User:Xiaopo/Scratchpad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. 1. 1. wikipedia:en # Indo-Aryan_migration # w?f- # 20061024205654 # 20061025033538 # NONE ###

This article or section may contain original research or unattributed claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

Indo-Aryan migration refers to the theory that speakers of Indo-Aryan languages migrated into the Indian subcontinent during the 2nd millennium BCE, as opposed to being autochthonous to the region.

Based on linguistic, archaeological and cultural evidence, most scholars (Mallory 1989, p. PLEASEADD) have argued that Indo-Aryan speakers migrated to northern India following the breakup of Proto-Indo-Iranian and the subsequent Indo-Iranian expansion out of Central Asia. These scholars argue that, in India, the Indo-Aryans interacted with the remnants of the Indus Valley civilization, a process that gave rise to Vedic civilization (Parpola 2005).

Archaeological data indicates that there was a shift of settlements from the Indus Valley region to the east and south during the later 2nd millennium BCE, but is inconclusive with regard to a preceding immigration into India ( Shaffer 1995, Shaffer 1999).

The linguistic facts of the situation are little disputed by the relevant scholars (Bryant 2001, p. 73–74). However, linguistic data alone cannot determine whether this migration was peaceful or invasive. Different linguists have argued for either, or for a combination of both, on extra-linguistic grounds.

[edit] History and political background

Main article: Aryan invasion theory (history and controversies)

In the earliest phase of Indo-European studies, Sanskrit was assumed to be very close to (if not identical with) the Proto-Indo-European language. Its geographical location also fitted the then-dominant Biblical model of human migration, according to which Europeans were descended from the tribe of Japhet, which was supposed to have expanded from Mount Ararat after the Flood. Iran and northern India seemed to be likely early areas of settlement for the Japhetites.

In the course of the 19th century, as the field of historical linguistics progressed, and Bible-based models of history were abandoned, it became clear that Sanskrit could no longer be given priority. In line with late 19th century ideas, an Aryan 'invasion' was made the vehicle of the language transfer. Max Muller estimated the date to be around 1500–1200 BC, a date also supported by more recent scholars.

The Indus Valley civilization, discovered in the 1920s, was unknown to 19th century scholars. The discovery of the Harappa and Mohenjo-daro sites changed the theory from an invasion of implicitly advanced Aryan people on an aboriginal population to an invasion of nomadic barbarians on an advanced urban civilization, an argument associated with the mid-20th century archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler. The decline roughly contemporaneous to the proposed migration movement was seen initially as an independent confirmation of these early suggestions (compare the causal relations between the decline of the Roman Empire and the Germanic Migration Period).

Among the archaeological signs claimed by Wheeler to support the theory of an invasion are the many unburied corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-daro. They were interpreted by Wheeler as victims of a conquest of the city, but Wheeler's interpretation is no longer accepted by many scholars (e.g. Bryant 2001). Wheeler himself expressed no certainty, but wrote, in a famous phrase, that "Indra stands accused".

In the later 20th century, ideas were refined, and so now migration and acculturation are seen as the methods whereby Indo-Aryan spread into northwest India around 1700 BCE. These changes are exactly in line with changes in thinking about language transfer in general, such as the migration of the Greeks into Greece (between 2100 and 1600 BCE), or the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe (between 2200 and 1300 BCE).

[edit] Political debate

The debate over such a migration, and the accompanying influx of elements of Vedic religion from Central Asia is still politically charged and hotly debated in India. Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) organizations, especially, remain opposed to the concept, for political, religious, and scientific reasons, while many Indian Marxists and a fraction of the Dalit Movement support the theory in opposition to the Hindu nationalists. Outside India, the perceived political overtones of the theory are not as pronounced, and it is discussed in the larger framework of Indo-Iranian and Indo-European expansion.

