Forums
Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2 - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian History & Culture (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Indian History (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2 (/showthread.php?tid=567)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2 - acharya - 09-15-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-Jaggu+Sep 14 2007, 05:21 PM-->QUOTE(Jaggu @ Sep 14 2007, 05:21 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->question,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration

how correct is this?
[right][snapback]73173[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


It is as correct as Alien Invasion Theory or Alien Migration Theory


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 09-16-2007

Then why dont someone edit it and put up things with proper sources? Or wikipedia is carrying out a agenda here? aint the mods there neutral?


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 09-16-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Then why dont someone edit it and put up things with proper sources? Or wikipedia is carrying out a agenda here? aint the mods there neutral?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jaggu,
It seems you are new in wiki world. In wiki you can edit only if it fits creator agenda, otherwise they rollback. So content in wiki are with agenda.




Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 10-19-2007

The Aryan Invasion: theories, counter-theories and historical significance


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 10-26-2007

Red-headed Neanderthals? DNA says yes: study

1 hour, 21 minutes ago

CHICAGO (AFP) - Some of our cave-dwelling Neanderthal relatives probably had red hair and fair complexions, much like modern-day humans of Celtic origin, according to a study released Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The finding comes from the first such analysis of DNA evidence taken from Neanderthal fossils recovered from El Sidron in northern Spain and Monti Lessini, Italy.

An analysis of the DNA revealed the ancient hominids carried a mutation in the MC1R gene that codes for a protein involved in the production of melanin -- a substance that gives skin its color and also protects it against ultraviolet light.

In modern humans, primarily of European descent, mutations in the MC1R gene are thought to be responsible for red hair and pale skin by dampening the activity of the protein.

The mutation observed in the Neanderthal genes was different from the one documented in humans, but when scientists inserted the Neanderthal gene into cells in a test tube, it seemed to have the same effect on melatonin production as the modern human genes, according to the study published in Science.

The genetic analysis doesn't seal the deal, but since the fossil record of Neanderthals does not include any samples of skin or hair, it is the best guide available, said Michael Hofreiter, a paleogeneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Leipzig, Germany.

Hofreiter said the number of red-headed Neanderthals was probably pretty small, possibly just one percent of the population and might have popped up in any part of Europe or Asia that the ancient hominids had settled.

The news did not come as a surprise to one leading scholar of Neanderthal evolution and biology.

"The stereotype of primitive peoples is that they are dark skinned, but some paleontologists have been speculating for 20 years that some Neanderthals must have been pale skinned because they lived in northern Europe," said Erik Trinkaus, a professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

"Light skin is adaptive at higher altitudes because it allows more UVB radiation to penetrate the skin and that promotes Vitamin D synthesis."

Neanderthals, whose ancestors diverged from that of modern humans about 300,000 years ago, colonized Europe and parts of Asia, dominating Europe until about 30,000 years ago.

The study suggests that the genes that confer pale skin and red hair evolved separately in humans and our closest extinct relatives.




Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 11-13-2007

Many Mammals Came from India, Discovery Suggests
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As if hidden from the paleo tooth fairy, a lone molar belonging to a hoofed mammal stayed tucked beneath a pillow of volcanic rock in central India for more than 65 million years. Recently uncovered, the tooth predates similar fossils found across the globe.

The dental discovery sheds light on the evolution of adaptations that allowed a group of mammals called ungulates to thrive as expert grazers. <b>It also suggests, according to newly published research on the tooth, that the Indian subcontinent could be the point of origin of many groups of mammals. </b>

The lower right molar, about half the size of an ant (2.5 millimeters long), was found embedded in central India's Deccan volcanic flows. The researchers estimate the tooth dates back to the late Cretaceous period (144 million to 65 million years ago), a time when India was not connected with other continents and dinosaurs still walked the Earth.

<b>The fossil belonged to a new species of ungulate dubbed Kharmerungulatum vanvaleni, a hoofed animal related to modern horses, cows, pigs, sheep and deer.</b> And it represents the oldest known evidence for the so-called archaic ungulates (small, primitive hoofed mammals), predating by millions of years the explosion of mammalian life that occurred during Paleocene Epoch, from 65 million to nearly 55 million years ago.

"Until now, the known fossil record of [the] oldest archaic ungulates or supposed ancestors of living ungulates comes from the Early Paleocene of North America," Guntupalli Prasad of the University of Jammu in India told LiveScience. He is the lead author of the tooth study, detailed in the Nov. 9 issue of the journal Science.

The teeth of mammals living during the late Cretaceous, Prasad noted, generally sported sharp and pointy cusps and, over evolutionary time, dental modifications led to expert grinders. However, the tooth of the new mammal was flat and broad, suggesting it was already adapted for munching grass rather than for tearing through meaty meals.

"We consider Kharmerungulatum to represent an early stage in the evolution of ungulates," Prasad and his colleagues write.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->



Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 01-03-2008

The Indus Valley (Harappan) civilization, which is the oldest historically known culture in ancient India, was contemporary with the Proto-Elamite and Elamite civlizations in ancient Iran. The Indus people had trade links with parts of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Iran, and the ancient civilization of Mesopotamia. At Susa in the western part of Iran, decorated pottery has been excavated which appears to be similar to those of the Kulli culture in the north-west of the Indian subcontinent. Indus seals have also been excavated at Kish, Sura and Ur. The Harappan culture in India is believed to have imported silver, copper, turquoise and lapis lazuli from Persia and Afghanistan, in return for ivory. In terms of linguistics, it has been theorized that the Indus people spoke a Dravidian language, and this language or its variants must have also spread to neighbouring areas: in the Balochistan region in the southeast of Iran and in the southwest of Pakistan, the Brahui people speak a language that is classified under the Dravidian family. The Elamo-Dravidian languages is a hypothetical language family that includes the ancient Elamite language of Iran and the Dravidian languages of the Indian subcontinent, suggesting a possible linguistic relationship between the Elamites and Harappans before the arrival of Indo-Iranians.

The languages of India belonging to the Indo-Aryan family are believed to have originated from the same source as the Iranian languages, namely the Indo-Iranian language family, which in itself is a member of the Satem group of Indo-European languages. The Indo-Iranians were nomadic people originating from the Central Asian steppes, probably in the region of the Oxus river valley, pre-2000 BCE. They referred to themselves as Aryans, from which the word "Iran" originates (from airyanam vaejo meaning "Land of the Aryans"), and also the word Arya in Sanskrit and other Indian languages, signifying "noble". Ancient India was also referred to as aryavarta, which means the same as "kingdom/domain of the Aryans".

Aryan civilization first entered the north-west of India probably around 2000 BCE. The Aryans brought with them the patrilinear system, the worship of sky gods and the use of horses and the chariot. Vedic civilization began in India around 1500 BC, with the Rigveda being the oldest of the Vedas. The Rigveda was told in Vedic Sanskrit, which is very similar to Avestan, the ancient language in which the Persian Zoroastrian sacred text Avesta was written. The Vedas and the Avesta appear to agree that the Aryans migrated from their original homeland due to a "flood" of some kind. In the Vedic account, the flood was of water, while the Avesta indicates that it was of snow and frost. The survivor of this flood, Manu Satyavrata is considered to be the progenitor of the Aryans in India, according to Vedic scripture. The story has obvious parallels with the Semitic account of the Great Flood and the emergence of Noah. According to the traditions of the Vendidad, Aryans lived in fifteen nations, one of these being Haptahindu, which is the Avestan form of the Sanskrit Saptasindhu, meaning "seven rivers" and referring to the region of the Indian subcontinent.Ancient Vedic religion and Zoroastrianism also have much else in common. The Vedas and the Gathas of the Avesta include the performance of sacrifice (Sanskrit yajna or Avestan yasna) and the importance of priests or Magi. The myths that appear in the Yasht part of the Avesta probably have their roots in ancient Indo-Iranian culture.
Vedic Sanskrit is an ancient Indian language, the language of the Vedas, the oldest shruti texts of Hinduism. It is an archaic form of Sanskrit, an early descendant of Proto-Indo-Iranian, attested during the period between roughly 1700 BCE (early Rigveda) and 600 BCE (Sutra language), and still comparatively similar (being removed by maybe 1500 years) to the Proto-Indo-European language. It is closely related to Avestan, the oldest preserved Iranian language. Vedic Sanskrit is the oldest attested language of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family.

From ca. 600 BC, in the classical period of Iron Age Ancient India, Vedic Sanskrit gave way to Classical Sanskrit as defined by the grammar of Panini.
Five chronologically distinct strata can be identified within the Vedic language (Witzel 1989).

?gvedic. The ?gveda retains many common Indo-Iranian elements, both in language and in content, that are not present in any other Vedic texts. Its creation must have taken place over several centuries, and apart from the youngest books (1 and 10), it must have been essentially complete by 1200 BCE.
Mantra language. This period includes both the mantra and prose language of the Atharvaveda (Paippalada and Shaunakiya), the Rigveda Khilani, the Samaveda Samhita (containing some 75 mantras not in the Rigveda), and the mantras of the Yajurveda. These texts are largely derived from the Rigveda, but have undergone certain changes, both by linguistic change and by reinterpretation. Conspicuous changes include change of visva "all" to sarva, and the spread of kuru- (for Rigvedic k?no-) as the present tense form of the verb kar- "make, do". This period corresponds to the early Iron Age in north-western India (iron is first mentioned in the Atharvaveda), and to the kingdom of the Kurus, dating from about the 12th century BC.
Samhita prose (roughly 1100 BC to 800 BC). This period marks the beginning collection and codification of a Vedic canon. An important linguistic change is the complete loss of the injunctive and of the modi of the aorist. The commentary part of the Black Yajurveda (MS, KS) belongs to this period.
Brahmana prose (roughly 900 BC to 600 BC). The Brahmanas proper of the four Vedas belong to this period, as well as the Aranyakas (Ara?yakas) oldest of the Upanishads (BAU, ChU, JUB).
Sutra language. This is the last stratum of vedic Sanskrit leading up to 500 BC, comprising the bulk of the Shrauta and Grhya Sutras, and some Upanishads (E.g. KathU, MaitrU. Younger Upanishads are post-Vedic).
Around 500 BC, cultural, political and linguistic factors all contribute to the end of the Vedic period. The codification of Vedic ritual reached its peak, and counter movements such as the Vedanta and early Buddhism emerged, using the vernacular Pali, a Prakrit dialect, rather than Sanskrit for their texts. Darius I of Persia invaded the Indus valley and the political center of the Indo-Aryan kingdoms shifted Eastward, to the Gangetic plain. Around this time (5th century BC), Panini fixes the grammar of Classical Sanskrit.
Separation of Indo-Aryans proper from Proto-Indo-Iranians is commonly dated, on linguistic grounds, to roughly 2000 BC.[citation needed] The Nuristani languages probably split in such early times, and are classified as either remote Indo-Aryan dialects or as an independent branch of Indo-Iranian. It is believed that by 1500 BC Indo-Aryans had reached Assyria in the west (the Mitanni) and northern Afghanistan in the east (the Rigvedic tribes).

The spread of Indo-Aryan languages has been connected with the spread of the chariot in the first half of the second millennium BC. Some scholars trace the Indo-Iranians (both Indo-Aryans and Iranians) back to the Andronovo culture (2nd millennium BC). Other scholars like Brentjes (1981), Klejn (1974), Francfort (1989), Lyonnet (1993), Hiebert (1998) and Sarianidi (1993) have argued that the Andronovo culture cannot be associated with the Indo-Aryans of India or with the Mitanni because the Andronovo culture took shape too late and because no actual traces of their culture (e.g. warrior burials or timber-frame materials of the Andronovo culture) have been found in India or Mesopotamia (Edwin Bryant. 2001). The archaeologist J.P. Mallory (1998) finds it "extraordinarily difficult to make a case for expansions from this northern region to northern India" and remarks that the proposed migration routes "only [get] the Indo-Iranian to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans" (Mallory 1998; Bryant 2001: 216). Therefore he has suggested (1998) the 'Kulturkugel' model of Indo-Aryan speakers with a BMAC culture, that spread into eastern Iran and beyond.

Other scholars like Asko Parpola (1988) connect the BMAC with the Indo-Aryans. But although horses were known to the Indo-Aryans, evidence for their presence in the form of horse bones is missing in the BMAC (e.g. Bernard Sergent. Genèse de l'Inde. 1997:161 ff.). However, recently a foal burial has been found, indicating import from the northern steppes. Asko Parpola (1988) has argued that the Dasas were the "carriers of the Bronze Age culture of Greater Iran" living in the BMAC and that the forts with circular walls destroyed by the Indo-Aryans were actually located in the BMAC. Parpola's hypothesis has been criticized by K.D. Sethna (1992) and other writers
The first undisputed horse remains in India are found in the Bronze Age Gandhara Grave culture context from ca. 1600 BC (although there are claims[citation needed] of horse bones found in Harappan and even pre-Harappan layers). This likely corresponds to an influx of early Indo-Aryan speakers over the Hindukush (comparable to the Kushan expansion of the first centuries AD). Together with indigenous cultures, this gave rise to the Vedic civilization of the early Iron Age. This civilization is marked by a continual shift to the east, first to the Gangetic plain with the Kurus and Panchalas, and further east with the Kosala and Videha. This Iron Age expansion corresponds to the black and red ware and painted grey ware cultures.






Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 01-04-2008

Excerpt from Bryant's Quest.. (Google books)

http://img186.imagevenue.com/img.php?image...s_122_338lo.jpg


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 01-04-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jan 3 2008, 01:39 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Jan 3 2008, 01:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The languages of India belonging to the Indo-Aryan family are believed to have originated from the same source as the Iranian languages, namely the Indo-Iranian language family, which in itself is a member of the Satem group of Indo-European languages. The Indo-Iranians were nomadic people originating from the Central Asian steppes, probably in the region of the Oxus river valley, pre-2000 BCE.
[right][snapback]76743[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nichols states that it is the originating locus for the western trajectories which moves Eastwards. The first European branches departed from just East of the Caspian; Iranian departed from further East in Afghanistan; Indic from India proper. Essentially, Each successive trajectory pulled another one behind it.


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 01-11-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthScience/Ancient_horse_tooth_unearthed/articleshow/2649862.cms

SANAA: <b>Archaeologists have discovered an ancient horse tooth, apart from a thousand of rare pieces during excavations at the area of Khamis Bani Sa'ad in Tehama district of Hodeidah province, Yemen.</b>

The site of the excavation is the oldest and the largest one in the Arab peninsula.

According to a report from the Yemen news agency, a French expert has said that the finding of the horse tooth is the most important discovery of the excavation, as this kind of horse does not currently live in the area, but in Middle Asia.

The expert has also confirmed that such animals lived here long times ago and left the area due to a change in climate.

This fact, particularly, might open several scopes for new studies on the field of climate change in Yemen.

Archaeologists have also said that some pieces found in the excavation operations indicate that the area's inhabitants had been fishermen and not farmers as they are now. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 01-25-2008

http://satyameva-jayate.org/2005/10/08/rev.../#comment-11010


25 Responses to “Revising the “Aryan Invasion of India” Theory”

1.
Neville Ramdeholl, on March 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am Said:

: The Indus is not Aryan

The idea that the Aryans are an indigenous lot is absurd as the theory that the Indus is Aryan. It is all plain for everyone to see despite the hundreds of books , articles and internet reports, that the Aryans are an intrusive people into India.
For sometime now I have been reading several articles of the case for and against AIT/AMT versus OIT. Although the Indian historians and certain archaeologists have more or less proven that there was no invasion per se of India, by Indo-Aryans , the fact still remain that India was and still is occupied by the descendants of the Vedic Aryans whose culture and history make up what is India today and including those from the Indus civilization. A detailed reading and study of the various opinions by those historians and archaeologists on this website, especially from India still maintain and doubt that the horse and chariot came from outside the country and who insist that horses and chariots are indigenous to the land. I have perceived that there are three major points which mostly the Indian historians are stubbornly refusing to concede and that is :

(A) They continue to hang on to the dead theory that the Indus
civilization is Aryan and indigenous.

