Arguments For Aryan Invasion Theory

This article does not offer any new arguments for the AIT other than rehashing 150 old linguistic ``evidence``. The author says that he does not take any books/articles with the word ``Aryan Invasion,`` in them and yet his own article includes those very words.

I would like to respond to this article from two angles:

1. The much lauded overwhelming ``linguistic evidence`` for the AIT is not conclusive at all.

2. There has been at least one major revision of linguistic based migration theories in favor of a theory verified by more exact sciences like genetics and archeology.

Issue # 1: The linguistic evidence can be explained in other ways also. Mr. Koenrad Elst who is an IE linguistic scholar has addressed this issue in ``An Update on The Aryan Invasion Debate,`` an Aditya Prakashan. He uses the same Kentum/Satum argument used by the linguistics to support their theory. The linguistics argue that the word for ``hundred`` in an Greek (?) or some other European language, is kentum and the Sanskrit equivalent is Satem. The process of transforming the velars to palatals is a one way process and hence the original home land of the PIE (Proto Indo European) speakers must be in the Kantum territory meaning outside India probably Central Asia, even though no such archeological sites have been found. Mr. Elst argues that in fact the Uhreimat (homeland) of the PIE speakers is more likely to be in Satem territory i.e. India, because people who transported the IE languages to Europe must have left BEFORE the k-s shift took place. In fact India still has the a language of the kentum type surviving: Bangani. He has also analysed the evidence from Linguistic Paleantolgy to make his case for an IUT (Indian Uherimat Theory). Mr. Oberoi cannot just dismiss these arguments because of some bias he has against Koenraad Elst.

Issue # 2: When the linguists are finally proved wrong as I am sure they will be it will not be for the first time. This has happend in a major way with the controversy about migration of Natives to the New World (the Americas).

Conventional wisdom had lended support for the ``Clovis First`` which puts the arrival of Native Americans just before the ice age (around 12,000 BCE) through Siberia into norhtern Alaska and down to the southern tip of South America. Linguistic scholars as usual hurridely jumped in with their arm chair theories about the spread of nearly 1000 native languages. These languages were first classified into 50+ groups which were later combined into 26 and finally to just 3 by Greenberg, a Stanford linguist. This evidence was taken as overwhelmingly conclusive in support of the Clovis first theory.

However some scholars were proposing a much earlier migration around (30,000 BCE) through a ``Coastal migration Theory) a scenerio in which Natives could have travelled along the North and South American coastiline at least 18,000 years before the ice age set in. These scholars were laughed out by the linguist until:

An archeologist from University of Kentucky discovered an astonishingly well preserved native settlement on the coast of Chile. The carbon C-14 datings of 12,000 BCE and earlier were so accurate all the way down to more than an dozen layers of this settlement. Even the strongest linguistic proponents of the Clovis first theory were completely silenced. The whole course of ancient history of the Americas was turned UPSIDE DOWN. The Coastal Migration Theory was also supported by the extremly exact gentic evidence.

The same thing is going to happen, nay its already happening in case of the PIE Uhreimat. The ancient datings of sites like Mehargar do not support the invasion/migration theory at all, and the current time table give to them. Its only a matter of time when more settlements like Mohanjodora will be discovered as far east as New Delhi. Linguistics will be sent packing to obsecurity.

To conclude, the ``overwhelming linguistic evidence`` in suppport of an invasion/migration is not so conclusive at all. In fact most of that evidence can be turned around to support IUT/OIT.

In the mean time amateur scholars like Mr. Oberoi should try to refrain from exhibiting their obvious colonial bias that everything in India must have come from the West.

As it has already been mentioned before the article offers no new arguements in the favour of the Aryan Invasion Theory. My advice to Rohan is to read the books that I mention here:
1. The invasion that never was by Michael Danino
2. The Real Eve: Modern Man`s Journey out of Africa by Stephen Oppenheimer.
To the best of my knowledge none of these belong to the Sangh Parivar (if indeed belonging to Sangh Parivar automatically discounts one`s opinion as merely being Hindu nationalist). I am no supporter of VHP, Bajrang Dal etc but do not base my opinoins about them solely on the basis of information provided by the English media in India.
A few observations before I try to refute the author`s opinions.