[edit] Linguistics

Linguists have several rules of thumb they use to gauge the place of origin of a family. One is that the area of highest linguistic diversity of a language family is usually fairly close to the area of its origin ( Dyen 1965, p. 15 cited in Bryant 2001, p. 142); thus, for example, while the modern nation with the highest number of speakers of Germanic languages is the United States, the highest diversity of longstanding Germanic languages is found in northern Europe. This is due to the fact that placing the origin of a language family in the area of least heterogeneity requires postulating the fewest number of migrations, and because of the unlikelihood of several linguistic features developing in an area without leaving any representatives behind. By this criterion, India, home to only the Indo-Aryan subfamily, seems to be an exceedingly unlikely candidate for the origin of the Indo-European languages. Mallory (1989:PLEASEADD) notes that "[i]t is far more logical to imagine that the Indo-Iranian languages had moved away from the mass of other Indo-European languages rather than the converse, and to argue otherwise is to engage in the same type of absurdity as assuming that the Finno-Ugric languages originated in Hungary." Conversely, such a criterion suggests a North Indian homeland for the Dravidian languages (McAlpin 1979). However, extinctions of unrecorded languages may affect this measure. Most linguists believe Indo-European to have originated somewhere around the Black Sea (Mallory 1989, p. 177–185): a favorite candidate is the Kurgan hypothesis.^[1]

The early formation of political states also affects the distribution of languages. The Punjab was in historical times settled by Iranians, Greeks, Kushans (replacing Greeks and their language), and Hephthalites, yet Indo-Aryan languages dominate, probably due to the dominance of later Indian empires and states. Hence in regions where Persian and Indian empires dominated many languages died out. This process can be seen in the elimination of Saka and Tocharian languages through the influence of Persians, Buddhism (spreading Prakrit language), and Turks.

[edit] Dialectical variation

Indo-European isoglosses, including the centum and satem languages (blue and red, respectively), augment, PIE *-tt- > -ss-, *-tt- > -st-, and m-endings.

It has long been recognized that a binary tree model cannot capture all linguistic alignments; certain areal features cut across language groups and are better explained through a model treating linguistic change like waves rippling out through a pond. This is true of the Indo-European languages as well. Various features originated and spread while Proto-Indo-European was still a dialect continuum.^[2] These features sometimes cut across sub-families: for instance, the instrumental, dative, and ablative plurals in Germanic, Baltic and Slavic feature endings beginning with -m-, rather than the usual -*bh-, e.g. Old Church Slavic instrumental plural synŭ-mi 'with sons',^[3] despite the fact that the Germanic languages are centum languages, while Baltic and Slavic are satem languages.

There is a close relationship between the dialectical relationship of the Indo-European languages and the actual geographical arrangement of the languages in their earliest attested forms that makes an Indian origin for the family unlikely.^[4] Given the geographic barriers separating the subcontinent from the rest of Eurasia, such as the Hindu Kush mountains and the existence of the various Indo-European sub-families, an Indian Urheimat would require several successive staggered migrations (c.f. Out of India theory). However, this would destroy the close arrangement between archaic shared linguistic features and geographical arrangement noted above. This arrangement is better explained by a radial expansion of the Indo-Europeans, a corollary of which is the migration of Indo-Aryan speakers into the subcontinent.

[edit] Substrate influence

Most of the languages of North India belong to a single language family, the Indo-Aryan subgroup of the Indo-European family of languages. The languages of South India belong to a different language family, the Dravidian languages, which has not been proven to be linked with any other language family.

The presence of retroflex consonants (including L) in Vedic Sanskrit is generally taken by linguists^[5] to indicate the influence of a non-Indo-European speaking substratum population.

• These sounds are found throughout Dravidian and Munda and are reconstructed for proto-Dravidian and proto-Munda.
• They are neither reconstructible for proto-Indo-European nor for proto-Indo-Iranian.
• They are also extremely rare among other Indo-European languages (they phonetically emerged in Swedish and Norwegian only in recent centuries).
• Presence of words with Dravidian and Munda etymologies in Sanskrit (some of these etymologies have been challenged, though most have not).

Critics argue that the "substratum" influences from Dravidian and Munda could equally well be adstratum influences through mutual contact without conquest, or superstratum given the advanced nature of the precedent Mature Harappan culture.^{[citation needed]}

While Dravidian languages are primarily confined to the South of India, there is a striking exception: the Brahui (which is spoken in parts of Baluchistan), the linguistic equivalent of a relict population, perhaps indicating that Dravidian languages were formerly much more widespread and were supplanted by the incoming Indo-Aryan languages.^[6]

[edit] Chronology

Archaeological cultures associated with Indo-Iranian migrations (after EIEC). The Andronovo, BMAC and Yaz cultures have often been associated with Indo-Iranian migrations. The GGC, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and PGW cultures are candidates for cultures associated with Indo-Aryan movements.