(B) Despite the mountain of official documented and textual
evidence from various sources eg: Andronovan proven Indo-
Iranian sites, evidence from the Vedas itself, lack of evidence of
horses and chariots in ancient India before the advent of the
Aryans etc, Indian officials and historians still attempt to castigate
the authors and doubt the veracity of the documented and
archaeological evidence.

© The clear absence of archaeological and attestation of horse trade
between the Indus Civilization and its neighbors in the time period
of supposed finds of horse remains.

We begin from the beginning by placing the Aryans outside of India rather than being an indigenous people living thousands of years in India as so many Indian scholars believe. It is a fact that the Avesta places a home for the Aryans who sojourned outside India, which they called Airyana Vaejah or Aryan Homeland. The Aryans came through the Northwest of what is now today the state of Pakistan. That old natural pass called the Khyber. This same pass was used by different conquerors to conquer India in later times. This is a northwest route , not an east or west or south route and you can see from the geographical map where the Aryans forded and settled for a time calling it the Saptasindhu of which Five Rivers of the area were Shutudri called the Sutlej, the Vipasha or Vipash now called the Beas, the Parushini now called the Ravi, the Vitasta now called the Jhelum. Two main rivers were added called the Indus or Sindhu and the Sarasvati making it the Seven Rivers. The following points shows why the Aryans are intruders to India.

a) Despite, the writings and articles of Indian historians, archaeologists and Internet writers, these are the only rivers other than the Ganga and Yamuna mentioned in the Vedas. If the Aryans were indigenous people, why didn’t they mention the Kaveri, the Krishna, the Bhima, the Godavari, the Narmada, the Chambal and the others?

b) Why didn’t they mention all the other civilizations such as the Indus, and those of Southern India etc?

c) Some may have noticed that the Vedas descriptions of their life and society only is confined to the northwest of India. There is no mention of areas of Bengal, Tamil Nadu or Maharastra and other areas.

d) Do the historical departments of India and other such cultural organizations have the names of the original rivers , because these are mostly Rigvedic names. If the Harappans occupied the Indus civilizations for so long, surely they must have names for these rivers.
2.
B Shantanu, on March 21st, 2007 at 1:12 am Said:

Neville,

Thanks for the comment. However, I felt it was slightly meandering in its logic; I have therefore taken the liberty of editing it (basically removing the bit after the four points that you make - the removed “bit” is about 30+ pages in word).

I suspect most readers will loose the thread after the first few sentences if they read the original. I really appreciate your taking the time to write this but is it possible for you to post a summary?

Dhanyawaad,
3.
Neville Ramdeholl, on April 28th, 2007 at 11:35 am Said:

Hi Dhanyawaad, Namaste, I don’t think it was right to censor my contribution to your website. I have written other articles to other websites and they have never this. I don’t know what you are afraid of. I have written compelling arguments that the Indus could not have been Aryan because its inhabitants have not interacted nor were integrated with the horse and chariot. Secondly, there is the question of the lack of horse trading in the Indus civilization. These and other such evidence say quite a lot about the Dravidian civilization. I think you are afraid that your nationalist audience will decide that the evidence is solid and believe that the Indus is not Aryan. I won’t be contributing to your website.
4.
Shefaly, on April 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am Said:

Just to provide balance with another discussion on the same topic, where many other views can be seen:
http://dedanaan.com/vedic-origins-children-of-danu/
5.
B Shantanu, on April 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pm Said:

Neville,
Namaste. A few points:

1] This is my personal blog and I hope you agree that as the publisher/editor, I have the right to edit content.

2] As I mentioned above, the portion that you say was “censored” was 30+pages in word. I dont think it is appropriate for a blog comment to be of that length. As you probably know, free blogs and websites are now extremely easy to build and if you already have one (with the full contribution), I will happily provide a link here (but will not reproduce it in full - due to length and for reasons of aesthetics).

3] I dont model my blog on what other websites do - but as you no doubt know, several blogs, magazines, newspapers, websites reserve the right to edit contributions (especially unsolicited voluntary comments) and frequently exercise that right.

4] I dont believe I am afraid of anything - except readers leaving my site because of the poor quality of content or prejudiced, biased, one-sided poorly edited views.

5] I have no doubt that your arguments are compelling (thats why I have included your comment - I could easily have edited it - if I had felt it was not good enough).

6] I do not consider what you call the “Dravidian civilization” as any less or inferior or unworthy of the attention and study that has been focused on other civilisations or cultures. In fact, I will be very happy to receive essays and comments from you on this topic - with the proviso that I will reserve the right to edit. However if you have links to the original article in full (whether on your own or another website, I promise to publish the link - so that interested readers can read the article in full for themselves).
Are you agreeable to this?

7] I am not sure what you mean when you say that “I think you are afraid that your nationalist audience will decide that the evidence is solid and believe that the Indus is not Aryan” - why should anyone be “afraid” of that? I certainly am not. I am sure we are one in our quest for truth and the real history of our motherland and nation.

P.S. Finally, I do not believe in the dichotomy between “Aryans” and “Dravidians” that you pose. In this context, have a look at this article: “The Aryan Dravidian Controversy” by David Frawley: http://hindudharma.wordpress.com/2005/05/1...an-controversy/

Shefaly: Thanks for the link.
6.
drsurya, on April 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pm Said:

Shantanu you nailed it spot on with your summation - there is actually no dichotomy between the so called Aryan or Dravidian civilisations which has become a pet topic for several self confessed historians.
The more rabid and shriller the comment the more these historians shoot into limelight.
The focus seems to be the same. Run down and defame anything that might point to a glorious Hindu Rashtra in the past.
I am reminded of a docuumentary which i watched on BBC a couple of years back. It went on to say India was dominated by warrior tribes and uncivilised nomads who had no sense of culture or arts till the Mughal invasion. The documentary went on to add that the culture we have in India today is only because of the Mughal Invasion and without the Mughals India wudnt have had the Taj Mahal and we would have been a rotting landd of beggars and snake charmers.
Such myopic versions of history might sound very worthy for people in the paylist of Saudi paymasters or Evangelical Historians based outside India. But anyone with a slight modicum of History Knowledge would not even stoop to reply to such fanciful assumptions, let alone credit it by indulging in a meaningful debate.
Maybe people in BBC thi9nk Taj Mahal is the only building of architectural value. But they fail to understand that the Brihadeeshwarar Temple of Tanjavoor and Chidambaram Natarajar Temple were built several hundreds of years before the mughal set foot on India and they still remain architectural marvels.

Nevilles biased historical assesment is yet another “politically correct” study which seems to know all about India and its past. The less said about his work thew better.

And given the fact how hostile people are to differing views on the Aryan Civilisation and its several facets, I think Shantanu has been more than accomodating regarding Nevilles viewpoint. If he feels he wudnt be contributing to this website because Shantanu called his bluff then the website would actually be better off.

We have read several concocted versions of Aryan history none of all can claim they are right and the others are wrong. Thats the funny part of history isnt it? Poeple want to beleive what they think is right.

Good job Shantanu and keep the good stuff rolling….
7.
Indian, on April 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pm Said:

Yes, but what they failed to study is that all artisans were Hindus or converted muslims. In case of “Taj Mahal” too. For example, see our beautiful south temples and much more in rest of our country. No amount of dust thrown towards the “SUN” can diminshed its shine, its not going to fade, it will shine more brigter in the coming days.
8.
B Shantanu, on April 29th, 2007 at 8:27 pm Said:

DrSurya and Indian, Thanks for your comments and support - as always.

I completely agree that the finest extant examples of amazing achievements in the fields of art and architecture in ancient India are to be found only in the south today.

In fact I encourage everyone who is even remotely interested in learning about our past history (especially temple art and architecture) to spend some time in the towns of South India and visiting not only the Brihadeshwara Temple but also the Meenakshi temple, Rameshwaram and many other places.

I was myself very fortunate to have the chance of spending three months several years ago visiting all of South India - it was truly an unforgettable experience.

As for the Taj Mahal, I would recommend you this post - in case you missed it: “Taj Mahal: The Biggest whitewash in Indian History?”
9.
Chitra, on May 26th, 2007 at 10:29 pm Said:

This argument is getting nowhere. It does not matter who settled the land first. According to evolution, all life came from one source (Archaebacteria in deep ocean trenches).
10.
B Shantanu, on May 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pm Said:

Chitra: Thanks for your comment. I wish this was merely an academic argument. Unfortunately, it is not.

This is more about whether the Saraswati-Indus civilisation and culture was indigenous (with roots firmly in this land) or was it really a result of mass migration from outside India.

Why is it important? At least for two reasonsSadi) to ensure historical accuracy and (ii) because it subtly (but profoundly) influences notions of national identity and pride.

Having said that, your comment has given me the idea for another post on this issue - addressing exactly the point you raised above.

Thanks for your other comment too.
11.
Rajiv Chandran, on August 14th, 2007 at 6:07 pm Said:

I think this is a problem deriving from a larger problem -problems with historiography about India

1. The foundations laid by etic scholars has not been revised in face of new evidence (at most cosmetic adjustment have been made - but the overall frame remains unrevised). Modern historiographers are content to model thier theories within frames developed with insuffecient scholarship.

Notably
i) All early historians who developed the idea of indian history were victorian englishmen or europeans.
ii) Thier work has been found to be inaccurate, biased, unscholarly, having extrenious motivations on many counts
iii) Thier familiarity with thier subject of study is questionable , biased , unsuffecient.
iv) They have tried to reconstruct history from the wrong sources
v) Primary motivation to develop a history of india was to give europe and europeans a high seat in the ancient world and is highly questionable

2. Reconstruction of Indian history does not use Indian historical sources as primary sources. Indian sources are insufficiently investigated or cursorily dismissed as
i) improbable - most certainly mythological
ii) not fitting into existing theories
iii) leading to improbably ancient dates
iv) having dubious chronologies

3. Modern Indian historians have not done serious historiography.
Probably because
i) the subject is studied as a western subject - and appendage of European history using western methods and techniques without critically analyzing thier objectivity.
ii) being more interested in political activism they wish to construct a history favourable to thier political persuations.
iii) being in awe of the ‘white scholar’ they are loath (scared) to confront them on so fundamental a point as basic frame of indian historiography.
iv) they associate genuine prestige to being ’shabash’ed by the western scholar - do not attach any importance to homegrown opinion.(Hence thier casual dismissal of very penetrating insights of a highly respected archeologist, and that of an independent historian )
v) are fundamentally of a Eurocentric persuation ie a macaulayist or a marxist or a ‘gunga-din’ or are mercenaries who are doing dishonest work due to monetary considerations.
vi) are fundamentally ignorant of and do not have scholarly expertise on the tools (languages, techniques) for an emic analysis of history.
vii) indulge in cirular references to materials within thier clique to support and buttress theories

4. Modern western historians
i) Counldnt care less about indian history
ii) Are presumptious to think that thier supposedly unbiased and allegedly scientific methods are beyond reproach.
iii) Are Eurocentric, are brought up in a Judeo-christian tradition - where study of the outsider generally boils down to anthropological analysis of other cultures with a view to establishing dominance of the Eurpean viewpoint.
iv) Are too engrossed, subsumed within the Western Grand Narrative to pay much attention to any other viewpoint.
v) Are culturally so different that they are incapable of understanding the subtelities (going beyond gramattical textual analysis) ; are unaware of the nuances and historical/mythological/symbolic connections to draw ready inferences from any historical document of suitable antiquity.
vi) Are unwilling to understand the viewpoint, unable to communicate with indegenious scholarship with a non-western viewpoint.
vii) have a vested interest in protecting thier academic dominance of scholarship on other cultures and thier histories.
viii) lack suffecient funding from sources sympathetic to the indegenious indian viewpoint,

Serious indepth studies of ancient texts have not yet been done. A majority of ancient sanskrit(and other sources) lie untranslated , uninterpreted and insuffeciently placed within the framework of history.

There is need for unbiased indegenious scholars to reconstruct i) ancient history of indian subcontinent from original sources
ii) ancient history of most non-european cultures with indegenrious sources
iii) try and correlate these indegenious histories
iv) try to derive accurate/approximate dates and inferences from indegenious sources
v) then and only then associate our history with european histories and sources.
12.
B Shantanu, on August 15th, 2007 at 1:18 am Said:

Dear Rajiv:
Thats a great comment and something that should make us all think about the long-term consequences of this indifference.

To me, the task is urgent and needs serious scholarly attention…unfortunately I do not see much reason for hope.

I will add some more thoughts to this in a day or two.

Thanks.

P.S. I have formatted your comment for ease of reading.
13.
Deva, on August 15th, 2007 at 4:33 am Said:

In the course of this debate which is very important for us to understand better our roots, some refer to the Brahmanas as proof that the so called Aryans came from what is now Iran. Can you provide some clarification on yhis aspect?
14.
Rajiv Chandran, on August 15th, 2007 at 2:00 pm Said:

Shantanu

Thanks for your reply. Until a few months ago I used to look at OIT (as against AIT) as an hindutva fantasy and was casually dismissive of the claims without going through the evidence. So when I looked at how claims were built and on both sides of the argument - I could not escape the fact that there was a lot of obfucscation, unsatisfactory evidence , shoddy scholariship , ideological pretense etc that was passing off for mainstream theory ie AIT, AMT etc. Stripping of the political positions of the OIT theorists - thier positions seems very reasonable, quite deeply researched and entirely plausible. What is more it would seem to explain some very plausible contradictions in the narrations of modern history
* dismissal of puranas as mythology while using bible as having some historicity.
* great gaps in pre Maurya history
* no great empires existing in india - yet there being cultural unity
* AIT and the lack of genetic / archeological proof for it.
* lack of context for indus valley civilization etc. (where did they come from, where did they dissappear ? who were they ?)
* lack of context for the ancient vedas (where were they composed? how could Aryan nomads have propounded such deep philosophies?)
* lack of context for the epics ( with AIT scholars placing them in Afghanistan and Turkistan when the mentioned geography is claerly indian)

Anyway here is a response to points raised by Neville. unfortunate but they seem mostly petulant (sadly In response I have been somewhat petulant too) . All the points he raised are lucidly explained in books by various leading OIT theorists.

(btw please feel free to format my mails )

Reply : The Indus is not Aryan

QUOTE : The idea that the Aryans are an indigenous lot is absurd as the theory that the Indus is Aryan.
RESPONSE : Only if you consider ‘original race’ based theories by Europeans. Otherwise it is not only possible but more plausible. Remains of humans dug up suggest there was no difference between indus-valley people and current people of india.

