recently darker women such as Bipasha Basu, and Malika Sherawat were never portrayed in starring roles. And in marriage personals its always a fair-skinned perference. Why is this? I remember my family telling me when I went to India that I should not stay too long outside because because I would get darker. Why deny that our natural color ranges from tan to black that, we eat with our hands, and pray to a pantheon of Gods, Allah, Budha, or someone else? Why deny that we have an ancient culture and that our racial origins are from Africa, Middle east, and Asia most dominantly? Why do we strive to imitate Euro-centric reality when we have the capability of continuuing and fine-tuning the South Asian cultures and consciousness to present something different but most importantly constructive to the world? We must learn to deal with the world in our own terms and not fall prey to visciousness of the assertions of the AIT. The WORLD must live and learn from it. In many ways it has set us as South Asians back and caused us to look at the world in a very skewed manner. But we have in the present moment the opportunity to take a negative and misleading concept poke at it and even laugh at it and turn it into something positive… that is for the future to figure out. We are the means to that end.
Oh yeah… thank you Dr. King!
Mauritius,
Very well said. It saddens me to see that everytime we find an evidence that the Western colonist-racist-orientalist cabal and their commie footsoldiers such as Romila Thapar in India have been brainwashing us for generations about our history and culture, some browns tend to dismiss that as Hindutva propaganda. In fact, as you pointed out, we still ascribe the role of arbiter to Westerners such as Elst and Frawley or Western institutions such as Harvard or Chicago. Even in terms of the sources of information, we tend to give more credibility to BBC or even Wikipedia than indigeneous sources. When will be free of this slavish mindset? To any dispassionate observer, it is very clear that the entire narrative about India and other formerly colonized lands has been manufactured within an Orientalist frame of reference by the West. If we are now waking up to question that, it’s dismissed as Hindutva fundi-ism! It’s like living in the bizarro world where “liberals” continue to do all they can to suppress the nascent consciousness among browns to rise up and expect to be treated as intellectual equals of their erstwhile colonial masters.
Think about the counterfactual : what if the Hindu organizations in California had not been activist enough to question the history textbooks? What if this genetic evidence had not been found? In fact, even today, the propaganda continues to be taught in India and elsewhere. However, Indian historians like Sitaram Goel have been questioning them for ages. There is a huge body of research done by Indian historians and archaeologists like Lal that sheds new light on a lot of theories. It is only our slavish mindset that prevents us from listening to them or ridiculing them as Hindu fundies while we continue to lap up the theories spouted off by commies like Thapar, Panikkar and DN Jha.
Even if I take a very po-mo viewpoint and claim that history is nothing but invented myth manufactured by those in power to serve their interests, it is clear that AIT and many other theories are just instruments of perpetuating colonialism. They were used to create a sense of inferiority among the ruled and provide a fig leaf of moral justification to the colonizers who anointed themselves as the purveyors of a “civilizng mission”. It’s about time that we threw those theories in the garbage can and invent something that serves the purpose of freeing us from the gulam mindset that continues to enslave us after centuries spent in internalizing these lies.
Abhi – I think we deserve a post on Frawley’s paradox. It is a simple idea but in my opinion it is the strongest argument against AIT.
Absence of any archeological evidence of an Aryan race outside India is an important factoid.
Others postings above talk about fancier invasion ideas and identify holes in the gene study should know that AIT not only mentions one invasion, but also says that this invasion annihilated Indus Valley Civilization. The volume of archeological evidence that exists for IVC today would make this annihilation world’s first mass genocide (read unlikely). Not to mention, if AIT were true IVC with its several hundred towns left behind zero cultural and literary traces. Because the vedas and upanishads were brought by the nomads from central Asia.
yeah right…
“annihilated Indus Valley Civilization”
Last year for a proposal (it never got funded) I looked into multiple hypothesis for movements/ gradual demise/ dispersal of Harappan civilization. The most accepted hypothesis is that the rivers in western India changed its course with time. Civilizations follow rivers (for irrigation, water supply). However, nobody is sure how it happened. One idea is “earthquakes”. Earthquakes are known to disrupt landforms suddenly.
It is just an idea. Google = Harappan + earthquakes.
Do remember, it is just an hpothesis right now.
Regarding AIT, I know (do not know) as much as any dude here commenting. But I know it is a loaded term.
Yes, and I deserve a two month vacation in South Central Africa and a model girlfriend who goes by the name “Lola,” and likes my deep brown eyes. Unfortunately I won’t be getting those things either. 🙂
a few points. i’m not totally well versed in the archaeology and philology…but, i’ve read a few monographs….
1) the pattern of neologisms and non-indo-european cognates within the indo-aryan languages does suggest a linguistic hybridization process that occurred. one philological text offered that many of the indo-aryan languages sound like ‘indo-european spoken with a dravidian accent.’ words like ‘elephant’ often have a neologistic feel (in bengali, hathi, which was originally in sanksrit ‘animal with the hand [trunk]’).
2) there might be a relation between ancient elaminte, in SW iran (khuzistan), and the dravidian languages. this, along with brahui, suggests that dravidian languages had a far greater extent, so indo-aryan might have interposed itself upon dravidian languages.
3) the indo-aryan language of the mitanni kingdom of upper syria in the 16th century (indo-aryan, not iranian) seems to offer little evidence of india specific elements (though the language is only minimally known). but the implication is that the indo-aryans had a non-indian homeland, perhaps the andronovo culture of central asia.