The Indo-Aryan migration is dated subsequent to the Mature Harappan culture and the arrival of Indo-Aryans in the Indian subcontinent dated during the Late Harappan period. Based on linguistic data, many scholars argue that the Indo-Aryan languages were introduced to India in the 2nd millennium BCE. The standard model for the entry of the Indo-European languages into India is that this first wave went over the Hindukush, forming the Gandhara grave culture or Swat culture, either into the headwaters of the Indus or the Ganges (and probably, both). The language of the Rigveda, earliest stratum of Vedic Sanskrit is assigned to about 1500-1200 BCE.^[7]

The separation of Indo-Aryans proper from Proto-Indo-Iranians has been dated to roughly 2000 BCE–1800 BCE. It is believed Indo-Aryans reached Assyria in the west and the Punjab in the east before 1500 BC: the Indo-Aryan Mitanni rulers appear from 1500, and the Gandhara grave culture emerges from 1600. This suggests that Indo-Aryan tribes would have had to be present in the area of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (southern Turkmenistan / northern Afghanistan) from 1700 BC at the latest (incidentally corresponding with the decline of that culture).

The Swat culture is the most likely locus of the earliest presence east of the Hindukush of the bearers of Rigvedic culture, and Parpola (1999) based on this assumes an immigration to the Punjab ca. 1700-1400, but he also postulates a first wave of immigration from as early as 1900 BC, corresponding to the Cemetery H culture.

Rajesh Kochhar^[8] argues that there were three waves of Indo-Aryan immigration that occurred after the mature Harrapan phase : the Murghamu (BMAC) related people who entered Baluchistan at Pirak, Mehrgarh south cemetery etc and later merged with the post-urban Harappans during the late Harappans Jhukar phase; the Swat IV that co-founded the Harappan cemetery H phase in Punjab and the Rigvedic Indo-Aryans of Swat V that later absorbed the cemetery H people and gave rise to the PGW culture. He dates the first two to 2000-1800 BCE and the third to 1400 BCE.

[edit] Early Indo-Aryans

See also: Mitanni

The earliest written evidence for an Indo-Aryan language dates to about 1500 BCE^[9] and is found in northern Syria^[10] in Hittite records regarding one of their neighbors, the Hurrian-speaking Mitanni.^[11] In a treaty with the Hittites, the king of Mitanni, after swearing by a series of Hurrian gods, swears by the gods Indara, Mitraśil, Naśatianna and Uruvanaśśil, who correspond to the Vedic gods Indra, Mitra, Nāsatya and Varuṇa.^[12] Contemporary equestrian terminology, as recorded in a horse-training manual whose author is identified as "Kikkuli the Mitannian" contains Indo-Aryan loanwords.^[13] The personal names and gods of the Mitanni aristocracy also bear traces of Indo-Aryan.^[14] In 1960, Paul Thieme demonstrated to the satisfaction of most scholars that this vocabulary was specifically Indo-Aryan, as opposed to Iranian or Indo-Iranian.^[15] Because of this association of Indo-Aryan with horsemanship and the Mitanni aristocracy, it is generally presumed that, after superimposing themselves as rulers on a native Hurrian-speaking population about the 15th-16th centuries BCE,^[16] Indo-Aryan charioteers were absorbed into the local population and adopted the Hurrian language.^[17]

Brentjes argues that there is not a single cultural element of central Asian, eastern European, or Caucasian origin in the Mitannian area and associates with an Indo-Aryan presence the peacock motif found in the Middle East from before 1600 BCE and possible as long ago as 2100 BCE.^[18]

However, received opinion rejects the possibility that the Indo-Aryans of Mitanni came from the Indian subcontinent as well as the possibility that the Indo-Aryans of the Indian subcontinent came from the territory of Mitanni, leaving migration from the north the only likely scenario.^[19]

There were also tribes (the Maiotes and Sindoi/Indoi) that spoke Indo-Aryan languages in the Ukraine.^[20] Kretschmer (1944) saw this as proof for the Pontic homeland hypothesis.^[21]

[edit] Textual References

[edit] Rigveda

Geography of the Rigveda, with river names; the extent of the Swat and Cemetery H cultures are indicated.