QUOTE “It is all plain for everyone to see despite the hundreds of books , articles and internet reports, that the Aryans are an intrusive people into India. For sometime now I have been reading several articles of the case for and against AIT/AMT versus OIT. Although the Indian historians and certain archaeologists have more or less proven that there was no invasion per se of India, by Indo-Aryans , the fact still remain that India was and still is occupied by the descendants of the Vedic Aryans whose culture and history make up what is India today and including those from the Indus civilization. ”
RESPONSE : How does this prove that the so-called Aryans were invaders/migrants ? If it has been proven that there had been no invasion how is it possible that the descendants of the alleged invaders occupy the land ? This can only be true if there was no invasion - which actually seems to be the case.

QUOTE : A detailed reading and study of the various opinions by those historians and archaeologists on this website, especially from India still maintain and doubt that the horse and chariot came from outside the country and who insist that horses and chariots are indigenous to the land. I have perceived that there are three major points which mostly the Indian historians are stubbornly refusing to concede and that is :
RESPONSE : There has been shoddy scholarship from mainstream academia - from whom detailed study is still awaited - and that is the real question.
Horse and chariot mentioned in the Vedas are a in the context of Indian geography and fauna. Chariots - please remember are urban weapons not that of nomads - which aryans are purported to be according to AIT.

QUOTE : (A) They continue to hang on to the dead theory that the Indus
civilization is Aryan and indigenous.
RESPONSE : No proof. In fact OIT seems more and more plausible by the day. Recent studies have shownt that IVC was definitely indian having many so-called Aryan features. In fact most indian academia/researchers accept this as a fact except marxist scholars who have a vested interest in keeping AIT alive.

QUOTE <!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->B) Despite the mountain of official documented and textual
evidence from various sources eg: Andronovan proven Indo-
Iranian sites, evidence from the Vedas itself, lack of evidence of
horses and chariots in ancient India before the advent of the
Aryans etc, Indian officials and historians still attempt to castigate
the authors and doubt the veracity of the documented and
archaeological evidence.
RESPONSE : how does this prove movement into India but not movement out of india. Emic readings of vedas seem to suggest a movement out of India.. There is no archeological evidence suggesting movement into India. Avestan seems to imply movement out of India. Indian officials and historians attempt to pin down western authors and thier evidence because they are decidedly shoddy and utterly lacking in standards they seem to expect out of others. There is actually no horse evidence leading into india either.

QUOTE :© The clear absence of archaeological and attestation of horse trade
between the Indus Civilization and its neighbors in the time period
of supposed finds of horse remains.
RESPONSE : Possible that the horse was a valuable strategic commodity not traded with outsiders. Also all horse references in the Vedas suggest it is the Indian horse rather than ‘Steppe horses’ or Middle Eastern ones. if Aryans were outsiders thier horse-lore would reflect this fact. Please note that there is also no horse evidence to support an Aryan Invasion. What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

QUOTE : We begin from the beginning by placing the Aryans outside of India rather than being an indigenous people living thousands of years in India as so many Indian scholars believe. It is a fact that the Avesta places a home for the Aryans who sojourned outside India, which they called Airyana Vaejah or Aryan Homeland.
RESPONSE : Pray why ? Careful understanding of avestan texts would seem to imply that Airyanam Vaejoh - could have been Kashmir/South Afghanistan. One of the Avestan ancestral lands mentioned is the Hapta Hendu - Saptha Sindhu. in India. Mainstream scholarship is coming around to the view that the original homelands of the Avestans was east and not west of modern Iran. And where else in the east was a major population center from where people could have migrated ?

QUOTE : “The Aryans came through the Northwest of what is now today the state of Pakistan. That old natural pass called the Khyber. This same pass was used by different conquerors to conquer India in later times. This is a northwest route , not an east or west or south route and you can see from the geographical map where the Aryans forded and settled for a time calling it the Saptasindhu of which Five Rivers of the area were Shutudri called the Sutlej, the Vipasha or Vipash now called the Beas, the Parushini now called the Ravi, the Vitasta now called the Jhelum. Two main rivers were added called the Indus or Sindhu and the Sarasvati making it the Seven Rivers. The following points shows why the Aryans are intruders to India.”

RESPONSE : “There is nothing in Vedas that suggest arrival from a norwestern ancestral land to Sapta sindhu - infact this is a reading of western scholars who have consistently misread the vedas and have had to resort to all sorts of sophistry to arrive at that conclusion. The fact that there is no mention of Aryans as invaders is what all great scholars of the vedas state without exception. Amongst great scholars are not included poeple like Max Muller - whose understandng of the vedas has been derided by many indegenious scholars. If at all - there is a mention of the Indo-Aryans moving in from the east. If avestan with comparably older antiquity (according to ATI) remembers ancestral lands - why not the vedas ? The only plausible answer is becuase the vedas were composed in the homeland”
<b>
QUOTE : a) Despite, the writings and articles of Indian historians, archaeologists and Internet writers, these are the only rivers other than the Ganga and Yamuna mentioned in the Vedas. If the Aryans were indigenous people, why didn’t they mention the Kaveri, the Krishna, the Bhima, the Godavari, the Narmada, the Chambal and the others?</b>
RESPONSE : vedas are composed by a very limited subgroup of people who are otherwise mentioned in the vedas. Thier homeland (and thier salutations hymns etc) would have only encompassed the lands they belonged to and which they thought of was sacred. There are mentions of lands of other people - but not necessarily thier rivers . Also it is possible that the rivers described as excluded were not considered sufficiently holy to deserve a mention. It is possible that settlements by the rivers exempted were minor population centers. Remember the Vedas were sacred hymns rather than geography and political texts. Indegenious scholars have always resented Western scholars reading the vedas and not the itihasa puranas as history.

QUOTE : b) Why didn’t they mention all the other civilizations such as the Indus, and those of Southern India etc?
RESPONSE : Because vedic could have preceded the Indus civilization (according to indegenious origin theories) - a civilization which thier descendents would form many years later. Another plausibility is that it was not excluded at all - this is just how western scholars read it.(For example the vedic people are described as pastoral by western scholars which is not necessarily the case. The vedas are replete with mention of cities and towns.)
Just how many civilizations flourished in southern india circa 6000bc - 3000 bc to deserve a mention (we are not speaking 1500bc here) ? how can we comprehensively establish that there was no mention - when we do not have all the oral traditions at our disposal.

QUOTE : c) Some may have noticed that the Vedas descriptions of their life and society only is confined to the northwest of India. There is no mention of areas of Bengal, Tamil Nadu or Maharastra and other areas.
RESPONSE : Wrong - there are ample references to the plains, oceans, rivers of non-northwestern geographies to suggest that the vedics were acquainted with north india from kashmir to the vindhyas and from sindh to bihar. Event today these areas are the main population centers of India. It is also dubious why there should be any mention of geographies other than the ones the composers of the vedas are able to relate themselves with.

QUOTE : d) Do the historical departments of India and other such cultural organizations have the names of the original rivers , because these are mostly Rigvedic names. If the Harappans occupied the Indus civilizations for so long, surely they must have names for these rivers.
RESPONSE : There seem to be absolutely no allegedly non-vedic names for indian rivers. why ? the simple explanation is that they never existed. The Vedics were the first to name them

I personally prefer the word Vedics to Aryans. Vedics would encompass an entire people of this era whereas ‘Arya’ was a very limiting designation even during the vedic times.
15.
B Shantanu, on August 17th, 2007 at 2:34 am Said:

@ Deva: I have not studied the “Brahmanas” and am therefore not qualified to comment on them.

Hopefully someone from my learned readers group may be better able to respond to your query.

Otherwise give me some time and I will ask a few people who I believe would be better placed to provide the clarification that you have asked for.

***
@ Rajiv: Thanks for your follow-up and the response to Neville’s comments.

Would you be willing to write up a short article on this? I would be very happy to post it here – with full attribution of course. Pl. do let me know via email jai DOT dharma AT gmail.com

Another related post for you on this topic: http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/05/24/ait-and-sneak-attack/
16.
Subadra Venkatesh, on August 18th, 2007 at 8:44 am Said:

David Frawley is correct in assessing that the Aryan- Dravidian divide was used by the British to explain apparent (though not real) racial differences between northern and Southern Indians. But let us not blame the British alone for the perpetuation of this two race theory. A closer examination of Tamil history as understood and studied in Tamil Nadu, along with the official government position on this history will help us understand many of the unique positions and decisions this government has often taken.

According to the Tamil people and government, their history starts on the banks of the Indus. The Indus valley civilization and people with their unique achievements were the original inhabitants of India. They were a peaceful, civilized group who had organized their society on truly egalitarian principles.

Around 3000-5000 years BCE or later (depending on your source of information), successive bands of invading barbarians called the Aryans pushed the Indus valley people south until they all relocated to Southern India, specifically present day Tamil Nadu. The Aryan society was a far inferior civilization for various reasons: namely, it was polytheistic (too many Gods) and ritualistic (fire sacrifices). In addition, it was not an egalitarian society (caste system). Thus the Indus valley people, who are the ancestors of present day Dravidians, were robbed of their original homeland.

After settling in Tamil Nadu or thereabouts, the great Dravidian/Tamil civilization continued and flourished. It made great strides in all fields including architecture (temples), literature (sang am literature, Kambar Ramayanam etc.), music (carnatic), dance (bharata natyam). Unfortunately, because of the Aryan influence, the caste system became a part of Tamil civilization, and the Brahmins, who are actually the minions of northern Aryans, were responsible for upholding and perpetuating the caste system. In fact the Brahmins are also foreigners who have no right to be a part of Tamil culture (Brahmins are often referred to a s “Paapan”—a derogatory term and even called “Arya Paapan” specifying their origin).

So, is any of this history actually true? Who knows? But this is the official position and understanding of Tamil history, and it is definitely the one used to shape public discourse. Thus, many of the socio-political events can be understood when one understands the Tamils ‘ own version of history.

A case in point would be the anti-Hindi agitations of the past. Most non-Tamil indians, for whom Hindi was also not their mother-tongue (e.g. Bengalis, Telugu , etc.), saw Hindi merely as a link language to be learned as a second or third language in school. Not so in Tamil Nadu. Here, learning Hindi became a North Indian (read Aryan) imposition on a South Indian (Dravidian) civilization. So in Tamil Nadu, you have people who don’t learn Hindi (which is North Indian) , but don’t mind learning English. Here, English is not seen as the language of colonial masters .

We can also understand the reservation policies of the Tamil Nadu government using this paradigm. In most parts of India, the Forward castes refers to those groups of people who have had greater privileges or access to education and economic resources and opportunities. In Tamil Nadu the forward community refers only to Brahmins. Although, initially other groups who were economically prosperous, groups such as the Chettiars, were included in the forward classes, they now have been reclassified (which, I understand from Chettiar friends , can be done voluntarily—i.e. you can get yourself reclassified) as backward. So the reservation policy of Tamil Nadu is not only implicitly anti- Brahmin, it is expressly so. This actually makes perfect sense if one understands how Tamils interpret their history. Thus, Brahmins are not thought of as Tamils who also constitute the priestly classes, but rather, local Aryan residents who have no right to be here.

Since so many of the leaders in Tamil Nadu have been atheists (They call themselves “rationalists”), Tamil pride in its architecture, literature etc. is often combined with discomfiture. The problem is that most of Tamil literature, arts, music, architecture ( as is most Indian literature of the past,) is religious in nature, specifically Hindu. So, while one can feel pride at the great temples at Tanjore and Srirangam, one can’t get over the fact that these are Hindu temples. This “problem” pervades Tamil discussion on all their cultural and historic artifacts. So while Bharata Natyam and Carnatic music are praised, there are various attempts to “Tamilize” these arts and perhaps even “secularize” them. Thus, in Government music colleges most of the songs taught will be Tamil songs, although when the great composers of the past lived and composed in Tamil Nadu, many did so in the Sanskrit and Telugu languages.

This problem of trying to de-Hinduize Tamil culture (separate Tamil identity from the larger Hindu one which is pan –Indian) is one that apparently occupies the thoughts of the government officials. So there is great fan-fare accorded to placing Periyar’s statue in front of the Srirangam temple etc. This act is considered as both an affront on the Brahmanical hegemony which exists in the temples, and at the same time resurgence and reestablishment of Tamil pride.

The arrest of Kanchi Shankaracharya, and the muted Tamil response puzzled many of those who are not from Tamil Nadu. The arrest was portrayed by some in the mainstream media as an attack on Hinduism and an attempt of the then chief-minister, Jayalalitha, to establish her secular credentials. Maybe that was part of it. However, the reason for the muted response is that this particular religious figure is not considered merely a Hindu leader, but an elitist Brahmin one. Thus the majority of the people did not respond. In addition, we can perhaps also conclude that Jayalalitha might have actually wanted to establish her Dravidian credentials since she is a Brahmin person born in Mysore herself.

The Aryan Invasion debate can also be understood using this paradigm. Some of the most virulent opposition to any research or reinterpretation of original data from the Indus valley civilization comes from those who consider themselves Dravidian –the original inhabitants of this land. The Aryan invasion theory is what validates decades of public policy in Tamil Nadu. Now , suppose we find out that there was no invasion. What if DNA evidence were to suggest that all people of India are from the same gene pool and the last incursions into India were between 40,000 to 60,000 years back. What would this do to the Tamils’ understanding of their history. Would they then have to accept that their culture, though wonderful, is really a regional expression of pan-Indian civilization , and they should take pride in all its civilizational achievements, including its religions.
17.
B Shantanu, on August 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm Said:

Subadra: Thats a great comment and I am tempted to make a post out of it. Perhaps I will.

I think you are right in suggesting that the crux of the problem is the issue of crafting (or attempt at carfting) a distinct Tamil identity which is distinct from its Hindu origins.

You say, “The Aryan invasion theory is what validates decades of public policy in Tamil Nadu. Now , suppose we find out that there was no invasion. What if DNA evidence were to suggest that all people of India are from the same gene pool and the last incursions into India were between 40,000 to 60,000 years back.”

This already seems to be the case. See this, e.g.:

http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/05/24/ait-and-sneak-attack/

Thanks again for patiently explaining the nuances behind the politics of TN.

Jai Hind, Jai Bharat.
18.
Sujay Rao Mandavilli, on September 30th, 2007 at 6:04 pm Said:

who ever claimed this theory was correct ?

http://www.sujayraomandavilli.com
19.
B Shantanu, on October 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm Said:

Sujay: Thanks for the link. Do you have the article uploaded somewhere? Can you pl. send a link?

Thanks.
20.
Sujay Rao Mandavilli, on October 15th, 2007 at 1:30 pm Said:

Shanthanu,

Please send me your mail id, i’ll send you a personal copy. The others will have to wait until I publish it

Sujay
21.
Nemo, on October 17th, 2007 at 7:14 pm Said:

#1
The Aryan Invasion Theory is part of a bigger net of inter-connected and inter-dependent theories.

Scholars have not universally accepted the theory of a Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) as the sole possibility. This theory says that all Indo-European languages originally sprung from a shared root language. A *hypothetical* language, nowhere recorded, no literature ever found written in it.
Going from that theory, they thought that there might long ago have been a single group of people who spoke that alleged Proto-Indo-European language. These hypothetical people were named the Aryans - also known as the Indo-Europeans (especially after WWII).
From there, they reasoned that that group of people (Aryans/Indo-Europeans) lived together at some point in time in some geographic place dubbed the Aryan homeland (or Urheimat in German).

