The term "invasion" (especially in the
singular) may imply more abruptness than there really was, but it seems
safe to identify the "Vedic Aryans" with the Indo-Aryan speakers who reached the
Indus Valley ca. 1400-1250 BC. They may have been preceded by other pastoralist
groups speaking related but distinct Indo-Aryan dialects.
The Indo-Aryans may have contributed to the collapse of the Indus Valley
civilisation, but it is likely that they were opportunistic invaders who
simply took advantage of its decline, caused primarily by ecological factors.
They were apparently first integrated into pre-Aryan social structure as an
influential minority (landowners rather than village labourers) replacing the
native élite, but their symbiosis with the local agricultural communities
gradually led to the diffusion of Old Indo-Aryan as lingua franca of North India
-- a process in which it replaced the indigenous languages but simultaneously
absorbed their features.
The above chronology is consistent
with the historically documented expansion of Indo-Aryans and their Iranian
cousins in the Middle East, and with scenarios locating the Proto-Indo-Iranian
unity in the North Pontic steppes about 2000 BC. If there were any truth in
the "Out of India" theory, traces of linguistic influence diffusing from the
neighbouring non-Indo-European groups of the Indian subcontinent -- especially
(Proto-)Dravidian -- should be visible in all branches of the Indo-European
family. However, such influence, while massive in Indo-Aryan, does not extend
even to Iranian. Also, one would expect Proto-Dravidian to have been detectably
affected by PIE itself, not only by the Indo-Aryan languages. PIE was very
different from Sanskrit, and the contrast should be reflected e.g. in different
chronological layers of loanwords.
Hindu nationalism may satisfy some
people's emotional needs as a response to British imperialism in political
terms, but sadly fails as a research programme in archaeology or linguistics. As
for the history of the "Harappan Horse Fraud", see this URL:
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 4:34 AM
Subject: [tied] Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT)
Some in India have questioned this view, with some even
calling it something invented to justify European imperialism and missionary
activity. Their view was that the Vedas describe the Harappans and earlier
cultures, and that Sanskrit not introduced from outside but was always spoken in
India. From which some go so far as to conclude that the Indo-European homeland
had been northern India.
However, everything I've seen indicates that the
"Aryan invasion" was real, and that the invasion had happened after the collapse
of Harappan society. Is that a reasonable conclusion?
For example, one
big bit of evidence is horses, which are rare or absent in Harappan
remains; Harappan seal stamps depict bulls, crocodiles, tigers, rhinos,
elephants, etc. -- but no horses. However, the Vedas are full of references to
horses. Some anti-AIT advocates have recognized this paradox and have offered an
example of a Harappan seal that seemingly shows a horse, a "horse" that is more
likely a damaged depiction of a bull. This has been called the Piltdown Horse by
some critics of anti-AIT views.