The Rigveda is by far the most archaic testimony of Vedic Sanskrit. It is often assumed that the Rigveda represents a pastoral or nomadic^{[citation needed]}, mobile culture, still centered on the Indo-Iranian Soma cult and fire worship. With all the effort to glimpse historical information from the hymns of the Rigveda, it should not be forgotten that the purpose of these hymns is ritualistic, not historiographical or ethnographical, and any information about the way of life or the habitat of their authors is incidential and philologically extrapolated from the context.^[22]

[edit] Rigvedic society as pastoral society

The mobile nature of the Vedic religion is illustrated by the laying out of the ritual precinct as part of the ritual, rather than the existence of fixed temples. This holds for the invitation of Indra to the Soma ritual as well as for the Agnicayana, the piling-up of the fire altar. Cities or fortresses (púr) are mentioned in the Rigveda mainly as the abode of hostile peoples, while the Aryan tribes live in vísa, a term translated as "settlement, homestead, house, dwelling", but also "community, tribe, troops".^[23]

Indra in particular is described as destroyer of fortresses, e.g. RV 4.30.20ab:

satám asmanmáyinaam / purâm índro ví asiyat

"Indra overthrew a hundred fortresses of stone."

The Rigveda does contain some phrases referring to elements of an urban civilization, other than the mere viewpoint of an invader aiming at sacking the fortresses. These references become increasingly frequent ^{[citation needed]} in the younger books 1 and 10, linguistically dated as contemporary to the early parts of the Atharvaveda and the mantras of the Yajurveda. Here, for example, Indra is compared to the lord of a city (purapatis) in RV 1.173.10, a ship with a hundred oars is mentioned in 1.116 and metal forts (puras ayasis) in 10.101.8. Since the Vedic books appear to have been composed over a long period of gradual change, rather than being a snapshot of society at one particular moment, these late Rigvedic books may indeed describe an urbanized amalgamation of pastoral Indo-Aryan culture with indigenous, Late Harappan elements even in the view of proponents of immigration, roughly representing the early phase of the Kuru kingdom (ca. 12th century BC). Furthermore, there were also cities in the Post-Harappan period in the Punjab region.

However, according to S.P. Gupta (1996), "ancient civilizations had both the components, the village and the city, and numerically villages were many times more than the cities. (...) if the Vedic literature reflects primarily the village life and not the urban life, it does not at all surprise us.". Gregory Possehl (1977) argued that the "extraordinary empty spaces between the Harappan settlement clusters" indicates that pastoralists may have "formed the bulk of the population during Harappan times".^[24] Agriculturalists, pastoralists as well as the city and village life may have coexisted in the same region. Such a view would imply that the only testimony surviving of Harappan times is not from the urban centers, but preserves the rituals of rural pastoralists living between the cities.

[edit] Rigvedic reference to migration

There is no explicit mention of an outward or inward migration in the Rigveda. In RV 7.6.3, Agni turned the godless and the Dasyus westward, and not southward, as would be required by some versions of the AIT.^[25] Some of the tribes that fought against Sudas on the banks of the Parusni River during the Dasarajna battle have maybe migrated to western countries in later times, as they are possibly connected with some Iranian peoples (e.g. the Pakthas, Bhalanas).^[26]

While the Avesta does mention an external homeland of the Zoroastrians, the Rigveda does not explicitly refer to an external homeland or to a migration. Later texts than the Rigveda (such as the Puranas) seem to be more centered in the Ganges region. This shift from the Punjab to the Gangetic plain continues the Rigvedic tendency of eastward expansion, but does of course not imply an origin beyond the Indus watershed.

[edit] Rigvedic Rivers and Reference of Samudra

Cluster of Indus Valley Civilization site along the possible course of Sarasvati/Ghaggar-Hakra River. See this for a more detailed map.

Main article: Sarasvati River

Main article: Samudra

The geography of the Rigveda seems to be centered around the land of the seven rivers. While the geography of the Rigvedic rivers is unclear in the early mandalas, the Nadistuti hymn is an important source for the geography of late Rigvedic society.

The Sarasvati River is one of the chief Rigvedic rivers. The Nadistuti hymn in the Rigveda mentions the Sarasvati between the Yamuna in the east and the Sutlej in the west, and later texts like the Mahabharata mention that the Sarasvati dried up in a desert.

Most scholars agree that at least some of the references to the Sarasvati in the Rigveda refer to the Ghaggar-Hakra River, while the Helmand is often quoted as the locus of the early Rigvedic river. Whether such a transfer of the name has taken place, either from the Helmand to the Ghaggar-Hakra, or conversely from the Ghaggar-Hakra to the Helmand, is a matter of dispute. Identification of the early Rigvedic Sarasvati with the Ghaggar-Hakra before its drying up would place the Rigveda well before 1700 BC,^[27] and thus well outside the range commonly assumed by Indo-Aryan migration theory.