So what we have is 3+ theories, each one depending entirely on the previous one being true:
(a) Theory 1 - All languages identified as Indo-European (IE) had a common ancestor language once upon a time: the entirely theoretical language PIE/Proto-Indo-European.
(b) Theory 2 - (*Only if* theory 1 is true, then) there *could* have been some single population that spoke it long ago: called the Indo-Europeans/Aryans.
© Theories 3 to n - (*Only if* theory 2 is true, then) there might have been a region somewhere between Europe and Asia where these Aryans lived once upon a time. They might then have shared single religion, and a shared culture. They might have invented somethings and even created civilisations. (And more such dramatic speculations.)

From the above theories follows the Aryan Invasion Theory, which *ENTIRELY* depends on there being Aryans in the first place (and on them having lived in an unconfirmed “somewhere”).

BUT (pasting from elsewhere):
Here’s some researchers working in Indo-European studies showing how there’s serious doubt about (a) the very existence of any PIE and - even more doubt on - (b) the existence of any ‘Indo-Europeans’ (Aryans) who spoke it:

(1) Summary of Trubetskoy quotes below: Trubetskoy says that ‘IE’ languages need not have derived from a common ancestor at all. But that in fact, it is equally likely that different languages converged and that’s why they ended up having similarities. In other words: he says there’s no need for any PIE. If there’s no need for PIE, this also means there’s no need for the derived assumption that there existed a people who spoke it…

FROM: Trubetzkoy, N. S. (2001), Studies in General Linguistics and Language Structure, Anatoly Liberman (Ed.), translated by Marvin Taylor and Anatoly Liberman, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

- “It is usually supposed that, at one time, there was a single Indo-European language, the so-called Indo-European protolanguage, from which all historically attested Indo-European languages are presumed to descend. This supposition is contradicted by the fact that, no matter how far we peer back into history, we always find a multitude of Indo-European-speaking peoples. The idea of an Indo-European protolanguage is not absurd, but it is not necessary, and we can do very well without it (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 87).”

- “There is therefore, no compelling reason for the assumption of a homogeneous Indo-European protolanguage from which the individual branches of Indo-European descended. It is equally plausible that the ancestors of the branches of Indo-European were originally dissimilar but that over time, through continuous contact, mutual influence, and loan traffic, they moved significantly closer to each other, without becoming identical (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 88).”

- “This possibility must always be kept in sight when the Indo-European problem is addressed [and every statement about the problem should be formulated so as to be valid for either assumption: divergence or convergence.] Since only the hypothesis of a single protolanguage has been considered until now, the discussion has landed on the wrong track. Its primary, that is, linguistic, nature has been forgotten. Prehistoric archaeology, anthropology, and ethnology have been brought in without any justification. Attempts are made to describe the home, race, and culture of a supposed Indo-European proto-people that may never have existed. The Indo-European problem is formulated [by modern German (and not only German) scholars] in something like the following way: “Which type of prehistoric pottery must be ascribed to the Indo-European people?” But scholarship is unable to answer questions of this kind, so they are moot. Their logic is circular because the assumption of an Indo-European protopeople with definite cultural and racial characteristics is untenable. We are chasing a romantic illusion instead of keeping to the one positive fact at out disposal—that “Indo-Europeans” a purely LINGUISTIC concept (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 90, emphasis in the original).”
22.
Nemo, on October 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pm Said:

#2 (cont.)

(2) Bruce Lincoln also makes it clear there’s no valid reason to accept belief in any imaginary people - the Indo-Europeans/ ‘Aryans’ - even *if* we assumed the hypothetical PIE existed. He also illustrates how other scholars in the field have stated that even if there were a PIE, there need not have been a single ethnic group that uniquely spoke it, how there are other hypotheses (than the one supposing Aryans) that are equally admissable.

FROM: Lincoln, Bruce (1999), Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

- “In specific, reconstructing a “protolanguage” is an exercise that invites one to imagine speakers of that protolanguage, a community of such people, then a place for that community, a time in history, distinguishing characteristics, and a set of contrastive relations with other protocommunities where other protolanguages were spoken. FOR ALL THIS, NEED IT BE SAID, THERE IS NO SOUND EVIDENTIARY WARRANT (Lincoln 1999, p. 95, emphasis added)”

- “we recognize that the existence of a language family does not necessarily imply the existence of a protolanguage. Still less the existence of a protopeople, protomyths, protoideology, or protohomeland (Lincoln 1999, p. 216).”

(Protopeople in the above quote refers to the “Indo-Europeans/Aryans” of the topic)

- “Other authors have challenged the Stammbaum model on other grounds, observing that even if the historically attested Indo-European languages did descend from a single proto-language, the existence of this ancestral language by no means implies the existence of a single, ethnically homogeneous people who spoke it. Thus Franco Crevatin suggested that Swahili—an artificial lingua franca, spoken across vast portions of Africa as an instrument to facilitate long distance trade—may be a better analogue than Latin for theorizing Proto-Indo-European. […] In Crevatin’s view there was a Proto-Indo-European language and there were people who spoke it for certain finite purposes, but no community of Proto-Indo-Europeans. Similar is Stefan Zimmer’s position, intended as a rebuke of racist theories, hypothesizing a protolanguage spoken not be an ethnically pristine Urvolk but by a shifting, nomadic colluvies gentium, a “filthy confluence of peoples,” (Lincoln 1999, pp. 212-213).”

(3) And finally, here Stefan Arvidsson gives us a lowdown on all the ‘evidence’ there is in support of that hypothetical people, the Indo-Europeans/Aryans: All the proof for any Indo-European/Aryan people is …. air. That’s it. There’s nothing. There’s only stuff that some obsessed western scholars have imagined might be the remains of their imaginary Aryans, but at the end of the day, what they’re doing is just construing things the way they like.

FROM: Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

- “For over two hundred years, a series of historians, linguists, folklorists, and archaeologists have tried to re-create a lost culture. Using ancient texts, medieval records, philological observations, and archaeological remains they have described a world, a religion, and a people older than the Sumerians, with whom all
history is said to have begun. Those who maintained this culture have been called “Indo-Europeans” and “Proto-Indo-Europeans,” “Aryans,” and “Ancient Aryans,” “Japhetites,” and “wiros,” among many other terms. THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOT LEFT BEHIND ANY TEXTS, NO OBJECTS CAN DEFINITELY BE TIED TO THEM, NOR DO WE KNOW ANY “INDO-EUROPEAN” BY NAME. IN SPITE OF THAT, scholars have STUBBORNLY tried to reach back to the ancient “Indo-Europeans,” with the help of bold historical, linguistic, and archaeological reconstructions, in the hopes of finding the foundation of their own culture and religion there. (Arvidsson 2006, p. xi, emphasis added).”

There can be no talk of Aryans (or aryan invasions or whatnot) unless [Neville Ramdeholl or whoever else] can prove that there were Aryans in the first place.
And even if they ever managed to prove (a) the hypothetical PIE existed,
they’d still have to prove that (b) a single ethnic group, specifically the Indo-Europeans/Aryans, existed who spoke it.
Because, REMEMBER: Theory 2 (”once upon a time there were Aryans”) *does not* automatically follow from Theory 1 (”PIE existed”), as seen in (2).
23.
Nemo, on October 17th, 2007 at 7:17 pm Said:

#3 (cont. again - but no longer pasting from elsewhere)

Note the word “Japhetites” in the quote in (3). It was the term Europeans ORIGINALLY used for what were later called Aryan/Indo-European. It is BIBLICAL.
Japheth was one of the 3 sons of Noah. Europeans believed they were descended from Japheth; European christians still believe it.
And so, when the whole field of investigating Indian, Iranian and European languages started, the language group was originally called - not Indo-European, not Aryan - but Japhetic. And at that early time, Dravidians were considered Hamitic (the secularised term ‘Dravidian’ was invented later). According to biblical mythology, Hamites were the cursed descendents of Noah’s son Ham. They’re all the brown peoples of the world. In the bible they’re cursed to be slaves to the descendents of Noah’s other two sons, Japheth and Shem (whose descendents were called Semites).
So just believing in Japethites and Hamites (or as they are called today: the Aryans and Dravidians) means you‘ve accepted christian mythology.

So we can forget the “Aryans/Indo-European” as Indo-European studies calls them.

David Frawley appears to be referring to those of India’s Hindus in the Vedic period who lived in the north/northwest of India, when he uses the (unfortunate) term “Aryan/Indo-European”. Perhaps he’s just thinking of his audience: being consistent, sticking to terminology readers might already have learnt.
Hindus of the Vedic times existed, so did Persia’s Zoroastrians. Their literatures are there for all to see.
It’s the hypothetical “Indo-Europeans” who are nowhere attested.

On the matter of the “Indus Valley Civilisation” (IVC). (The IVC was named at a time when the larger geographical extent of the civilisation was not yet discovered. Saraswati-Sindhu civlisation is more appropriate, as the archaeological sites involved span the region indicated by this name.)
Archaeology has shown how the Saraswati-Sindhu civilisation people of long ago are connected to today’s people in East Punjab and Gujarat: (Entire quoted section pasted between —)

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/agarwal.html
— [1] Archaeologists like Jim Shaffer and D. A. Lichtenstein [1999] completely reject the notion of transfer of IA languages into South Asia as a result of migrations and invasions, and speak in terms of cultural shifts and diffusion of cultural traits. They do however, acknowledge a population shift from the IVC area to East Punjab and Gujarat [1999:256]:
“That the archaeological record and significant oral and literature traditions of South Asia are now converging has significant implications for regional cultural history. A few scholars have proposed that there is nothing in the “literature” firmly placing the Indo-Aryans, the generally perceived founders of the modern South Asian cultural traditions(s), outside of South Asia, and now the archaeological record is confirming this…. Within the context of cultural continuity described here, an archaeologically significant indigenously significant discontinuity was a regional population shift from the Indus valley, in the west, to locations east and southeast, a phenomenon also recorded in ancient oral traditions. As data accumulate to support cultural continuity in South Asian prehistoric and historic periods, a considerable restructuring of existing interpretative paradigms must take place. We reject most strongly the simplistic historical interpretations, which date back to the eighteenth century, that continue to be imposed in South Asian culture history. These still prevailing interpretations are significantly diminished by European ethnocentrism, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism. Surely, as South Asia studies approaches the twenty-first century, it is time to describe emerging data objectively rather than perpetuate interpretations without regard to the data archaeologists have worked so hard to reveal.”
—
(Physical anthropology has also confirmed the same. See Kenneth Kennedy. And Brian Hemphill.)
24.
Nemo, on October 17th, 2007 at 7:19 pm Said:

#4 (cont. final)
Repeat (Lincoln, Theorizing Myth): “the existence of a language family does not necessarily imply the existence of a protolanguage. Still less the existence of a protopeople, protomyths, protoideology, or protohomeland”

Of course, Neville and others who insist on believing in the Aryans without any proof are free to do so. After all, the Japhetic-Hamitic (”Aryan-Dravidian”) invention is but more christian mythology. And like christianism, it’s a matter of “faith” not facts.

[By the way, geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer has a lot of interesting things to say on the largely Basque (=non-Indo-European) gene pool of Britain. (As opposed to the “Indo-European” Celtic or Germanic/Anglo-Saxon.) Maybe Nevill may find it interesting…
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article...ils.php?id=7817
“Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands”]

For the rest of us, here’s Bruce Lincoln’s Theorizing Myth again (he’s a scholar in Indo-European mythology - a field which he has now discounted for not having any concrete basis).
“Of the available hypotheses, the Stammbaum model is the most popular, but by no means the only one. It ought not to be accepted as long as others exists, and we ought not discard these others unless there is compelling reason to do so. In the absence of such compelling reason, we can REMAIN AGNOSTIC, recognizing the existence of multiple hypotheses and maintaining a particularly skeptical posture toward those with histories of subtexts of racism.”
25.
Meenakshi, on January 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pm Said:

The Vedas do mention places and people in the south of India. Some of these places were known by ancient names then, not by their current names.
Vedas talk about Manu, who did not coem from Iran or any other part of Central Asia. He was from this region. The Vedas do not discriminate between South and North India, Dravidians or Aryans.





Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 01-25-2008

I think this is a problem deriving from a larger problem -problems with historiography about India

1. The foundations laid by etic scholars has not been revised in face of new evidence (at most cosmetic adjustment have been made - but the overall frame remains unrevised). Modern historiographers are content to model thier theories within frames developed with insuffecient scholarship.

Notably
i) All early historians who developed the idea of indian history were victorian englishmen or europeans.
ii) Thier work has been found to be inaccurate, biased, unscholarly, having extrenious motivations on many counts
iii) Thier familiarity with thier subject of study is questionable , biased , unsuffecient.
iv) They have tried to reconstruct history from the wrong sources
v) Primary motivation to develop a history of india was to give europe and europeans a high seat in the ancient world and is highly questionable

2. Reconstruction of Indian history does not use Indian historical sources as primary sources. Indian sources are insufficiently investigated or cursorily dismissed as
i) improbable - most certainly mythological
ii) not fitting into existing theories
iii) leading to improbably ancient dates
iv) having dubious chronologies

3. Modern Indian historians have not done serious historiography.
Probably because
i) the subject is studied as a western subject - and appendage of European history using western methods and techniques without critically analyzing thier objectivity.
ii) being more interested in political activism they wish to construct a history favourable to thier political persuations.
iii) being in awe of the ‘white scholar’ they are loath (scared) to confront them on so fundamental a point as basic frame of indian historiography.
iv) they associate genuine prestige to being ’shabash’ed by the western scholar - do not attach any importance to homegrown opinion.(Hence thier casual dismissal of very penetrating insights of a highly respected archeologist, and that of an independent historian )
v) are fundamentally of a Eurocentric persuation ie a macaulayist or a marxist or a ‘gunga-din’ or are mercenaries who are doing dishonest work due to monetary considerations.
vi) are fundamentally ignorant of and do not have scholarly expertise on the tools (languages, techniques) for an emic analysis of history.
vii) indulge in cirular references to materials within thier clique to support and buttress theories

4. Modern western historians
i) Counldnt care less about indian history
ii) Are presumptious to think that thier supposedly unbiased and allegedly scientific methods are beyond reproach.
iii) Are Eurocentric, are brought up in a Judeo-christian tradition - where study of the outsider generally boils down to anthropological analysis of other cultures with a view to establishing dominance of the Eurpean viewpoint.
iv) Are too engrossed, subsumed within the Western Grand Narrative to pay much attention to any other viewpoint.
v) Are culturally so different that they are incapable of understanding the subtelities (going beyond gramattical textual analysis) ; are unaware of the nuances and historical/mythological/symbolic connections to draw ready inferences from any historical document of suitable antiquity.
vi) Are unwilling to understand the viewpoint, unable to communicate with indegenious scholarship with a non-western viewpoint.
vii) have a vested interest in protecting thier academic dominance of scholarship on other cultures and thier histories.
viii) lack suffecient funding from sources sympathetic to the indegenious indian viewpoint,

Serious indepth studies of ancient texts have not yet been done. A majority of ancient sanskrit(and other sources) lie untranslated , uninterpreted and insuffeciently placed within the framework of history.

There is need for unbiased indegenious scholars to reconstruct i) ancient history of indian subcontinent from original sources
ii) ancient history of most non-european cultures with indegenrious sources
iii) try and correlate these indegenious histories
iv) try to derive accurate/approximate dates and inferences from indegenious sources
v) then and only then associate our history with european histories and sources.





Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 01-25-2008

David Frawley is correct in assessing that the Aryan- Dravidian divide was used by the British to explain apparent (though not real) racial differences between northern and Southern Indians. But let us not blame the British alone for the perpetuation of this two race theory. A closer examination of Tamil history as understood and studied in Tamil Nadu, along with the official government position on this history will help us understand many of the unique positions and decisions this government has often taken.