4) the indus valley civilization did not collapose overnight, and recent archeological finds imply that survived far longer in the upper gangetic plain and gujarat. this is perhaps analogous to the survival of the maya city-states in the yucatan.
5) elite cultures have sometimes given way to barbarian hordes linguistically. for example, the example of hungary i offered above, or the latinate substrate in the balkans which gave away to the slavic speech. in both cases there was a great deal of genetic admixture, and in the hungarian case the dominance of the indigenes, but the language (ergo identity) shifted toward that of the barbarian elite. more often the reverse occurs, for example, the finno-ugric speaking bulgars ended up with slavic speech, the franks ended up speaking latin derived dialects, etc. nevertheless, there is no tried & true rule about these sort of things.
6) the manichaean dichotomy between ‘invasion’ vs. ‘indigenous’ is problematic. as i said, the philology tends to suggest an exogenous origin. the archeology is very sketchy, and we haven’t been able to translate the indus valley scripts. the genetics does imply that there have been migrations into india, even if they are not preponderant. but invading elites can cause cultural shifts over a few generations (consider the spread of arabic or latin).
7) racist eurocentric scholars aren’t always wrong just because their motives were not pure. no one’s motives are totally pure, though there is a spectrum. in something like linguistics and history motives are important because of subjectivity and authority. but my understanding is mainstream linguistics has a pretty strong (though not definitive because of the nature of the question) opinion about the non-south asian nature of proto-indo-european. the various schools, whether america, european or russian who are promoting various ur-heimants (anatolia, the ukraine, etc.) are not proposing india, or greece, for specific reasons. these regions seem to have had a relatively high status and civilized cultural indigenous substrate which left a strong imprint on the indo-european languages of the region (most greek gods are not indo-european and ~40% of the lexicon is clearly not indo-european, including the words with the nth fragment, like corinth or xanthos).
Here is Dr. Subhash Kak’s old article about Indo-Aryans and Indus tradition
There is a tresure of information on Dr. Kak’s website about all things Indus Valley Civilization.
After all he has written 15 Books in IVC related topics.
Rather than having to hope that old racist european scientist with IMPURE MOTIVES were right, I would take the word of a South Asian Computer Science Professor (Dr. Kak) anyday.
RC,
Kak is a charlatan. Please ask me not to go into more details. Please…….He should only stick to Computer Science rather than trying to be Douglas Hofstadter of India.
I don’t know whether any body heard this..
The people of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro are actually Dravidian’s and they migrated willingly or forcibly to south India. In fact some of the languages spoken in north Pakistan and afghanistan are similar to Dravidian languages. The Aryans from present day Afghanistan might have spread the Aryan culture all over south Asia.
One more thing I feel is that Ramayana is written to show superiority of Aryan race over Dravidian’s. In Ramayana, Ram(an Aryan) goes to south India and takes the help of apes (Dravidian’s like hanuman, Sugriva) to defeat Ravan. Ramayan implies that dravidians are monkeys with human intelligence. After reading Ramayana I felt that dravidians are either Rākshasas (demons) or Apes or both.
In some parts of south India Ravana is depicted as a good guy, who took a wrong decision (abducting sita). In fact I saw loads of old south Indian mythological movies which depicted Ravana as a good guy.
Just a random thought, Charles Darwin might have got his idea of evolution from the concept of Hindu avatars.
Oh, may be because he supported the “evil” BJP party? But I guess you dont want to give more details about why you feel that way. Thats fine.
For me atleast, I would take almost everything Subhash Kak says over anything Max Muller said.
“Oh, may be because he supported the “evil” BJP party? But I guess you dont want to give more details about why you feel that way. Thats fine.”
No, No. OK, I have one degree from LSU. He used to give campus talks on some aspect of Hinduism and CS when I was around.At that time, I asked a number of the Indian Professors there because of all encompassing vision – none of them had anything postive about him. Back then, he had it figured it out that Sanskrit should be “mother of all computer languages”. That is why I brought Hofstadter reference. Did that stuff go any where? No…….
There is no hard peer-reviewed work by him recently. Seriously look at the list of his publlications, except Quaterley Journal of RAS. Please look carefully. Do not believe what I am saying. What is he loading himself with Current Science (ask Abhi), Asia Times, etc. I have a more stronger list of publication, I am still struggling.
He does not do actual research these days. He reads stuff here and there and mixes it up. Do you want to extoll guys like those. Is he leading field expeditions there? Is deciphering old materials? Where is the original stuff? No.
I did not even know about BJP stuff
Well, here’s the real question : if I were confronted with two theories that are diametrically opposite to each other each other, say one from a racist eurocentric scholar – someone white with the full force of a prestigious academy backing him, such as Michael Witzel or Stanley Wolpert – and the other from someone of much more humble origins – a brown from a no-name school with who’s vilified as Hindu fundie shunted out of the “mainstream” of acedmia because of their political persuasion is out of tune with the ruling Marxist cabal, such as Sitaram Goel or BB Lal- who is more credible? Especially if I, as a layperson, am in no position to make a qualitative judgement about the veracity of research or scholarly merit in either work? Your standard po-mo deconstructionist would say that the choice I make in this scenario speaks more about myself than the “truth” of either of the two contradictory viewpoints. This is what I am getting at: how does it make sense for me to give the benefit of doubt to the racist eurocentric but not listen to the brown whose theory, backed with what seems to be good reseqarch, reaches diametrically opposite conclusions?
I agree with Kush about Subhash Kak. The quality of his writing is really poor. I’m never able to fisish reading his articles because of their hotch-potch quality and lack of depth. Such people actually harm the cause they claim to espouse.