A non-Indo-Aryan substratum in the river-names and place-names of the Rigvedic homeland would support an external origin of the Indo-Aryans. However, most place-names in the Rigveda and the vast majority of the river-names in the north-west of India are Indo-Aryan (Bryant 2001).

[edit] Iranian Avesta

The religious practices depicted in the Rgveda and those depicted in the Avesta, the central religious text of Zoroastrianism—the ancient Iranian faith founded by the prophet Zarathustra—have in common the deity Mitra, priests called hotr in the Rgveda and zaotr in the Avesta, and the use of a hallucinogenic compound that the Rgveda calls soma and the Avesta haoma. However, the Indo-Aryan deva, meaning 'god,' is cognate with the Iranian daeva, meaning 'demon'. Likewise, the Indo-Aryan asura, meaning 'demon,' is cognate with the Iranian ahura, meaning 'god,' suggesting that, at some point, a rivalry between Indo-Aryans and Iranians that found religious expression, as the Indologist Thomas Burrow has proposed.^[28]

Two alternative dates for Zarathustra can be found in Greek sources: 5000 years before the Trojan War, i.e. 6000 BCE, or 258 years before Alexander, i.e. the 6th century BCE, the latter of which used to provide the conventional dating but has since been traced to a fictional Greek source.^[29] Linguists such as Burrow argue that the strong similarity between the Avestan language of the Gathas—the oldest part of the Avesta—and the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rgveda pushes the dating of Zarathustra or at least the Gathas closer to the conventional Rgveda dating of 1500–1200 BCE,^[30] i.e. 1100 BCE, possibly earlier.^[31] Boyce concurs with a lower date of 1100 BCE and tentatively proposes an upper date of 1500 BCE.^[32] Gnoli dates the Gathas to around 1000 BCE,^[33] as does J.P. Mallory,^[34] with the caveat of a 400 year leeway on either side,^[35] i.e. between 1400 and 600 BCE. Therefore the date of the Avesta could also indicate the date of the Rigveda.

There is mention in the Avesta of Airyanem Vaejah, the legendary homeland of the Aryans as well as Zarathustra himself.^[36] Gnoli's interpretation of geographic references in the Avesta situates the Airyanem Vaejah in the Hindu Kush.^[37] For similar reasons, Boyce excludes places north of the Syr Darya and western Iranian places.^[38] With some reservations, Skjaervo concurs that the evidence of the Avestan texts makes it impossible to avoid the conclusion that they were composed somewhere in northeastern Iran.^[39] Michael Witzel points to the central Afghan highlands.^[40] Humbach derives Vaejah from cognates of the Vedic root "vij," suggesting the region of a fast-flowing river.^[41] Gnoli considers the lower Oxus region, south of the Aral Sea to be an outlying area in the Avestan world.^[42] However, according to Mallory and Mair, the probable homeland of Avestan is, in fact, the area south of the Aral Sea,^[43] which just happens to be the region of a fast-flowing river.

[edit] Other Hindu texts

Indologists have noted that "there is no textual evidence in the early literary traditions unambiguously showing a trace" of an Indo-Aryan migration.^[44] Texts like the Puranas and Mahabharata belong to a later period than the Rigveda, making their evidence less sufficient to be used for or against the Indo-Aryan migration theory.

According to the Yajur Veda, Yajnavalkya (one of the Vedic Seers) lived in the eastern region of Mithila.^[45] Aitareya Brahmana 33.6.1. records that Vishvamitra's sons migrated to the north, and in Shatapatha Brahmana 1:2:4:10 the Asuras were driven to the north.^[46]

Manu was said to be a king from Dravida.^[47] In the legend of the flood he stranded with his ship in Northwestern India or the Himalayas.^[48] The vedic land (e.g. Aryavarta, Brahmavarta) is located in Northern India or at the Sarasvati and Drsadvati River, according to Hindu texts.^[49] In the Mahabharata Udyoga Parva (108), the East is described as the homeland of the Vedic culture, where "the divine Creator of the universe first sang the Vedas."^[50] The legends of Ikshvaku, Sumati and other Hindu legends may have their origin in South-East Asia.^[51]

[edit] Puranas

The evidence from the Puranas is often disputed because they are a comparably late text. They are often dated from c.400 to c.1000 CE. The Rgveda dates from before 1200 BCE. Thus the Rgveda and the Puranas are separated by approximately 1600 to 2200 years, though scholars argue that some contents of the Puranas may date to an earlier period.^[52][53]

The Puranas record that Yayati left Prayag and conquered the region of Saptha Sindhu.^[54] His five sons Yadu, Druhyu, Puru, Anu and Turvashu became the main tribes of the Rigveda.