According to the Tamil people and government, their history starts on the banks of the Indus. The Indus valley civilization and people with their unique achievements were the original inhabitants of India. They were a peaceful, civilized group who had organized their society on truly egalitarian principles.

Around 3000-5000 years BCE or later (depending on your source of information), successive bands of invading barbarians called the Aryans pushed the Indus valley people south until they all relocated to Southern India, specifically present day Tamil Nadu. The Aryan society was a far inferior civilization for various reasons: namely, it was polytheistic (too many Gods) and ritualistic (fire sacrifices). In addition, it was not an egalitarian society (caste system). Thus the Indus valley people, who are the ancestors of present day Dravidians, were robbed of their original homeland.

After settling in Tamil Nadu or thereabouts, the great Dravidian/Tamil civilization continued and flourished. It made great strides in all fields including architecture (temples), literature (sang am literature, Kambar Ramayanam etc.), music (carnatic), dance (bharata natyam). Unfortunately, because of the Aryan influence, the caste system became a part of Tamil civilization, and the Brahmins, who are actually the minions of northern Aryans, were responsible for upholding and perpetuating the caste system. In fact the Brahmins are also foreigners who have no right to be a part of Tamil culture (Brahmins are often referred to a s “Paapan”—a derogatory term and even called “Arya Paapan” specifying their origin).

So, is any of this history actually true? Who knows? But this is the official position and understanding of Tamil history, and it is definitely the one used to shape public discourse. Thus, many of the socio-political events can be understood when one understands the Tamils ‘ own version of history.

A case in point would be the anti-Hindi agitations of the past. Most non-Tamil indians, for whom Hindi was also not their mother-tongue (e.g. Bengalis, Telugu , etc.), saw Hindi merely as a link language to be learned as a second or third language in school. Not so in Tamil Nadu. Here, learning Hindi became a North Indian (read Aryan) imposition on a South Indian (Dravidian) civilization. So in Tamil Nadu, you have people who don’t learn Hindi (which is North Indian) , but don’t mind learning English. Here, English is not seen as the language of colonial masters .

We can also understand the reservation policies of the Tamil Nadu government using this paradigm. In most parts of India, the Forward castes refers to those groups of people who have had greater privileges or access to education and economic resources and opportunities. In Tamil Nadu the forward community refers only to Brahmins. Although, initially other groups who were economically prosperous, groups such as the Chettiars, were included in the forward classes, they now have been reclassified (which, I understand from Chettiar friends , can be done voluntarily—i.e. you can get yourself reclassified) as backward. So the reservation policy of Tamil Nadu is not only implicitly anti- Brahmin, it is expressly so. This actually makes perfect sense if one understands how Tamils interpret their history. Thus, Brahmins are not thought of as Tamils who also constitute the priestly classes, but rather, local Aryan residents who have no right to be here.

Since so many of the leaders in Tamil Nadu have been atheists (They call themselves “rationalists”), Tamil pride in its architecture, literature etc. is often combined with discomfiture. The problem is that most of Tamil literature, arts, music, architecture ( as is most Indian literature of the past,) is religious in nature, specifically Hindu. So, while one can feel pride at the great temples at Tanjore and Srirangam, one can’t get over the fact that these are Hindu temples. This “problem” pervades Tamil discussion on all their cultural and historic artifacts. So while Bharata Natyam and Carnatic music are praised, there are various attempts to “Tamilize” these arts and perhaps even “secularize” them. Thus, in Government music colleges most of the songs taught will be Tamil songs, although when the great composers of the past lived and composed in Tamil Nadu, many did so in the Sanskrit and Telugu languages.
<b>
This problem of trying to de-Hinduize Tamil culture (separate Tamil identity from the larger Hindu one which is pan –Indian) is one that apparently occupies the thoughts of the government officials. So there is great fan-fare accorded to placing Periyar’s statue in front of the Srirangam temple etc. </b>This act is considered as both an affront on the Brahmanical hegemony which exists in the temples, and at the same time resurgence and reestablishment of Tamil pride.

The arrest of Kanchi Shankaracharya, and the muted Tamil response puzzled many of those who are not from Tamil Nadu. The arrest was portrayed by some in the mainstream media as an attack on Hinduism and an attempt of the then chief-minister, Jayalalitha, to establish her secular credentials. Maybe that was part of it. However, the reason for the muted response is that this particular religious figure is not considered merely a Hindu leader, but an elitist Brahmin one. Thus the majority of the people did not respond. In addition, we can perhaps also conclude that Jayalalitha might have actually wanted to establish her Dravidian credentials since she is a Brahmin person born in Mysore herself.

The Aryan Invasion debate can also be understood using this paradigm. Some of the most virulent opposition to any research or reinterpretation of original data from the Indus valley civilization comes from those who consider themselves Dravidian –the original inhabitants of this land. The Aryan invasion theory is what validates decades of public policy in Tamil Nadu. Now , suppose we find out that there was no invasion. What if DNA evidence were to suggest that all people of India are from the same gene pool and the last incursions into India were between 40,000 to 60,000 years back. What would this do to the Tamils’ understanding of their history. Would they then have to accept that their culture, though wonderful, is really a regional expression of pan-Indian civilization , and they should take pride in all its civilizational achievements, including its religions.




Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 01-25-2008



#1
The Aryan Invasion Theory is part of a bigger net of inter-connected and inter-dependent theories.

Scholars have not universally accepted the theory of a Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) as the sole possibility. This theory says that all Indo-European languages originally sprung from a shared root language. A *hypothetical* language, nowhere recorded, no literature ever found written in it.
Going from that theory, they thought that there might long ago have been a single group of people who spoke that alleged Proto-Indo-European language. These hypothetical people were named the Aryans - also known as the Indo-Europeans (especially after WWII).
From there, they reasoned that that group of people (Aryans/Indo-Europeans) lived together at some point in time in some geographic place dubbed the Aryan homeland (or Urheimat in German).

So what we have is 3+ theories, each one depending entirely on the previous one being true:
(a) Theory 1 - All languages identified as Indo-European (IE) had a common ancestor language once upon a time: the entirely theoretical language PIE/Proto-Indo-European.
(b) Theory 2 - (*Only if* theory 1 is true, then) there *could* have been some single population that spoke it long ago: called the Indo-Europeans/Aryans.
© Theories 3 to n - (*Only if* theory 2 is true, then) there might have been a region somewhere between Europe and Asia where these Aryans lived once upon a time. They might then have shared single religion, and a shared culture. They might have invented somethings and even created civilisations. (And more such dramatic speculations.)

From the above theories follows the Aryan Invasion Theory, which *ENTIRELY* depends on there being Aryans in the first place (and on them having lived in an unconfirmed “somewhere”).

BUT (pasting from elsewhere):
Here’s some researchers working in Indo-European studies showing how there’s serious doubt about (a) the very existence of any PIE and - even more doubt on - (b) the existence of any ‘Indo-Europeans’ (Aryans) who spoke it:

(1) Summary of Trubetskoy quotes below: Trubetskoy says that ‘IE’ languages need not have derived from a common ancestor at all. But that in fact, it is equally likely that different languages converged and that’s why they ended up having similarities. In other words: he says there’s no need for any PIE. If there’s no need for PIE, this also means there’s no need for the derived assumption that there existed a people who spoke it…

FROM: Trubetzkoy, N. S. (2001), Studies in General Linguistics and Language Structure, Anatoly Liberman (Ed.), translated by Marvin Taylor and Anatoly Liberman, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

- “It is usually supposed that, at one time, there was a single Indo-European language, the so-called Indo-European protolanguage, from which all historically attested Indo-European languages are presumed to descend. This supposition is contradicted by the fact that, no matter how far we peer back into history, we always find a multitude of Indo-European-speaking peoples. The idea of an Indo-European protolanguage is not absurd, but it is not necessary, and we can do very well without it (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 87).”

- “There is therefore, no compelling reason for the assumption of a homogeneous Indo-European protolanguage from which the individual branches of Indo-European descended. It is equally plausible that the ancestors of the branches of Indo-European were originally dissimilar but that over time, through continuous contact, mutual influence, and loan traffic, they moved significantly closer to each other, without becoming identical (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 88).”

- “This possibility must always be kept in sight when the Indo-European problem is addressed [and every statement about the problem should be formulated so as to be valid for either assumption: divergence or convergence.] Since only the hypothesis of a single protolanguage has been considered until now, the discussion has landed on the wrong track. Its primary, that is, linguistic, nature has been forgotten. Prehistoric archaeology, anthropology, and ethnology have been brought in without any justification. Attempts are made to describe the home, race, and culture of a supposed Indo-European proto-people that may never have existed. The Indo-European problem is formulated [by modern German (and not only German) scholars] in something like the following way: “Which type of prehistoric pottery must be ascribed to the Indo-European people?” But scholarship is unable to answer questions of this kind, so they are moot. Their logic is circular because the assumption of an Indo-European protopeople with definite cultural and racial characteristics is untenable. We are chasing a romantic illusion instead of keeping to the one positive fact at out disposal—that “Indo-Europeans” a purely LINGUISTIC concept (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 90, emphasis in the original).”

#2 (cont.)

(2) Bruce Lincoln also makes it clear there’s no valid reason to accept belief in any imaginary people - the Indo-Europeans/ ‘Aryans’ - even *if* we assumed the hypothetical PIE existed. He also illustrates how other scholars in the field have stated that even if there were a PIE, there need not have been a single ethnic group that uniquely spoke it, how there are other hypotheses (than the one supposing Aryans) that are equally admissable.

FROM: Lincoln, Bruce (1999), Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

- “In specific, reconstructing a “protolanguage” is an exercise that invites one to imagine speakers of that protolanguage, a community of such people, then a place for that community, a time in history, distinguishing characteristics, and a set of contrastive relations with other protocommunities where other protolanguages were spoken. FOR ALL THIS, NEED IT BE SAID, THERE IS NO SOUND EVIDENTIARY WARRANT (Lincoln 1999, p. 95, emphasis added)”

- “we recognize that the existence of a language family does not necessarily imply the existence of a protolanguage. Still less the existence of a protopeople, protomyths, protoideology, or protohomeland (Lincoln 1999, p. 216).”

(Protopeople in the above quote refers to the “Indo-Europeans/Aryans” of the topic)

- “Other authors have challenged the Stammbaum model on other grounds, observing that even if the historically attested Indo-European languages did descend from a single proto-language, the existence of this ancestral language by no means implies the existence of a single, ethnically homogeneous people who spoke it. Thus Franco Crevatin suggested that Swahili—an artificial lingua franca, spoken across vast portions of Africa as an instrument to facilitate long distance trade—may be a better analogue than Latin for theorizing Proto-Indo-European. […] In Crevatin’s view there was a Proto-Indo-European language and there were people who spoke it for certain finite purposes, but no community of Proto-Indo-Europeans. Similar is Stefan Zimmer’s position, intended as a rebuke of racist theories, hypothesizing a protolanguage spoken not be an ethnically pristine Urvolk but by a shifting, nomadic colluvies gentium, a “filthy confluence of peoples,” (Lincoln 1999, pp. 212-213).”

(3) And finally, here Stefan Arvidsson gives us a lowdown on all the ‘evidence’ there is in support of that hypothetical people, the Indo-Europeans/Aryans: All the proof for any Indo-European/Aryan people is …. air. That’s it. There’s nothing. There’s only stuff that some obsessed western scholars have imagined might be the remains of their imaginary Aryans, but at the end of the day, what they’re doing is just construing things the way they like.

FROM: Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

- “For over two hundred years, a series of historians, linguists, folklorists, and archaeologists have tried to re-create a lost culture. Using ancient texts, medieval records, philological observations, and archaeological remains they have described a world, a religion, and a people older than the Sumerians, with whom all
history is said to have begun. Those who maintained this culture have been called “Indo-Europeans” and “Proto-Indo-Europeans,” “Aryans,” and “Ancient Aryans,” “Japhetites,” and “wiros,” among many other terms. THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOT LEFT BEHIND ANY TEXTS, NO OBJECTS CAN DEFINITELY BE TIED TO THEM, NOR DO WE KNOW ANY “INDO-EUROPEAN” BY NAME. IN SPITE OF THAT, scholars have STUBBORNLY tried to reach back to the ancient “Indo-Europeans,” with the help of bold historical, linguistic, and archaeological reconstructions, in the hopes of finding the foundation of their own culture and religion there. (Arvidsson 2006, p. xi, emphasis added).”

There can be no talk of Aryans (or aryan invasions or whatnot) unless [Neville Ramdeholl or whoever else] can prove that there were Aryans in the first place.
And even if they ever managed to prove (a) the hypothetical PIE existed,
they’d still have to prove that (b) a single ethnic group, specifically the Indo-Europeans/Aryans, existed who spoke it.
Because, REMEMBER: Theory 2 (”once upon a time there were Aryans”) *does not* automatically follow from Theory 1 (”PIE existed”), as seen in (2).

#3 (cont. again - but no longer pasting from elsewhere)

Note the word “Japhetites” in the quote in (3). It was the term Europeans ORIGINALLY used for what were later called Aryan/Indo-European. It is BIBLICAL.
Japheth was one of the 3 sons of Noah. Europeans believed they were descended from Japheth; European christians still believe it.
And so, when the whole field of investigating Indian, Iranian and European languages started, the language group was originally called - not Indo-European, not Aryan - but Japhetic. And at that early time, Dravidians were considered Hamitic (the secularised term ‘Dravidian’ was invented later). According to biblical mythology, Hamites were the cursed descendents of Noah’s son Ham. They’re all the brown peoples of the world. In the bible they’re cursed to be slaves to the descendents of Noah’s other two sons, Japheth and Shem (whose descendents were called Semites).
So just believing in Japethites and Hamites (or as they are called today: the Aryans and Dravidians) means you‘ve accepted christian mythology.

So we can forget the “Aryans/Indo-European” as Indo-European studies calls them.

David Frawley appears to be referring to those of India’s Hindus in the Vedic period who lived in the north/northwest of India, when he uses the (unfortunate) term “Aryan/Indo-European”. Perhaps he’s just thinking of his audience: being consistent, sticking to terminology readers might already have learnt.
Hindus of the Vedic times existed, so did Persia’s Zoroastrians. Their literatures are there for all to see.
It’s the hypothetical “Indo-Europeans” who are nowhere attested.

On the matter of the “Indus Valley Civilisation” (IVC). (The IVC was named at a time when the larger geographical extent of the civilisation was not yet discovered. Saraswati-Sindhu civlisation is more appropriate, as the archaeological sites involved span the region indicated by this name.)
Archaeology has shown how the Saraswati-Sindhu civilisation people of long ago are connected to today’s people in East Punjab and Gujarat: (Entire quoted section pasted between —)

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/agarwal.html
— [1] Archaeologists like Jim Shaffer and D. A. Lichtenstein [1999] completely reject the notion of transfer of IA languages into South Asia as a result of migrations and invasions, and speak in terms of cultural shifts and diffusion of cultural traits. They do however, acknowledge a population shift from the IVC area to East Punjab and Gujarat [1999:256]:
“That the archaeological record and significant oral and literature traditions of South Asia are now converging has significant implications for regional cultural history. A few scholars have proposed that there is nothing in the “literature” firmly placing the Indo-Aryans, the generally perceived founders of the modern South Asian cultural traditions(s), outside of South Asia, and now the archaeological record is confirming this…. Within the context of cultural continuity described here, an archaeologically significant indigenously significant discontinuity was a regional population shift from the Indus valley, in the west, to locations east and southeast, a phenomenon also recorded in ancient oral traditions. As data accumulate to support cultural continuity in South Asian prehistoric and historic periods, a considerable restructuring of existing interpretative paradigms must take place. We reject most strongly the simplistic historical interpretations, which date back to the eighteenth century, that continue to be imposed in South Asian culture history. These still prevailing interpretations are significantly diminished by European ethnocentrism, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism. Surely, as South Asia studies approaches the twenty-first century, it is time to describe emerging data objectively rather than perpetuate interpretations without regard to the data archaeologists have worked so hard to reveal.”
—
(Physical anthropology has also confirmed the same. See Kenneth Kennedy. And Brian Hemphill.)

