Why I oppose the Aryan invasion theory

[aneeshm]

This is an excellent chapter from a book about the AIT. It shows the political aspects and problems caused of the and by the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Link

The book itself is remarkably balanced.

[Wernazuma III]

Far from having read the entire article (I stopped somewhat before halfway through), I gather that you oppose the theory on the basis that you don't like how it's being used by the hordes of "anti-brahmins" that you don't like what's made of it.

So you think Aryans actually spread from India, or what's your POV?

You know, aneeshm, people tmight turn from indifferent to "anti-brahmin" because people like you push your agenda so hard.

[aneeshm]

Does my agenda hurt anybody? I'm a libertarian on many issues, and believe that the government should note interfere in religion and treat everyone equally under the law. Who precisely does that hurt?

Does the anti-Brahmin, anti-Indian agenda hurt anybody? Yes, it does, and it has hurt lots of people already.

As for my POV - I'm not 100% decided, but I'm leaning overwhelmingly towards the non-AIT theory, because otherwise the pieces don't really fit. On one hand you have a culture which had vast cities, but which had no literature, and on the other, we have a nomadic culture with no cities nor access to to the sea, yet which went totally native within a few centuries of coming to India and composed a huge corpus of literature of unparalleled beauty in which the sea and urban life is an omnipresent background, and invented a near-perfect language and grammar in a few hundred years. Doesn't it make sense to conclude that they are one and the same?

[Elok]

I was never too fond of the Aryan Invasion. I prefer the British Invasion; the Beatles are so much better and less creepy than Prussian Blue.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Elok
I was never too fond of the Aryan Invasion. I prefer the British Invasion; the Beatles are so much better and less creepy than Prussian Blue.

The Aryans of today are far gentler than the British ever were.

[chequita guevara]

Anti-intellectualism

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Does my agenda hurt anybody? I'm a libertarian on many issues, and believe that the government should note interfere in religion and treat everyone equally under the law. Who precisely does that hurt?

That particular part doesn't. But then again, I consider the freedom of religion stance not something particularily Indian - it's overall libertarian.
I mean your conspirative perception of things, where bascially everyone and everything seems to conspire against your world view. And such ways of thinking have a tendency to hurt.

As for my POV - I'm not 100% decided, but I'm leaning overwhelmingly towards the non-AIT theory, because otherwise the pieces don't really fit. On one hand you have a culture which had vast cities, but which had no literature, and on the other, we have a nomadic culture with no cities nor access to to the sea, yet which went totally native within a few centuries of coming to India and composed a huge corpus of literature of unparalleled beauty in which the sea and urban life is an omnipresent background, and invented a near-perfect language and grammar in a few hundred years. Doesn't it make sense to conclude that they are one and the same?

Well, at first I have issues with attributes like "unparalleled beauty" and "near-perfect language". Reminds me of those muslims who claim that the veracity of Quran is proven by exactly the "unparalleled beauty" and the "perfect language" (so you're at least different by a "near" ).

Secondly, what makes it so impossible to think of the Aryans as a conquering elite that had no intention at all of destroying the whole culture beneath but rather taking up themselves many elements of the conquered culture, adding just certain parts.
I don't pretend to be even adequately educated on the issue to make any judgement on India, but that's how many conquests happened and how I imagine it. This way one could have an Aryan invasion and no complete cultural break.

[TCO]

The thing that matters is what is true, not what is politically convenient. It doesn't matter if the Brahmins or British want to beleive in Sanskrt as an invaders language over Dravidians. It doesn't matter if Unity India types prefer the opposite. What matters is what happened, not what helps your political cause.

Of course, this is a very Western point of view and goes along with things like rooting for the old ball game, a stiff upper lip and a prefernce for quinine...

[Barnabas]

I have read around half of the article you posted, and it is political, not scientific

I am quite sure that indo european languages are not native to India, so an invasion or migration must certainly have happened.

[Barnabas]

Ive read all of it, and it is not a scientific article about whether the aryan invasion happened or not.

It just explains why the Aryan Invasion theory is "bad" for Brahmins.

So you oppose this theory because you dont like it..

[Barnabas]

Aneeshm, what do you think of this?