The Puranas also record that the Druhyus were driven out of the land of the seven rivers by Mandhatr and that their next king Ghandara settled in a north-western region which became known as Ghandara. The sons of the later Druhyu king Pracetas finally migrate to the region north of Afghanistan. This migration is recorded in several Puranas.^[55][56]

[edit] Vedic and Puranic genealogies

The Vedic and Puranic genealogies indicate a greater antiquity of the Vedic culture.^[57] The Puranas themselves state that these lists are incomplete.^[58] But the accuracy of these lists is disputed. In Arrian's Indica, Megasthenes is quoted as stating that the Indians counted from Shiva (Dionysos) to Chandragupta Maurya (Sandracottus) "a hundred and fifty-three kings over six thousand and forty-three years."^[59] The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (4.6.), ca. 8th century BCE, mentions 57 links in the Guru-Parampara ("succession of teachers"). This would mean that this Guru-Parampara would go back about 1400 years, although the accuracy of this list is disputed.^[60] The list of kings in Kalhana's Rajatarangini goes back to the 19th century BCE.^[61]

[edit] Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra

Witzel (1989) quoted a passage of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra (BSS 18.44) as a "direct statement" of Indo-Aryan immigration. R.S. Sharma argued that this passage contains "the most explicit statement of immigration into the subcontinent".^[62] However, Witzel's translation of this passage was later criticized by Koenraad Elst, who wrote: "Far from attesting an eastward movement into India, this text actually speaks of a westward movement towards Central Asia, coupled with a symmetrical eastward movement from India's demographic centre around the Saraswati basin towards the Ganga basin."^[63] Other Indologists like Cardona,^[64] Willem Caland, C.G. Kashikar, D.S. Triveda, Toshifumi Goto and Hans Hock translated the passage like Elst.^[65] Since the BSS is a comparatively late text, its content is unsuitable as conclusive evidence regarding the hypothesis either way.

[edit] Archaeology

There is no clear evidence in the archaeological record for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into India.^[66] Many archaeologists argue that the available data reflects indigenous cultural developments.^[67] J. M. Kenoyer and many other archaeologists have pointed out that "current evidence does not support a pre- or proto-historic Indo-Aryan invasion of southern Asia. Instead, there was an overlap between Late Harappan and post-Harappan communities, with no biological evidence for major new populations."^[68] Furthermore, scholars like D. K. Chakrabarti have also pointed out that northwestern India always had cultural exchanges and trade contacts with Afghanistan and other western regions.^[69] According to Erdosy, cultural traits that have been associated with Vedic culture "originate in different places at different times and circulate widely" and it is therefore "impossible ... to regard the widespread distribution of certain beliefs and rituals ... as evidence of population movements.".^[70]

However, proponents of the theory believe that the Indo-Aryans were nomadic or at least peripatetic, following their herds of cows around from pasture to pasture. Consequently they had no permanent settlements; the RgVeda only mentions temporary huts^{[citation needed]}}. These leave no archaeological record. So it is only to be expected that the migrations left no archaeological traces.^{[citation needed]} The Huns are a comparable instance. No one doubts that the Huns actually invaded parts of western Europe on more than one occasion. Yet — because the Huns were nomads — they left no archaeological remains behind. The records come from other sources.

[edit] Proto-Indo-Iranians

Main article: Indo-Iranians

Scholars commonly accept the identification of the Andronovo-Sintashta-Petrovka culture (ca. 2200 BC–1600 BC) as Indo-Iranian, i.e. ancestral to both Indo-Aryans and Iranians.^[71] Proto-Indo-Iranians are usually identified with the Sintashta-Petrovka culture of Russia and Kazakhstan. It is there that the earliest chariots are found.^[72] The follow-up Andronovo culture and BMAC correspond to the earliest phase of the rapid expansion that would reach into the Caucasus, the Iranian plateau, Afghanistan, and the Indian Subcontinent.