#4 (cont. final)
Repeat (Lincoln, Theorizing Myth): “the existence of a language family does not necessarily imply the existence of a protolanguage. Still less the existence of a protopeople, protomyths, protoideology, or protohomeland”

Of course, Neville and others who insist on believing in the Aryans without any proof are free to do so. After all, the Japhetic-Hamitic (”Aryan-Dravidian”) invention is but more christian mythology. And like christianism, it’s a matter of “faith” not facts.

[By the way, geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer has a lot of interesting things to say on the largely Basque (=non-Indo-European) gene pool of Britain. (As opposed to the “Indo-European” Celtic or Germanic/Anglo-Saxon.) Maybe Nevill may find it interesting…
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article...ils.php?id=7817
“Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands”]

For the rest of us, here’s Bruce Lincoln’s Theorizing Myth again (he’s a scholar in Indo-European mythology - a field which he has now discounted for not having any concrete basis).
“Of the available hypotheses, the Stammbaum model is the most popular, but by no means the only one. It ought not to be accepted as long as others exists, and we ought not discard these others unless there is compelling reason to do so. In the absence of such compelling reason, we can REMAIN AGNOSTIC, recognizing the existence of multiple hypotheses and maintaining a particularly skeptical posture toward those with histories of subtexts of racism.”




Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 01-28-2008

<b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kusunda: People And Language  </b>
[ 2008-1-4 ]
<b>Dr. Govinda Bahadur Tumbahang</b>

The Kusundas are the distinct minority population scattered over Gorkha, Tanahu, Palpa, Syangja and Dang of central and Midwestern Nepal. They call themselves as mihaq 'the people' but are called Ban Rajas 'the king of the forests' by other people. Until recently, they lived a semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer's life. Ralph Turner in his A Comparative and Etymological Dictionary of the Nepali languages mentions that Kusunda was formerly used as a 'term of abuse for the so-called Rajputs of Nepal'. George van Driem in his book Languages from the Himalayas 2002 says that it may be used in the sense of 'savage'. Reinhard says in his article 'Ban Rajas- A vanishing Himalayan tribe' published in Contribution to Nepalese Studies 1976, journal of the Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal that it refers to those who 'do not listen to advice and behave rudely'. However, the Kusundas do not mind the pejorative use of the term. According to the 2001 Census of Nepal, their population is 164 out of which only 87 people can speak their language. Their numbers have dwindled as their hunting band splintered due to the loss of forest and their intermarriage with other ethnic groups.

Brian Hodgson, the British resident of the court of Nepal, first introduced Kusunda together with Chepangs in his article 'On the Chepang and Kusunda Tribes of Nepal' published in 1848 in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Nepal. Stem Konow published a small sample of Kusunda including a few conjugated verbs in Linguistic Survey of India 1909. In 1968, John Reinhard, an American anthropologist, found members of Kusunda tribe in Gorkha and Surkhet districts and collected a number of Kusunda words together with a short text narrated by Tek Bahadur. Sueyoshi Toba , a Japanese linguist, worked on these materials and co-authored an article 'A preliminary linguistic analysis and vocabulary of the Kusunda language' in 1970. In his article 'The Kusunda language revisited after thirty years' publlished in Journal of Nepalese literature, art and culture in 2000, he tells us how he took down Kusunda words from Raja Mama. Reinhard published additional Kusunda data in 1976.Ross Caughley elicited a few grammatical constructions and some additional words from Chudamani Ban Raja of Palpa in 1980. Prof. Chudamani Bandhu collected a few words from Rajamama's mother in Damauli in 1987. In 1991, Prof. Madhav Pokharel made contact with Prem Bahadur Shahi in Dang and collected a few items of the language. In May 2004, Prof. Yogendra Yadava and Prof. David Watters advanced a proposal to The National Foundation for the Development of Indigenous Nationalities, Lalitpur to bring Kusunda speakers such as Gyani Maiya, Prem Bahadur Shahi and Kamala Khatri to Kathmandu for a three month period of intensive linguistic research. This proposal was accepted and materialized in the form of a book entitled 'Notes on Kusunda grammar by Prof. David E. Watters.

Earlier, Kusunda was classified as a member of the Tibeto-Burman family with close affinity with Chepang and Magar. Prof. Watters classified it as a true linguistic isolate with no relation to any languages on earth. According to him, it has a few lexical borrowings from Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman but they have nothing to do with its genetic lineage. <b>It is phonologically , lexically and grammatically distinct.. It possesses uvular and pharyngealized consonants which do not exist in other languages of south Asia. Conversely, retroflex consonants which are so common in south Asian languages do not appear in this languag</b>e. It has labial, apical, velar, uvular and glottal stops such as /p/, /ph/, /b/, /bh/, /t/, /th/, /d/, /dh/, /k/, /kh/, /g/, /gh/, /q/, /qh/, /G/ and /?/, apical and uvular fricatives such as /s/ and /x/, apical affricates such as /ts/, tsh/, dz/, dzh/, labial, apical, laminal, velar and uvular nasals such as /m/, /n/, /�/, /K/ and /N/, apical lateral /l/, apical rhotic /r/ and semi-vowels /w/ and /y/. It has six vowels: /i/, /Y/ and /u/ in the upper set and /e/, /a/ and /o/ in the lower set. It has diphthongs such as /Yi/ as in sYi, /ai/ as in qaida 'other' /Yu/ as in Yula 'to sell' etc. There are very few case marking affixes such as genitive suffix �yi/-ye, accusative or dative suffix �da. Its syntax follows a basic SV, AVO constituent order with alternative orders used to mark specialized pragmatic notions.

Now, the number of people who identify themselves as Kusunda is no more than 28 and only four or five of whom are mother- tongue speakers according to former vice chairman Prof. Santa Bahadur Gurung as quoted by Prof. Watters in his book. In addition, they are scattered over different districts with least possibility of community formation. Until now only eight speakers, Raja Mama, Kamala Khatri, her mother, her cousin-sister Gyani Maiya, her maternal uncle Prem Bahadur Shahi and Gyani Maiya's three brothers have been found. They have come out recently from the jungle. Prem Bahadur, Gyani Maiya and her three brothers were born in the jungle near Hapur in Pyuthan district of Midwestern Nepal and subsisted on wild roots and hunted animals during their childhood. Prem Bahadur and Gyani Maiya married Nepali speaking Magars and Gyani Maiya's three younger brothers married Kham-speaking Magar women. Therefore, this language has lost functional value in their family. After their death, it is sure to extinct due to lack of intergenerational transformation.

More than 150 years ago, Brian Hodgson had predicted its total extinction after the lapse of a few generations and Ethnologue in 1990 reported that Kusunda had gone extinct with the death of its last speaker Chudamani Ban Raja in 1985. It has saddened linguists and language lovers who had regarded a language as the invaluable treasure of distinct culture, knowledge and wisdom but thanks to the effort of linguists at home and abroad as well as of the National Foundation for the Development of Indigenous Nationalities, the Kusunda speakers were traced, the language was recorded and the
language community has been blessed with Kusunda grammar. The government should acknowledge their invaluable contribution, take immediate steps to promote the language by developing orthography, writing text books and by running literacy programmes and save this most seriously endangered language from extinction. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

There is only one explanation. The trend towards retroflexion started in the Indic languages at a later time.


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 02-03-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pure Tamils and ‘Sinhalized-Tamils’ in Sri Lanka: a theory
EXCERPT:

4. The Rigveda and Sinhala

The word vatura (water) is not only closely cognate to the Germanic words and Hittite “water,” but it represents a form which is impossible to explain on the basis of Sanskrit or Indo-Aryan etymologies (The Rigveda” a historical analysis by Shrikant. G. Talageri, 2000, New Delhi). This means that Sinhala could be an Indo-European language and not an Indo-Aryan one.

Talageri’s original purpose was to demonstrate that Indo-Aryan languages (Sanskrit and Paali etc.) evolved in India and went westward to Asia. Under the prevailing European-white-based scholarship, Sinhala came out of this I-A branch of parent I-E. <b>But when Talageri stumbled on vatura (or eliya (light) which Geiger dismissed as insignificant) and other unique Sinhala words such as oluva, bella, kalava and kakula, as an impartial scholar he had to adjust or re-examine his own thesis. The new question is was it possible that Sinhala was indigenous to Sri Lanka and went north (to western India) and west (to Iran, Asia Minor and Europe)?</b>

As the paragraphs quoted verbatim below from Talageri indicates, Geiger could not come out of his western or Asia Minor (religious heartland called the Levant) thought box. Our own S. Paranavithana thought of a Sinhlala link with western India but he could not think that perhaps the direction could have been not from Punjaab or the Lata region (Gujarat) to Sri Lanka but from Sri Lanka to India.

<i>“The Sinhalese language of Sri Lanka is generally accepted as a regular, if long separated and isolated, member of the “Indoaryan” branch of Indo-European languages; and no linguist studying Sinhalese appears, so far, to have suggested any other status for the language.
However, apart from the fact that Sinhalese has been heavily influenced not only by Sanskrit and (due to the predominance of Buddhism in Sri Lanka) Pali, but also by Dravidian and the near-extinct Vedda, the language contains many features which are not easily explainable on the basis of Indoaryan.

Wilhelm Geiger, in his preface to his study of Sinhalese, points out that the phonology of the language “is full of intricacies… We sometimes meet with a long vowel when we expect a short one and vice versa”, and, further: “In morphology there are formations, chiefly in the verbal inflexion, which seem to be peculiar to Sinhalese and to have no parallels in other Indo-Aryan dialects… and I must frankly avow that I am unable to solve all the riddles arising out of the grammar of the Sinhalese language.”

However, not having any particular reason to suspect that Sinhalese could be anything but an “Indoaryan” language descended from Sanskrit, Geiger does not carry out any detailed research to ascertain whether or not Sinhalese is indeed in a class with the “other Indo-Aryan dialects”. In fact, referring to an attempt by an earlier scholar, Gnana Prakasar, to connect the Sinhalese word eLi (light) with the Greek hElios (sun), Geiger rejects the suggestion as “the old practice of comparing two or more words of the most distant languages merely on the basis of similar sounds, without any consideration for chronology, for phonological principles, or for the historical development of words and forms…”

However, there are words in Sinhalese, of which we can cite only one here, which cannot be so easily dismissed: the Sinhalese word watura, “water”, is not only closely cognate to the Germanic words (which includes English “water”) and Hittite water, but it represents a form which is impossible to explain on the basis of Sanskrit or Indoaryan etymologies. Geiger himself, elsewhere, rejects an attempt by an earlier scholar, Wickremasinghe, to derive the word from Sanskrit vartarUka as “improbable”; and although he accepts the suggestion of another scholar, B. Gunasekara, that the “original meaning is ‘spread, extension, flood’ (M. vithar)… Pk. vitthAra, Sk. vistAra,” he notes that “vocalism a.u. in vatura is irregular, cf. vitura”.

M.W.S. de Silva, in his detailed study of Sinhalese, points out that “Indo-Aryan (or Indic) research began with an effort devoted primarily to classifying Indian languages and tracing their phonological antecedents historically back to Vedic and Classical Sanskrit… Early Sinhalese studies have followed the same tradition.” However, Sinhalese “presents a linguistic make-up which, for various reasons, distinguishes itself from the related languages in North India… there are features in Sinhalese which are not known in any other Indo-Aryan language, but these features, which make the story of Sinhalese all the more exciting, had not received much attention in the earlier studies.”
He also points out: “Another area of uncertainty is the source of the small but high-frequency segment of the Sinhalese vocabulary, especially words for parts of the body and the like: eg. oluva ‘head’, bella ‘neck’, kakula ‘leg’, kalava ‘thigh’, etc. which are neither Sanskritic nor Tamil in origin. The native grammarians of the past have recognized that there are three categories of words - (a) loanwords, (b) historically derived words and © indigenous words… No serious enquiry has been made into these so-called indigenous words”.

In his preface, de Silva notes that “there is a growing awareness of the significance of Sinhalese as a test case for the prevailing linguistic theories; more than one linguist has commented on the oddities that Sinhalese presents and the fact… that Sinhalese is ‘unlike any language I have seen’.” Further, he quotes Geiger: “It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, to assign it a definite place among the modern Indo-Aryan dialects.”

But, it does not strike de Silva, any more than Geiger, that the reason for all this confusion among linguists could be their failure to recognize the possibility that Sinhalese is not an Indoaryan language (in the sense in which the term is used) at all, but a descendant of another branch of Indo-European languages.

From the historical point of view, “a vast body of material has been gathered together by way of lithic and other records to portray the continuous history of Sinhalese from as early as the third century BC.”163 in Sri Lanka, and “attempts have been made to trace the origins of the earliest Sinhalese people and their language either to the eastern parts of North India or to the western parts”.

But de Silva quotes Geiger as well as S. Paranavitana, and agrees with their view that “the band of immigrants who gave their name Simhala to the composite people, their language and the island, seems to have come from northwestern India… their original habitat was on the upper reaches of the Indus river… in what is now the borderland between Pakistan and Afghanistan”, and quotes Paranavitana’s summary of the evidence, and his conclusion: “All this evidence goes to establish that the original Sinhalese migrated to Gujarat from the lands of the Upper Indus, and were settled in LATa for some time before they colonised Ceylon.”

A thorough examination, with an open mind, of the vocabulary and grammar of Sinhalese, will establish that Sinhalese represents a remnant of an archaic branch of Indo-European languages [not Indo-Aryan]”.</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pure Tamils and ‘Sinhalized-Tamils’ in Sri Lanka: a theory
C. Wijeyawickrema

“Sinhala [language]’s survival as a clearly Indo-Aryan language can be considered a minor miracle of linguistic and cultural history”
James W. Gair, Studies in South Asian Linguistics: Sinhala and other South Asian languages, 1998, Chapter 14: How Dravidanized was Sinhala phonology? Pages 185-199).

PART-I
Introduction

In his opinion page letter (Island, 1/14/08) the American-living anthropology professor H. L. Seneviratne (HLS) stated that (1) Sinhalese are a “variety” of Tamils and (2) that Sinhala language is Tamil in its grammatical and syntactic structure with a 20% Tamil vocabulary. On opinion number 2, no one denies Tamil influence on the Sinhala language. The traditional question has been the extent of this influence.

There about 30 Tamil words in Sinhala. This is not even half the number of Portuguese and Dutch words, respectively, in use in Sinhala. If 30 words are 20% then Sinhala has a total of how many words? Does borrowing words make the borrower the lender? Over 50% of English common words came from non-Anglo Saxon stock (The mother tongue English and how it got that way, Bill Bryson, 1990).

