Aryan Invasion Theory - Publication - Vivekananda Kendra

VIVEKANANDA KENDRA PATRIKA
There are several other kinds of evidence
are adduced to prove that the IA
languages entered India from Central
Asia, but these are not specific to
migration scenarios and hence are left
out here. Again, readers are advised to
refer Bryant [2001], Sharma [1999] and
Elst [1999] for divergent perspectives for
the time being. There are some relevant
articles in the volume [23] edited by
Johannes Bronkhorst and Madhav M.
Deshpande [1999]. To conclude, it must
be emphasized here that correct
understanding and interpretation of the
archaeological traces left by supposed
pre-historic migrations still eludes us,
and there are several complex issues
involved in this area including competing
scenarios of diffusion and trade
[Burmeister 2000].
M. Summary
The Aryan Invasion Theory was
proposed initially by a motley group of
people including philologists to explain
the presence of IA languages in India.
With the commencement of
archaeological excavations in India, these
invasionist paradigms were adopted
uncritically, and subscribed to by
archaeologists for some time, even after
the discovery of IVC. However, as the
spade of these archaeologists did not
unearth any sign of invasions, the theory
was modified to AMT, and accordingly
the interpretations of the Rigveda were
also changed. The archaeological and
biological record refused to offer proof
even for large-scale migrations of Aryans
into India and so complex models
involving small scale initial migrations
followed by ‘Aryanization’ of India via
117
ARYAN INVASION THEORY
acculturation are now used. Language
transfer via Elite Dominance (over IVC
inhabitants) of IA speaking ‘migrants’ on
horse driven chariots often plays a
significant role in these ‘complex’
scenarios. Nevertheless, all these models
remain just models with no conclusive
evidence supporting them – despite
claims to the contrary. The prior
acceptance of these models is often used
to ‘explain’ several features of the Indian
civilization. In other words, assumptions
are often taken as ‘results’ of these
models.
Part III: Notes and References
Notes
[1] There is also a minority view that IA (or other IE)
languages entered India much earlier. For instance,
Renfrew suggests that IE languages could have left
Anatolia towards India around 6000 BCE [Renfrew
1987:189-197, 206]. Renfrew’s views have come in for
sharp criticism because they are opposed to the
standard paradigms of the Indo-European studies.
Jose Carlos Calazans, a Portuguese scholar also opines
that the PIE homeland was in Central Asia, whence
the IA languages entered India around 3000 BCE.
See Koenraad Elst’s message on the Indology List
dated 14 July 2000, available at URLhttp://
l i s t s e r v . l i v . a c . u k / c g i - s h l /
WA.EXE?A2=ind0007&L=indology&P=R16562
In such scenarios, IVC is considered a Sanskritic
culture, or at least a culture wherein IA speakers
formed a dominant membership of its milieu.
Calazans’ work on the decipherment of the IVC script
is said to be under publication by the Oxford
University Press, per the information provided by
Koenraad Elst (on 7 February 2000) in an article at the
URL http://pws.the-ecorp.com/Chbrughmans/
articles/Indusscr.html
Diametrically opposed to the view of the intrusion of
IE or IA languages into India from Central Asia, is
the view that the PIE homeland was in India. I propose
to deal with the different varieties of this view
elsewhere.