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 Vedic Aryans of the Rigveda were actually located in the BMAC.^[73] Other scholars have argued that cultural links between the BMAC and the Indus Valley can also be explained by reciprocal cultural influences uniting the two cultures.^[74]

Other scholars^[75] have argued that the Andronovo culture cannot be associated with the Indo-Aryans of India or with the Mitannis 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.^[76] The archaeologist J. P. Mallory (1998) found it "extraordinarily difficult to make a case for expansions from this northern region to northern India" and remarked that the proposed migration routes "only gets the Indo-Iranian to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans".^[77] The evidence disputing this argument, is both linguistic and archaeological (for linguistic arguments, see e.g. Hans Hock in Bronkhorst & Deshpande 1999)

[edit] Indus Valley Civilization

Indo-Aryan migration into the northern Punjab is thus approximately contemporaneous to the final phase of the decline of the Indus-Valley civilization (IVC). Many scholars have argued that the historical Vedic culture is the result of an amalgamation of the immigrating Indo-Aryans with the remnants of the indigenous civilization, such as the Ochre Coloured Pottery culture. Such remnants of IVC culture is not yet present in the Rigveda, with its focus on chariot warfare and nomadic pastoralism in stark contrast with an urban civilization.

The decline of the IVC from about 1900 BC is not universally accepted to be connected with Indo-Aryan immigration. A regional cultural discontinuity occurred during the second millennium BC and many Indus Valley cities were abandoned during this period, while many new settlements began to appear in Gujarat and East Punjab and other settlements such as in the western Bahawalpur region increased in size. Shaffer and Liechtenstein stated that: "This shift by Harappan and, perhaps, other Indus Valley cultural mosaic groups, is the only archaeologically documented west-to-east movement of human populations in South Asia before the first half of the first millennium B.C..".^[78] This could have been caused by ecological factors, such as the drying up of the Ghaggar-Hakra River and increased aridity in Rajasthan and other places. The Indus River also began to flow east and floodings occurred.^[79] Jim Shaffer and other scholars have argued that these "internal cultural adjustments" could reflect "altered ecological, social and economic conditions affecting northwestern and north-central South Asia" and do not necessarily imply migrations.^[80]

At Kalibangan (at the Ghaggar river) the remains of what some writers claims to be fire altars have been unearthed. Some of their characteristics suggest that they could have been used for Vedic sacrifices. In addition the remains of a bathing place (suggestive of ceremonial bathing) have been found near the altars in Kalibangan.^[81] S.R. Rao found similar "fire altars" in Lothal which he thinks could have served no other purpose than a ritualistic one.^[82]

[edit] Horse and chariot

early 2nd millennium introduction of the chariot to India is consistent with the overall picture of the spread of this innovation (Mesopotamia 1700, China 1600, N Europe 1300).

Main articles: History of the horse in South Asia and Ratha

The spread of Indo-Aryan languages has been connected with the spread of the chariot in the first half of the second millennium BC. Elements supposedly introduced to India in the course of the migration include the Soma cult, as well as the horse and chariot.

About 1800 BCE, there is a major cultural change in the Swat Valley with the introduction of new ceramics and two new burial rites: flexed inhumation in a pit and cremation burial in an urn which, according to early Vedic literature, were both practiced in early Indo-Aryan society.^[83] The economy of the Swat culture not only includes the horse, but there are two horse burials as well as other horse-trappings.^[84]

Attempts of proponents of continuity to portray the Rigvedic culture as native to the subcontinent, such as identification of horses or chariots in Indus Valley Civilization art, have met with little or no acceptance.^[85]

[edit] Archaeogenetics and physical anthropology

Main article: Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia

Kenneth Kennedy (1984), who examined 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley civilization, concludes that the ancient Harappans “are not markedly different in their skeletal biology from the present-day inhabitants of Northwestern India and Pakistan”(p.102).

A later study^[86] finds no evidence of discontinuities in the skeletal record during and immediately after the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization. The two discontinuities that Kennedy finds in the prehistoric skeletal record do not correspond to the second millennium BCE. The first of these discontinuities occurred between 6000-4500 BCE (a separation of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic inhabitants of Mehrgarh), and the second occurred after 800 BCE (between 800-200 BCE). He concludes that "there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture. If Vedic Aryans were a biological entity represented by the skeletons from Timargarha, then their biological features of cranial and dental anatomy were not distinct to a marked degree from what we encountered in the ancient Harappans.” (1995: 54). Comparing the Harappan and Gandhara cultures, Kennedy remarks that: “Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.” (1995: 49). The craniometric variables of prehistoric and living South Asians also showed an "obvious separation" from the prehistoric people of the Iranian plateau and western Asia (1995: 49).