The disunity and jealousies amongst the Kandy chiefs was the reason to have a Tamil king in the first place. Just like Muttu Coomaraswamy’s dress impressed the Queen Victoria, those Kandy chiefs must have taken Tamil tuition to impress their Tamil king and his queens. When Karawa and Govigama English-educated were fighting between them for the new Colombo seat, a Tamil got elected. I give these examples to show that as a professor HLS should not have cited such high-class behavior to support his theory. Could he give examples from folk songs or from Pal Kavi? Sinhala language belongs to villagers and not to feudal or Colombo chiefs.

In 1932, the late Theodore G. Perera (TGP) published a book titled, “the Sinhalese Grammar” to dispel the theory in vogue at that time that the source of Sinhala language was Tamil. He presented evidence to show its Indo-Aryan origin. In more recent times, at least two American linguists studied Sinhala in depth and one of them, James Gair considered it a linguistic miracle that Sinhala language thrived despite a massive Tamil onslaught.

HLS’ opinion number 1 is too simplistic and provocatively Eelam-oriented. It goes beyond the usual India-based explanations on Sri Lankan history given by the English-educated, Western-oriented ruling elites in the colonial Ceylon. Thus the late professor G. C. Mendis, a Christian, divided the pre-1505 history of Ceylon into four periods of North and South Indian history. Michael Roberts’ doctoral research-based book on the history of the Karawa caste in Ceylon showed how more recent South Indian migrants settled down on the western coastal areas later became the Karawa and Durawa castes. When the last Tamil king of Kandy was captured in 1815, the two natives present at the scene happened to be ancestors of SWRD and JRJ who had non-Sinhala origins.

Sinhalese must have had a lot of Tamil and even Portuguese blood in them. The mother of either the king Vijayabaahu I or the Paraakramabaahu, the great, was a Tamil. The word “urumaya” of JHU is a Tamil word. But a blanket extension of this Tamil influence to theorize without facts that the Sinhala-Buddhist heritage was actually a Sinhalized-Tamil heritage is unprofessional and unreasonable. England was populated by Germanic tribes (the Frisians, the Saxons, the Jutes and the Angles) beginning in the 5th century A.D., but Englishmen today do not become Germans (map on page 6 in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language by David Crystal, 1995).

The purpose of this reply is to present to the reader information available out there which does not support HLS’ theory. In fact the new information uncovered by researchers about the Sinhala language could provide a basis for a new paradigm. Instead of the blind belief that everything came “from India to Sri Lanka” it is perhaps time to ask whether it was possible that Sinhala went “from Sri Lanka to India or even to Asia/Europe?” The origin of Sinhala could be Indo-European or older, and not Indo-Aryan. Such questions got buried under an anti-Mahavamsa movement deployed in the guise of a theory of Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism as fodder for international consumption.

PART – II

Anti-Mahavamsa movement in Sri Lanka

The humiliation of native Sinhala-Buddhist culture began after1505, until a resistance movement slowly emerged by way of revival of Buddhism in the 1840s-1880s of which the Great Panadura Debate in 1873 was a climax event. An anthropology guru of HLS, Gananath Obeysekara, called this “Protestant Buddhism.” The behavior of Christian colonial masters and their local supporters, the Christian-born/converted local elites, adversely affected the Sinhala-Buddhist heritage in the island, but one cannot say there was an organized anti-Mahavamsa movement in Ceylon at that time. White rulers and white archeologists did not have any reason to distort island’s history. But with the introduction of universal franchise and the territorial representation to the State Council in 1931, replacing communal representation which began in 1832, the majority Sinhala-Buddhists gained voting strength after 450 years of discrimination and oppression.

When the Legislative Council debated the motion presented by a Hindu Tamil (P. Ramanathan) to make Vesak a public holiday in the colonial Ceylon (1885), with the backing of an American Olcott, the Sinhala representative A. L. de Alwis, a Christian, opposed it. The Governor Gordon who was for the motion said he was embarrassed by de Alwis’ behavior. Colombo ruling families opposed the grant universal franchise, free education, labour rights and other welfare measures, but 1931 was the end of 100 years of communal governance. Those who held power under colonial patronage began to orient and emerge themselves as an anti-Mahavamsa movement in the soon-to-be-freed colony. The constitutional coup of the English-educated locals and the governor Manning in 1923-24 and the Christian GG Ponnambalam’s demands were the early tips of this iceberg. A long-awaited reaction to this arose in the 1960s as Buddhist National Force (BJB) spearheaded by the late L. H. Metthananda who focused on an official church document titled “Catholic Action.” By the early 1970s traces of a theory of Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism began to appear, first in the writings of Mrs. Vishaakaa Kumaari Jayawardhana (daughter of an English mother). It spread like wild fire all over the world after the government blunder in1983 when the president of the country told the people to defend themselves. Thus, Prabakaran and his web sites could talk about the Mahavamsa mentality.

Eelam politics and Boston-area professors

As a follower of HLS’ political anthropology works in print, I am not surprised by his new theory. HLS, his principal guru S. J. Tambiah, the late political science professor A. J. Wilson, history professors C. R. de Silva and Michael Roberts (Australia), (K. Indrapaala is a recent addition), could be grouped as a network of Boston area professors who “suppressed” historical facts in their professorial public writings. For example, SJT in his Buddhism betrayed book mentioned in detail the1967 Dodampe mudalali coup and 1968 Colvin-Leslie Kollupitiya march against the Tamil Language Reasonable Use Regulations, but ignored completely the real coup by the Chritian-Tamil police and navy officers in 1962 and the infamous Imbulgoda march by JRJ in 1958 against the Reasonable Use of Tamil Language Bill. To give another example, in his book “the work of kings” (which he dedicated to his guru SJT) HLS alleged that the mess of ethnic clash in Sri Lanka was due to the actions of two solitary monks, Vens. Yakkaduwe Pragnaraama, and Walpola Raahula. HLS thanked WR for help given in writing his book, but did not give WR an opportunity to respond to his “research” opinions. The Boston group was influential enough to convince the Massachusetts Legislature to pass a resolution against the government of Sri Lanka for allegedly oppressing the Tamils (Massachusetts House Journal for 1979, page 977 reads: … “Resolution memorializing the President and the Congress to protest and utilize the powers of their offices to rectify the gross injustices which have been inhumanely inflicted on the Tamils of Sri Lanka”).

Colombo black-whites (coconuts- white inside, brown outside)

The most culpable conduct of these professors and their Colombo contacts was their hiding of the fact that the problem in Sri Lanka was a problem of mismanagement by the Colombo ruling families, who created and later benefited from a clash between Tamil and Sinhala languages. If in India, Gandhi was for a unifying language despite Hindi was spoken by 30-40% of the people, making Sinhala the unifying language could not be a disaster for Tamil-speaking people in the island. By 1948 there were two countries in Ceylon—the English-speaking Colombo country and the Sinhala-Tamil-speaking village country. The ruling elites and their officer agents made sure the continued existence of this division by converting English versus Swabhasa clash into a Sinhala-Tamil conflict. Ironically, Col. Karuna finally exposed this game by a simple demand—Give us what Colombo gets. He did not ask for a homeland. The late Kumar Ponnambalam, a Christian, on the other hand felt that Tamils have “aspirations.” The destruction of Sri Lanka since 1948 could be explained not by a Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism paradigm but by a Colombo black-white paradigm. Because the professors, officers, peace mudalalis, UN agency officers, foreign ambassadors in Colombo and the human rights INGOs are predominantly, if not 100%, Christians they failed to understand that a Sinhala Buddhist cannot be a violator of human rights. Unlike faith-based Christian and Islam where human life is uni-directional (linear) in Buddhism life is cyclical and everything is impermanent (sabbe sankaara aniccaa). This was the basis for a harmony of different faiths at the Buddhist village level. This was why 50% of the Tamil population in Sri Lanka lives among Buddhists.

With the church organization run like a corporate business, and the last Pope’s desire to “convert Asia into Christianity in the 21st century,” I am pointing out the behavior of Christian politicians, the powerful and the Colombo ruling families. I am not blaming in this essay the average Sinhala or Tamil Catholic or Christians who have suffered along with the Sinhala Buddhists in the Non-Colombo country of the island. For example, the Marxists brains at least from 1935 to 1964 were active in anti-Mahavamsa affairs irrespective of their ethnicity. A section of the JVP is still struggling to overcome its anti-Mahavamsa mind set.

PART – III

Types of evidence against HLS’ theory

1. Ven. Ellawala Medhananda’s research

The history of Sri Lanka and its North and East that the Ven. Ellawala Medhananda Thero has painstakingly constructed after forty years of archaeological field work (Our heritage of the North and East of Sri Lanka, 2003) is radically different from a Tamil rooted ethnic origin of its settlers. The scripts found on hundreds of rock caves that he was able to trace and record did not support a Tamil theory. Some donors of these cave dwellings (to Buddhist priests) had Tamil names. If all donors at that time had a common Tamil origin, then all of them must have had Tamil-based names. These cave donations span from the 3rd century B.C to 5th century A.D.

The oldest Brahmi scripts were found in Anuradhapura (5th century B.C.) which was not Tamil Brahmi. Recently, Brahmi scripts were found in Tamil Nad at Adichanallur near Tirunelveli (www.hindu.com/2004/05/26/stories). It would be interesting to see if they are older than what was found at Anuradhapura. The Indian archaeologists expect that the carbon-14 dating would take Adichanallur ruins to 7th or 8th century B.C. HLS’ theory may have to wait until these results are out and analysed.

2. Theodore Perera and Sinhala (1932)

The second source is the Sinhala Grammar book written by Theodore G. Perera (TGP), published by M.D. Gunasena Co. Ltd. in 1932. This work was supported by the Maha Mudaliyar J. P. Obeyesekere who later had a Tamil daughter-in-law. In a chapter titled, “History of the Sinhalese language” TGP summarized facts known by him at that time.

TGP mentioned the purpose of his book was to dispel the theories in vogue at that time that Sinhala was a derivative of Tamil. At that time no one dared to say that the Sinhalayas were former Tamils! While admitting the influence of Tamil on Sinhala, TGP provided evidence to show the dissimilar origins of Tamil and Sinhala. For example, he supplied a table with 16 Sinhala words comparing them with Sanskrit, Maagadhi (Pali), Greek, Latin and English (example: nama (Sinhala)-naaman (Sanskrit), naama (M), onoma (G), nomen (L), name (E), peyar (in Tamil). Only word that matched was ata (eight) which is ettu in Tamil. The archaeological commissioner of Ceylon at that time, Dr. Goldschmidt concluded “Sinhalese is now proved to be a thorough Aryan dialect, having its nearest relations in some of the dialects used in Asoka’s inscriptions.” TGP felt that Sinhalese is decidedly an Aryan language not only on the side of its vocabulary, but in its orthography, grammar, rhetoric and prosody.

TGP thought that by the time of the arrival of Ven. Mahinda (son of King Ashoka) Sri Lanka had a language based on some north Indian language which he called Sinhala. This language was also taken to the Maldives and Lakadive Islands (the language of the Maldives Islands (Divehi) is a Sinhala dialect). TGP said that the commentaries to the Pali Tripitaka were first written in Sinhala at the time of Ven. Mahinda, which (commentaries) were later translated to into Pali by the Ven. Buddhaghosha.

TGP pointed out that the Thonigala inscription (B.C. 161-137 or B.C. 88-76) used the same Brahmi script found in the Ashoka inscriptions in India. He thought these Brahmi letters as well as the Devanaagari and other north Indian language letters were based on Semitic-Phoenician letters. If Tamil was the source language of Sinhala then Sri Lankan inscriptions should have had Tamil scripts. “For a number of centuries the Sinhalese language did not seem to have had any connection whatever with Tamil.” Only after the eleventh century A.D. one could see the first traces of Tamil words appearing in Sinhala inscriptions or books. The first Sinhalese grammar written in the middle of the thirteenth century A.D. was mainly based on Pali and Sanskrit grammars. Therefore, under an Indo-Aryan language framework similarities one finds between Sinhala and Tamil could possibly be due to the fact that both languages borrowed them from Sanskrit.

TGP showed the evolution of the Sinhala hodiya using six rock inscriptions. (hodiya is chart of phonemes, alphabet is a list of symbols for writing). He concluded that despite the fact that Sanskrit was in use from an earlier time and that Pali was introduced with Buddhism in 307 B.C., Sanskrit or Maagadhi (Pali) sounds were not used in the inscriptions written in 200 B.C. Until 100 A.D. they were not used with Sinhala. All this leads us to understand that Sinhala is a language first developed in the island.

3. James Gair and Sinhala
As the map reproduced on page 187 of Gair’s book indicates Sinhala, Tamil, Persian and a few dialects found above the Telegu language region in India do not have an aspiration (mahappraana- eg., t as in ata (eight) versus th as in Gothaabaya) contrast. The rest of India has some form of aspiration recognition. Germanic languages also do not have an aspiration contrast but at least they have certain aspiration sounds as in the case of the difference between the two words pin and spin. In pin p is an aspiration. Sinhala has no aspiration whatsoever, in speech or writing (those like Gothaabaya are Sanskrit). Therfore, in pronouncing the English word pin as well as the Sinhala word piti we say it as in the word pitisara (rural).
Gair also pointed out the overwhelming left-branching syntactic character, in particular, the exclusive or overwhelmingly dominant use of preposed relativized clause structures found in Sinhala and Tamil, not found in the rest of India.

Unlike Tamil which has only consonant p, since the 13th century A.D., Sinhala has had p, b, d and g. Thus in Tamil balla (dog) is valla and sudu (white) is suthu. If Tamil was the source language how did this happen?

On page 189 of his book Gair reproduced a list comparing Sinhala with Tamil and other Indo Aryan (IA) languages. Thus:

1. Sinhala has fewer phonemes (about 30) than in IA (though more than in Tamil)
2. In Sinhala, the volume of opposition of cerebrality (i.e., retroflexion) is less than in the rest of IA
3. The absence of dipthongs in Sinhala, unlike in eastern IA
4. The absence of nasalized vowel phonemes
5. The partial neutralization of s and h in Sinhala, because of the change s > h “already at work in
Sinhalese prakrit”(eg., handa > sanda (moon)
6. The opposition of long and short vowels, common in Tamil, less so in IA
7. The loss of aspiration in Sinhala commonly retained in IA

4. The Rigveda and Sinhala

The word vatura (water) is not only closely cognate to the Germanic words and Hittite “water,” but it represents a form which is impossible to explain on the basis of Sanskrit or Indo-Aryan etymologies (The Rigveda” a historical analysis by Shrikant. G. Talageri, 2000, New Delhi). This means that Sinhala could be an Indo-European language and not an Indo-Aryan one.

Talageri’s original purpose was to demonstrate that Indo-Aryan languages (Sanskrit and Paali etc.) evolved in India and went westward to Asia. Under the prevailing European-white-based scholarship, Sinhala came out of this I-A branch of parent I-E. But when Talageri stumbled on vatura (or eliya (light) which Geiger dismissed as insignificant) and other unique Sinhala words such as oluva, bella, kalava and kakula, as an impartial scholar he had to adjust or re-examine his own thesis. The new question is was it possible that Sinhala was indigenous to Sri Lanka and went north (to western India) and west (to Iran, Asia Minor and Europe)?

As the paragraphs quoted verbatim below from Talageri indicates, Geiger could not come out of his western or Asia Minor (religious heartland called the Levant) thought box. Our own S. Paranavithana thought of a Sinhlala link with western India but he could not think that perhaps the direction could have been not from Punjaab or the Lata region (Gujarat) to Sri Lanka but from Sri Lanka to India.

