Re: AIT

--- In cybalist@..., "Mark DeFillo" <ategnatos@...> wrote:

> I have read on the subject of IndoEuropean origins and the Aryan

Invasion

> (of India) Theory for a number of years, looking carefully at

scholars from

> all points of view, from those who say that savage Aryans invaded

India,

> destroying a great Dravidian culture, to those who say that India

is the PIE

> Urheimat.
>
> As far as I have been able to see from all of this, it appears that

the

> origin of the AIT was the speculations of the early Indologists,

who were

> Christian, many of them actual missionaries with admittedly

subversive aims

> (to try to disprove Hindu history and religion in order to convert

the

> Indians)... the famous Boden chair of Sanskrit was founded

specifically with

> this same aim. At the same time, these scholars also had the

preconceived

> notion that European culture depended on the Romans and Greeks, and

that

> anything before the Roman conquest was nothing more than crude

savagery.

> Knowing that the Indo-European history of Europe was apparently a

string of

> invasions, it must have seemed quite reasonable to assume the same

for

> India, coupled with the fact that India has been suffering a string

of

> invasions for a number of millennia. All this shows the background

of their

> thoughts.
>
> As far as fact goes, I have seen no substantial (hard) evidence for

the

> Aryan Invasion of the famous theory. For what it is worth, the

traditional

> literature of India has no mention of such an invasion. Neither any

part of

> the Dravidian literature, nor any part of the Sanskritic literature

(Hindu,

> Buddhist or Jaina) that I have heard of suggest anything of the

sort. I also

> find it relevant that both literatures (as distinguished by

language family)

> apply the name "Aryan" to both Sanskritic and Dravidic speaking

peoples.

Aryan is an ethnic not a racial designation and so when Dravidians,
Mundas, etc. were assimilated into the Sanskritic culture they can
legitimately said to have become Aryans. Besides in India "Aryan"
has undergone a change in meaning parallel to that of the word
"noble" which originally only meant "belonging to the aristocracy"
but now more often is used in the sense "honorable, selfless,
dignified, etc." So in India the title of Aryan was eventually
extended to anybody who upheld Vedic mores.

> While there are variations between the cultures of North and South

India,

> there are also copious parallels.
>
> On the other hand, the extreme opposite, the "Out of India" theory

held by

> some Hindu nationalists also appears inaccurate, and contrary to

traditional

> literary evidence. This literary evidence comes out of the academic

world of

> the millennias-old civilization of India.
>
> While there are Hindu nationalist scholars who insist that India

must be the

> homeland of IndoEuropeans, and that Sanskrit is the "real PIE",

there are

> others that have a more balanced and objective viewpoint. In Europe

and its

> colonies there are "white supremacists" who sometimes deny that the

people

> of India are "real Aryans";

The white supremacists are insane and selectively "connect-the-dots"
with historical evidence to draw just the picture that they want to
see and ignore anything that doesn't fit. Unfortunately though it
seems that some Indian scholars have adopted the same approach.

> similarly, these more extreme Hindus deny that
> Europeans are "real Aryans."

Europeans aren't "real Aryans", except for the Rom and the Ossetians
whose very ethnic self designation "Ir" is a reflex of the name
Aryan. The term only legitimately applies to the Indo-Iranians and
possibly their (cultural) descendants. Using "Aryan" for "Indo-
European" is based on a mistake that has now been corrected and is
comparable to the bad habit of calling America's indigenous
people "Indians".

> As for the more balanced viewpoint, while it has a respectful

attitude

> towards India's earlier generations in its unbroken line of

academics, it

> also uses archeology and other disciplines that can provide other

forms of

> evidence.
>
> What do they find? While there are archeological sites along the

Indus

> river, there are far more that belong to the same culture along the

banks of

> the dried up Sarasvati and its former tributaries. Every indication

is that

> this culture gradually shifted to the Ganges river, as ecological

changes

> dried up Sarasvati and created a desert in her place. But no sign

of massive

> war or invasion. These scholars see clear continuity between the

Saraswati

> river culture and the Ganges river culture.
>
> Did Aryans ever invade India? Of course... the lands north of India

were

> always full of Indo-Aryan speakers. And the literature of India

clearly

> states that the area north of the Himalayas also had many "Aryan"

kingdoms.

> Similarly, therefore, some Hindu nationalist scholars conclude that

the

> Urheimat was a area centered on the mountains north of India, and

including

> all the surrounding regions, including northern India. Aside from

that, it

> is worth remembering that ancient India was bigger than the modern

state

> called India, and extended further in most directions, including

into Asia.

>
> They do, in fact, recognize a possible migration into India of

Aryan

> culture, but far earlier, in the aftermath of the last great Ice

Age.

How much earlier? Too much earlier and there are no Aryans to be
found anywhere. What time period is the "aftermath of the last great
Ice Age"?

> Invasions and warfare probably occurred in both directions, but

they see no

> reason to think of any "Aryan Invasion" as a key turning point in

the way

> portrayed by the non-Indian mainstream theory.
>
> In short, I see the ideas of the more-objective of the Indian

scholars as

> the most balanced in regard to taking into account the full

spectrum of

> relevant evidence.
>
> Mark DeFillo

A true historian or scientist is not in the service of national,
racial or ethnic pride and interests but should be dedicated solely
to the discovery of the truth.
-David