Brian E. Hemphill and Alexander F. Christensen's study (1994) of the migration of genetic traits does not support a movement of Aryan speakers into the Indus Valley around 1500 BC. According to Hemphill's study, "Gene flow from Bactria occurs much later, and does not impact Indus Valley gene pools until the dawn of the Christian era." In a more recent study, Hemphill concludes that "the data provide no support for any model of massive migration and gene flow between the oases of Bactria and the Indus Valley. Rather, patterns of phenetic affinity best conform to a pattern of long-standing, but low-level bidirectional mutual exchange."^[87]

[edit] Alternate Theories

The opinion of the majority of professional archaeologists interviewed by Edwin Bryant in India during the 1990's was that there is no archaeological evidence to support external Indo-Aryan origins, or that the data is inconclusive.^[88] Kenoyer argued: "Although the overall socioeconomic organization changed, continuities in technology, subsistence practices, settlement organization, and some regional symbols show that the indigenous population was not displaced by invading hordes of Indo-Aryan speaking people. For many years, the ‘invasions’ or ‘migrations’ of these Indo-Aryan-speaking Vedic/Aryan tribes explained the decline of the Indus civilization and the sudden rise of urbanization in the Ganga-Yamuna valley. This was based on simplistic models of culture change and an uncritical reading of Vedic texts..."^[89]

Even though several alternate theories have been proposed, Indo-Aryan migration theory, as described in this article remains to be the most accepted. Its main contenders are the Anatolian hypothesis(1987) and Out of India theory, and there are many lesser accepted^{[citation needed]} suggestions such as the Paleolithic Continuity Theory.

[edit] Anatolian hypothesis

The Anatolian hypothesis suggests that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) lived in Anatolia in the Neolithic, and associates the distribution of historical Indo-European languages with the expansion during the Neolithic revolution during the 7th and 6th millennia. For this theory to be consistent with Indo-Aryan presence in India during the Mature Harappan period, the Indo-Iranians would have had to migrate east around 3000 BC, reaching the Indus Valley before 2600 BC. The Iranians could have migrating back west after 1900 BC.

[edit] Paleolithic Continuity Theory

The Paleolithic Continuity Theory suggests that the Indo-European languages somehow originated in Paleolithic times in Europe.

[edit] Out of India Theory

An "Out of India Theory" is proposed by some scholars, (e.g. S.S. Misra,^[90] David Frawley).^[91] Based mainly on archaeological evidence and references in Hindu texts, the Out of India theory proposes the idea of the Indo-European languages originating in India. However, some linguists do not consider South Asia a serious candidate for Proto-Indo-European origin,^[92] though some astronomers differ citing Hindu texts and analyzing star patterns,^[93] eclipses, and the like to justify OIT and the historicity of Hindu texts.

[edit] Notes

[edit] Bibliography and References

[edit] See also

• Indo-Aryans, Aryan, Arya, Aryavarta, Indo-Aryan languages
• Rigveda
• Indo-Iranians, Indo-Iranian languages
• BMAC, Andronovo culture
• Mitanni
• Kurgan

[edit] External links

• DMOZ listing
• Elst, Koenraad: Update on the Aryan Invasion Theory - K. Elst's Online book, Articles, Book reviews
• Thapar, Romila: The Aryan question revisited (1999)
• Witzel, Michael: The Home of the Aryans
• Kazanas, Nicholas homepage Articles by Nicholas Kazanas
• Web Index to AIT versus OIT debate
• Agarwal, Vishal: Is There Vedic Evidence for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to India? (pdf)
• BBC The case against the Aryan invasion theory

Archaeology

• Cache of Seal Impressions Discovered in Western India
• Central Asia 2000-1000BC (Metmuseum.org)
• Lal, B.B.: The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts By Archaeologist B.B. Lal
• Danino, Michel: The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and its Bearing on the Aryan Question Article by Michel Danino
• Agrawal, D.P.: The Indus Civilization = Aryans equation: Is it really a Problem? By D.P. Agrawal (pdf)

Genetics

• Genetic Evidence on the origins of Indian Caste Population, Genome Research, 2001
• A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios, PNAS paper, 2006
• Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists, AJHG paper, 2006

Religious and political aspects

• A Tribute to Hindusim - compilation
• Frawley, David: The Myth of the Aryan Invasion