“The Sinhalese language of Sri Lanka is generally accepted as a regular, if long separated and isolated, member of the “Indoaryan” branch of Indo-European languages; and no linguist studying Sinhalese appears, so far, to have suggested any other status for the language.
However, apart from the fact that Sinhalese has been heavily influenced not only by Sanskrit and (due to the predominance of Buddhism in Sri Lanka) Pali, but also by Dravidian and the near-extinct Vedda, the language contains many features which are not easily explainable on the basis of Indoaryan.

Wilhelm Geiger, in his preface to his study of Sinhalese, points out that the phonology of the language “is full of intricacies… We sometimes meet with a long vowel when we expect a short one and vice versa”, and, further: “In morphology there are formations, chiefly in the verbal inflexion, which seem to be peculiar to Sinhalese and to have no parallels in other Indo-Aryan dialects… and I must frankly avow that I am unable to solve all the riddles arising out of the grammar of the Sinhalese language.”

However, not having any particular reason to suspect that Sinhalese could be anything but an “Indoaryan” language descended from Sanskrit, Geiger does not carry out any detailed research to ascertain whether or not Sinhalese is indeed in a class with the “other Indo-Aryan dialects”. In fact, referring to an attempt by an earlier scholar, Gnana Prakasar, to connect the Sinhalese word eLi (light) with the Greek hElios (sun), Geiger rejects the suggestion as “the old practice of comparing two or more words of the most distant languages merely on the basis of similar sounds, without any consideration for chronology, for phonological principles, or for the historical development of words and forms…”

However, there are words in Sinhalese, of which we can cite only one here, which cannot be so easily dismissed: the Sinhalese word watura, “water”, is not only closely cognate to the Germanic words (which includes English “water”) and Hittite water, but it represents a form which is impossible to explain on the basis of Sanskrit or Indoaryan etymologies. Geiger himself, elsewhere, rejects an attempt by an earlier scholar, Wickremasinghe, to derive the word from Sanskrit vartarUka as “improbable”; and although he accepts the suggestion of another scholar, B. Gunasekara, that the “original meaning is ‘spread, extension, flood’ (M. vithar)… Pk. vitthAra, Sk. vistAra,” he notes that “vocalism a.u. in vatura is irregular, cf. vitura”.

M.W.S. de Silva, in his detailed study of Sinhalese, points out that “Indo-Aryan (or Indic) research began with an effort devoted primarily to classifying Indian languages and tracing their phonological antecedents historically back to Vedic and Classical Sanskrit… Early Sinhalese studies have followed the same tradition.” However, Sinhalese “presents a linguistic make-up which, for various reasons, distinguishes itself from the related languages in North India… there are features in Sinhalese which are not known in any other Indo-Aryan language, but these features, which make the story of Sinhalese all the more exciting, had not received much attention in the earlier studies.”
He also points out: “Another area of uncertainty is the source of the small but high-frequency segment of the Sinhalese vocabulary, especially words for parts of the body and the like: eg. oluva ‘head’, bella ‘neck’, kakula ‘leg’, kalava ‘thigh’, etc. which are neither Sanskritic nor Tamil in origin. The native grammarians of the past have recognized that there are three categories of words - (a) loanwords, (b) historically derived words and © indigenous words… No serious enquiry has been made into these so-called indigenous words”.

In his preface, de Silva notes that “there is a growing awareness of the significance of Sinhalese as a test case for the prevailing linguistic theories; more than one linguist has commented on the oddities that Sinhalese presents and the fact… that Sinhalese is ‘unlike any language I have seen’.” Further, he quotes Geiger: “It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, to assign it a definite place among the modern Indo-Aryan dialects.”

But, it does not strike de Silva, any more than Geiger, that the reason for all this confusion among linguists could be their failure to recognize the possibility that Sinhalese is not an Indoaryan language (in the sense in which the term is used) at all, but a descendant of another branch of Indo-European languages.

From the historical point of view, “a vast body of material has been gathered together by way of lithic and other records to portray the continuous history of Sinhalese from as early as the third century BC.”163 in Sri Lanka, and “attempts have been made to trace the origins of the earliest Sinhalese people and their language either to the eastern parts of North India or to the western parts”.

But de Silva quotes Geiger as well as S. Paranavitana, and agrees with their view that “the band of immigrants who gave their name Simhala to the composite people, their language and the island, seems to have come from northwestern India… their original habitat was on the upper reaches of the Indus river… in what is now the borderland between Pakistan and Afghanistan”, and quotes Paranavitana’s summary of the evidence, and his conclusion: “All this evidence goes to establish that the original Sinhalese migrated to Gujarat from the lands of the Upper Indus, and were settled in LATa for some time before they colonised Ceylon.”

A thorough examination, with an open mind, of the vocabulary and grammar of Sinhalese, will establish that Sinhalese represents a remnant of an archaic branch of Indo-European languages [not Indo-Aryan]”.

5. Jayantha Ahangama’s silent service

JA was working at his father’s printing press in the 1960s before he came to study computer science in America. Unlike the new generation of computer science Ph.Ds, JA was well versed in the Sinhala grammar. He found Sinhala Hodiya as a highly scientific sound system arranged according to the movement of lips and tongue from front to back in the mouth.

While working on a self-imposed project to convert the Pali Tripitaka into Sinhala and English in order to place it on the internet for analysis and research, JA uncovered some innocent errors that crept into the English transliteration pioneered by the late Rhys Davids in the early 1900s. Thus, in Rhys Davids English translation, Namo Thassa (as in tharu, stars) became Namo Tassa (as in takaran, tin sheet). JA solved this problem borrowing three letters from the Old English. In the process he also made Sinhala language Internet compatible in the most efficient and effective manner.

With electricity replacing paper as the medium of writing and storing data (filing cabinets versus removable disks of the size of a finger) fourteen European languages including the Icelandic formulated an internet’s Brahmin club placing them at the front end of the Unicode (Latin -1). JA invented a system called Romanized Sinhala to take Sinhala into this club as its 15th member. The club uses Latin letters and because Sinhala is also using Latin letters borrowed from the Old English for this purpose we also call it “Latin Sinhala.”

He has been doing this work single-handedly and without any support, encouragement or any appreciation by the Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka (ICTA). On the Internet use of Sinhala he is without doubt a modern-day Munidasa Kumaratunga facing road blocks from vested interests in the computer domain (www.LatinSinhala.com/anurapura). )

In English a letter is just a letter. This is why the spelling bee contest is possible among the English-speaking. Thus u is used in put and but with different sound effect. This is not so in Sinhala. This is why school children play with English letters as if they are words! The four English letters I-O-C-A for them could convey the sound Ayyo Seeye (Oh! Grandfather, as if he narrowly escaped a hit by a fast moving car when he was crossing the road carelessly). JA capitalized on this unique ability of native Sinhala speakers in inventing a Romanized Sinhala or Latin Sinhala.

JA used his American-living friends as a laboratory in perfecting his new invention. A Sinhalaya cannot pronounce the word “bicycle” the way an Englishman pronounces it unless of course the Sinhalaya goes to a Colombo elocution class. The American companies using Indians for telephone customer services do this by giving them intensive accent training. The most revealing difference between Tamil and other Indian languages on the one hand and Sinhala on the other is the inability of Sinhalayas to use retroflex consonant “na” (as in tana kola (grass, not breast) and “la” (as in mala (dead, not flower). Yes, they are in written Sinhala but we cannot curl our tongue and say them as Indians do. As such, the ta vargaya in the hodiya is muurdhaja group in Indic. Thus pronouncing the word bicycle the way an Englishman does is not a problem for a Tamil but impossible to the Sinhalese. Also, we do not use mahapparana (aspirants) at all while North Indians do it without any extra effort.

JA suggests an outside-the-box thinking on Sinhala and to question the west-worshipping thinking of English-educated professors. Encouraged by new discoveries by Talageri and his own ‘field work’ JA proposes a new theory. In his book Talageri suggests that Indo-European languages went from India to Asia Minor. Then he stumbled on to the word vatura in Sinhala and the other unusual words such as oluva (head), bella (neck), kakula (leg) and kalava (thigh). These words are not found in Sanskrit, Pali, Tamil or any other language. So, JA asks, is it not possible that a Sinhala language went north and west from ancient Sri Lanka? After all the Yavanas mentioned in the Mahavamsa are present-day Iranians. He disagrees with TGP’s suggestion in 1932 that Sinhala had more affinity with the Semitic and Phoenician script. He says Semitic and Phoenician scripts which write from right to left does not have all the sounds that the Sinhala and Brahmi scripts shared in common.

Malayalam is a new language and the remarkable similarity between Sinhala and Malayalam letters makes one wonder if Sinhala letters influenced Malayalam letters. The reason for this is the possibility that Sinhala could be even older than Sanskrit or Pali. The Sinhala words vatura (water) and hakuru (jaggery) are found in Germanic languages and not in Indo-Aryan languages.

If one looks at the oldest world maps available, in one map (Map 2 above, by Eratosthenes, 276-194 B. C.) the British Isles and Sri Lanka take a prominent place. So much detail of the latter is shown in Ptolemy’s map (Map 1, by Ptolemy, 150 A.D.). As a tropical resplendent island located on the path of seasonal Monsoon winds, compared to the dry and barren South India, people who lived in Lanka for example, during the Raavana time, could have had contacts with lands now known as Iran and Europe. Why would King Ashoka send both his son and daughter to Sri Lanka, unless it was the most important land outside India at that time? It is like who the president of Sri Lanka sends to Somaliya and USA as his ambassadors.

Denis Fernando in an essay “Indian ocean should be named the Asiatic ocean,” (Island, 2/23/07) presents a post-colonial approach to world history and geography by a Sri Lankan researcher. Perhaps, HLS unintentionally contributed to this new way of thinking by his politically-loaded new theory of Sinhalized-Tamils. I hope this topic would generate research interest among both Sinhala and Tamil students/scholars.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 02-04-2008

<b>Archeologists unearth ancient horse tooth, thousands of rarities in Hodeidah </b>
Almigdad Dahesh Mojalli
<img src='http://yementimes.com/photos/1124/culture1_1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

French archeologist has discovered an ancient horse tooth, in addition to thousands of rare pieces during excavations last month in the area of Khamis Bani Saad in Hodeidah governorate’s Tihama district.

The month-long dig was conducted and funded by the French mission at the University of Poitiers and Yemen’s General Authority for Antiquities.

According to the French expert, Professor Roberto Macchiarelli, an important prehistoric (Middle Paleolithic) site called Shi’bat Dihya has been discovered near Wadi Surdud on the road connecting the villages of Khamis Bani Saad and Bajil.

The expert stated that the horse tooth is the dig’s most important discovery, as that particular type of horse currently doesn’t reside in the area, but rather in Middle Asia.

The nearly 100,000-year-old site also contains an abundance of lithic tools such as cores, flakes and blades made of volcanic rock, as well as the remains of incinerated bovines and horses.

Macchiarelli affirmed that such animals had lived there long ago, but left the area due to climate change, as the climate had been dry and cold, but is now wet and warm. This fact, in particular, may open several scopes for new studies in the field of climate change in Yemen.

Sedimentary analysis indicates that the climate at that time was dry and cooler than today, with open and grassy terrain.

Participating archeologists further propose that some pieces discovered at the site indicate that the area’s inhabitants were fishermen, not farmers like today, meaning that the sea was nearer.

The Poitiers-Yemen project planned to excavate in Yemen since 2005 in an effort to identify the most ancient traces of human existence in the Tihama, as well as reconstruct the geological dynamics, climactic fluctuations and environmental scenarios during the Pleistocene period.

According to Yemen’s General Authority for Antiquities, the first phase of the excavation involved three areas of five square meters each. The French mission will resume the second phase by the beginning of February with a team of Yemeni specialists working for a month in three new areas.


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - ramana - 02-06-2008

Now they are looking at genes of bugs in the stomach to support the AIT!
From Deccan Chronicle, 6 Feb., 2008 <!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Germ in belly proves Aryan theory
 

Hyderabad, Feb. 5: India got its genes through Indo-Aryans and the Neolithic practices and languages from the Fertile Crescent that makes up the ancient Egypt and the Mediterranean region. A joint study by Ms S. Manjulatha Devi, Irshad Ahmad and a few others of the city-based Centre for Liver Research and Diagnostics, Deccan College of Medical Sciences and Allied Hospitals, and the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, supported the hypotheses related to the gene flow in India through Indo-Aryans.

The scientists conducted the study on Helicobacter pylori, a pathogen that lives in human stomach. The species of H. pylori that is found in present day Indian population is similar to that of the European strain inhabiting the stomachs of people who live in the West. "This perhaps conveys the message that H. pylori was most probably introduced to the Indian subcontinent by ancient Indo-European nomadic people and our findings are, therefore, consistent with the idea of a possible gene flow into India with the arrival of Indo-Aryans," the scientists pointed out.

According to the study, H. pylori might have arrived in India at the same time when Indo-European language speaking people crossed into India around 4,000 or 10,000 years ago. The city scientists arrived at the conclusion that as H. pylori co-evolves with its host, the multiple population and sub-population of the pathogen speak about ancient human migrations. Since it was not clear how different waves of human migrations in South Asia shaped the population structure of H. pylori, the city scientists went for mapping genetic origins of the present day H. pylori in India and its genomic comparison with hundreds of isolates from different geographic regions.

"All the isolates analysed revealed European ancestry and belonged to H. pylori sub-population named hpEurope," they said. This simple looking organism has now emerged as a reliable biological marker for host-pathogen co-evolution and ancient human migration. It could even provide an insight into human origins and migration. The study is consistent with the hypothesis of co-evolution of H. pylori with human and could form a reliable foundation to test and reconstruct gene flow into India with the arrival of Indo-Aryans or otherwise, they added.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->



Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 02-11-2008

<b>ARYAN invasion theory, proven false -- INDIA (part 1 of 3)</b>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO8-JCK45tc

<b>ARYAN invasion theory, proven false -- INDIA (part 2 of 3)</b>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0aTOTW8hU&feature=related

<b>ARYAN invasion theory, proven false -- INDIA (part 3 of 3)</b>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLbejnRjV8&feature=related
-------------------------
<b>Myth of Aryan Dravidian divide</b>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_6hEgJlYYk

- "North and South have never been known to be culturally hostile to each other" -


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Bodhi - 02-11-2008

Post 218: <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->

What the 'scientists' again left without explaining as usual is, how did the common ancestry prove the direction of the migration? Did they discuss the bio-diversity index? Where is diversity more for this worm - in "south asia" or in Europe? As it a commonly accepted principle, where ever is more diversity is the source of migration.

===
For Hindus living in USA and constructing grand temples there: 1000 years from today such scientists will conclude that a race called Brown Aryans originated in the USA and from there traveled via Europe to India with their Vedas written in roman scripts, and settled amongst the native Indians and taught them the temple architecture, Yoga, Hinduism and of course a caste system. They called themselves 'NRI' - though the meaning of the term is still being debated.

So please make sure you people leave solid shilalekha-s on whatever material is most durable, in whichever scripts are most reliable, giving information about which direction did the Hindus usually migrated in, 19th CE onwards.

By the way, on a serious note, do the temple makers in the west include proper shilA-lekha-s: giving history of the temple, placing it properly in space and time, discussing names, gotra-s etc, of who constructed it and so on...?