``These people -- like Kak, Frawley and Rajaram -- have no background and no interest in linguistics, in history, in genuine, professional scholarship. They are cheap frauds. Their books argue at a level that would be laughed out of a first-year undergraduate history class. They proudly trot out arguments that are ridiculous nonsense.``

He leaves no stones unturned to malign Kak, Frawley, Fuerstein, Gautier and such people. I would recommed the author visit the website of Subhash Kak who happens to be a professor of Electrical Engineering at the Louisiana State University. There he would find a number of scholarly papers and articles on Indology
http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/hist.html
which could not have been written without significant research into the matter. If castigating them is premise for proving his point, it is laughable.

Anyway, coming back to the point : the second book mentioned above, The Real Eve; the author after pathbreaking study of DNA from all over the world proposes the migration patterns of humanity out of Africa. And much to the chagrin of the AIT supporters, I`m sure, there is no migration pattern out of Europe to India or to anywhere; exactly the opposite. So this discounts the Aryan Invasion or Migration theory absolutely on the basis of hard genetics.

As far as this article is concerned the author keeps harping on lingusitcs. Lingusitcs is not the only discipline utilized to estimate ancient history. There is absolutely no lingustic evidence whatsoever for the existence of any Proto Indo European Language. Nor is there any lingustic evidence to support the theory that Indo-Aryan languages were brought from outside. The author mentions near-unanimity about this amongst modern scholars without any names.

From amongst the human remains found at the Harappan sites, none of them have been distinctly different. Which discounts the claim for presence of two separate races. One being the ``Aryan`` invaders and other being the ``Dravidians``. In fact none of the terms Aryan or Dravidian has any racial connotation. Former being an ennobling quality and latter being a geographical entity. Panchdravid as mentioned in ancient books refers to the south of India including Maharashtra and Gujarat.

The author talks about pre-literate societies and their short memories and goes on with examples from other cultures. But the fact that he conveniently forgets is that Indian tradition has always been oral rather than literate. Thousands of hymns and verses have been passed down to generations for millienia. To claim that they could not have remembered their originial homeland through litereature is absolute rubbish. More so in the case where there were more than one wave of migration as claimed by some of the ``esteemed`` historians at JNU.

The author picks out from literature that is convenient to him e.g. the horse. What about river Saraswati?
Rg Veda abound with verses that praises the river Saraswati. And satellite images and studies have proved the existence of the river Saraswati and drying of the same circa 1900 BC. And all the Harappan sites have been found on the dry bed of the same. So there is no reason to believe that the authors of Rg Veda were not from the subcontinent. It also points to the continuity between Harappan and so called Aryan civilization discouting any migrations from outside of an alien culturel

Anyway the author has used some unconvincing lingustic concepts to prove the AIT with brute force discouting the literary and archeological evidences conveniently. And if Stephen Oppenheimer is to be believed, migration out of Europe is out of question, genetically.


People tend to forget that in modern ages writing history is influenced as much by archeology, literature, etc as geo-politics. Aryan invasion theory and its by product the PIE are both products of the same euro centric policy. Max Mueller, the father of the Aryan Invasion theory in his later years refuted it! But some so called scholars clung to it as if their life depended on it. The fact that invasionists changed their theory from invasion to migration and then to waves of migration signals a loss of face for them. If they are to be believed why haven`t they come up with the Uhreimat the Orginial Homeland for the Aryans and the PIE?? All European nations from England to Germany to Russia have claimed to the Uhreimat which is ridiculous. Although my school history text book told me it was the Caucasus montains in central Europe there are a large number of opinions by the invasionists as far as the origin is concerned.

In conclusion, to discount the anti invasion/migration theory as being purely Hindu nationalist would be a grave mistake. Neither archeologically, lingustically, literarily or genetically is the migration theory viable. I would strongly suggest the readers to read the book by Stephen Oppenheimer : it is a no nonsense scientific/ genetic proof for the unviability of the invasion/migration out of Europe theory.