Mitanni

was a Hurrian kingdom in northern Mesopotamia from ca. 1500 BC, at the height of its power, during the 14th century BC, encompassing what is today southeastern Turkey, northern Syria and northern Iraq (roughly corresponding to Kurdistan), centered around the capital Washshukanni in today's Al Hasakah Governorate of northern Syria. In Neo-Assyrian times, the name was used as a geographical term for the area between the Khabur river and Euphrates rivers.

The Mitanni kingdom is thought to have been a feudal state led by a warrior nobility of Indo-Aryan descent, invading the region at some point during the 17th century BC in the course of the Indo-Aryan migration that separated the Middle Bronze Age.



Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni

Some theonyms, proper names and other terminology of the Mitanni exhibit an Indo-Aryan superstrate, suggesting that an Indo-Aryan elite imposed itself over the Hurrian population in the course of the Indo-Aryan expansion.

In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni, the deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked. Kikkuli's horse training text includes technical terms such as aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, round). The numeral aika "one" is of particular importance because it places the superstrate in the vicinity of Indo-Aryan proper as opposed to Indo-Iranian in general.

Another text has babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita, grey), and pinkara (pingala, red). Their chief festival was the celebration of the solstice (vishuva) which was common in most cultures in the ancient world. The Mitanni warriors were called marya, the term for warrior in Sanskrit as well.

Sanskritic interpretations of Mitanni royal names render Shuttarna as Sutarna ("good sun"), Baratarna as Paratarna ("great sun"), Parsatatar as Parashukshatra ("ruler with axe"), Saustatar as Saukshatra ("son of Sukshatra, the good ruler"), Artatama as "most righteous", Tushratta as Dasharatha ("having ten chariots"?), and, finally, Mattivaza as Mativaja ("whose wealth is prayer"). Some scholars believe that not only the kings had Indo-Aryan names; a large number of other names resembling Sanskrit have been unearthed in records from the area.

Archaeologists have attested a striking parallel in the spread to Syria of a distinct pottery type associated with what they call the Kura-Araxes culture, however the dates they usually assign for this are somewhat earlier than the Mitanni are thought to have first arrived.

[TCO]

I think there are 3 points of view:

-Aryans originated in India (and liguistically spread from there to other places): this is the revisionist anishim-wants to believe view.
-Aryans invaded India, spreading the language: this is the orthodox view
-Aryans migrated to India, spreading the language

The second and third choices fit the linguistic evidence. Hard to tell, which one to beleive. Odds are that it was an invasion in some sense, in some sense a migration, based on how things work, but no good evidence either way. Certainly the first view seems not to be supported by linguistics (I have just read a book on language spreads of the world). Instead it seems to be put forward by weak brained people who want to make theories that help them rather than reveal best evidence on the actual truth.

The cited Iraqi info does not completely help as (I guess) the Aryans could still have come from India to Iraq (if they were in India that early).

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by TCO

The thing that matters is what is true, not what is politically convenient. It doesn't matter if the Brahmins or British want to beleive in Sanskrt as an invaders language over Dravidians. It doesn't matter if Unity India types prefer the opposite. What matters is what happened, not what helps your political cause.

Absolutely. Which is precisely why I find particularly irksome the summary dismissal of reams of contrary evidence by proponents of the AIT, and the personal attacks they make against their opponents without once addressing their actual arguments. This is a sure sign of insecurity.

Originally posted by TCO

Of course, this is a very Western point of view and goes along with things like rooting for the old ball game, a stiff upper lip and a prefernce for quinine...

No, actually, it's quite an Eastern point of view, too, which is why the religious history of India consists of one rebellion after another, each rebelling against and improving upon the idea which went before it, until invasions stopped this process.

You have the polythiesm of the Vedas, then you have the mysticism of the Upanishads, then you have the Buddha rebelling against that mysticism, then you have the formalisation of the schools of Hindu thought to rebel against the Buddhist teachings, and you have the Puranas expressing the rebellion, and finally you have the Advaita Vedanta, which rebelled against the faith-based nature and the ritualism of these Puranic and orthodox schools, after which there was the invasion and intellectual activity came to a halt.

[DaShi]

Perhaps if people in India were able to cope with the truth of their history, they could move on with their lives.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DaShi
Perhaps if people in India were able to cope with the truth of their history, they could move on with their lives.

We did not start this. It is the people wishing to divide India who try to incite people against Hinduism, and against Brahmins, who cause trouble. This is a reaction to that. A political response to a political problem. But it seems that the scholarly response is equally powerful, and most importantly, true.