Misplaced Pages

Indigenous Aryanism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:44, 25 February 2007 view sourceDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 edits better term← Previous edit Revision as of 21:36, 27 February 2007 view source Sbhushan (talk | contribs)784 edits replacing propoganda OR with exact quotes from Bryant (2001)Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
The notion of '''''Indigenous''''' (viz., to ]) '''''Aryans''''' is the proposal that "]s", that is, speakers of ],<ref>See, e.g. R. Schmitt, in the ]</ref> are "]" to the ]. The claim is thus that the ] language evolved out of an earlier stage ''in situ'', somewhere in ]. This contrasts with the mainstream model of ] which posits that Indo-Aryan tribes migrated to India ''after'' the formation of Proto-Indo-Iranian. The notion of '''''Indigenous''''' (viz., to ]) '''''Aryans''''' (in strict linguistic terms, Indigenous Indo-Aryan) is the proposal that speakers of ],<ref>Bryant 2001 page 4</ref> are "]" to the ]. The claim is thus that the ] and pre-Vedic language evolved out of an earlier stage ''in situ'', somewhere in ]<ref>Bryant 2001 page 4</ref>. It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenist position. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages. Indo-Aryan was preceded by Indo-Iranian, which was preceded, in turn, by Indo-European; so if Indo-Aryan was indigenous to India, its predecessors must have been also. Hence, if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, all the other cognate languages must have emigrated from there<ref>Bryant 2001 page 6</ref>. This contrasts with the mainstream model of ] which posits that Indo-Aryan tribes migrated to India ''after'' the formation of Proto-Indo-Iranian.

⚫ The concept is notable in ] as part of ] propaganda. In its extreme forms, postulating "Aryans" in the ] period (7th to 5th millennia BC), it qualifies as ] or ], while some proposals reject ] calling it pseudo-science<ref>Rajaram 1995, page 230, cited in Bryant (2001) page 74 - Ancient Indian history is ripe for a thorough revision…. one can begin by clearing away the cobwebs cast by questionable linguistic theories, … using every available modern tool from archaeology to computer science</ref>.


⚫ The concept is notable in ] as part of ] propaganda. In its extreme forms, postulating "Aryans" in the ] period (7th to 5th millennia BC), it qualifies as ] or ], while more moderate proposals (postulating the 3rd millennium BC ] as the locus of Proto-Indo-Iranian) can qualify as bona fide scholarship, albeit far removed from mainstream opinion.


==Historiographical Context== ==Historiographical Context==
"Indigenous Aryans" is usually taken to imply that the bearers of the ] were linguistically Indo-Iranians, with the split of Iranian and Indo-Aryan dated to ] times. In any "Indigenous Aryan" scenario, speakers of ] must have left India at some point prior to the ], when first mention of ] is made in Assyrian records, but likely before the 16th century BC, before the emergence of the ] which is often identified as a Proto-Iranian culture.<ref>See, e.g., ], ''L'Iran et la migration des Indo-aryens et des Iraniens'' (Leiden 1977). Cited by Carl .C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, ''Archeology and language: the case of the Bronze Age Indo-Iranians'', in Laurie L. Patton & Edwin Bryant, ''Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History'' (Routledge 2005), p.162.</ref> "Indigenous Aryans" is usually taken to imply that the bearers of the ] were linguistically Indo-Aryans<ref>Bryant 2001 page 6</ref>. In any "Indigenous Aryan" scenario, speakers of ] must have left India at some point prior to the ], when first mention of ] is made in Assyrian records, but likely before the 16th century BC, before the emergence of the ] which is often identified as a Proto-Iranian culture.<ref>See, e.g., ], ''L'Iran et la migration des Indo-aryens et des Iraniens'' (Leiden 1977). Cited by Carl .C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, ''Archeology and language: the case of the Bronze Age Indo-Iranians'', in Laurie L. Patton & Edwin Bryant, ''Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History'' (Routledge 2005), p.162.</ref>


==Political significance== ==Political significance==
Line 17: Line 18:
==Evidence== ==Evidence==
===Rigveda=== ===Rigveda===
Proponents often claim that the ] can be shown to date to the 3rd millennium BC (or earlier), in particular based on arguments in involving the ], and sometimes ]. The date of the Rigveda is clearly a ] for Indo-Aryan presence in the ], but a 3rd millennium is neither necessary nor sufficient for an Indo-Iranian ''Urheimat'' in India: a Proto-Indo-Iranian ''Urheimat'' is just as compatible with a mainstream (2nd millennium) date of the Rigveda, while a 3rd millennium Rigveda would prove Indo-Aryan presence in India in the Mature Harappan period, but would still leave open the location of the Indo-Iranian Urheimat. Proponents often claim that the ] can be shown to date to the 3rd millennium BC (or earlier), in particular based on arguments in involving the ], and sometimes ]. The date of the Rigveda is clearly a ] for Indo-Aryan presence in the ].<noinclude>Bryant 2001 page 6 clearly states that Indigenous Aryan means ] see exact quote aboue.</noinclude>


==="Indigenous Aryans" and Proto-Indo-European=== ==="Indigenous Aryans" and Proto-Indo-European===
{{main|Out of India theory}} {{main|Out of India theory}}

The Indigenous Aryan notion is often combined with the proposition of ] models, assuming that not just Proto-Indo-Iranian, but the ] itself evolved in India. This is a stronger claim, and does imply "Indigenous Aryans" as a corollary. The "Indigenous Aryan" scenario is not compatible with the mainstream ] of Indo-European origins, but it is equally compatible with Out of India and ] models. In the "Anatolian" case, a pre-Indo-Iranian migration to India could have taken place any time between the 5th and the 3rd millennia, Indo-Iranian would have developed in ] times, and early ] would have re-emigrated out of India in Late Harappan times.
] theory is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenous Aryans Theory. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages. Indo-Aryan was preceded by Indo-Iranian, which was preceded, in turn, by Indo-European; so if Indo-Aryan was indigenous to India, its predecessors must have been also. Hence, if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, all the other cognate languages must have emigrated from there<ref>Bryant 2001 page 6</ref>.


==Notes== ==Notes==

Revision as of 21:36, 27 February 2007

The notion of Indigenous (viz., to India) Aryans (in strict linguistic terms, Indigenous Indo-Aryan) is the proposal that speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, are "indigenous" to the Indian subcontinent. The claim is thus that the Vedic and pre-Vedic language evolved out of an earlier stage in situ, somewhere in Northern India. It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenist position. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages. Indo-Aryan was preceded by Indo-Iranian, which was preceded, in turn, by Indo-European; so if Indo-Aryan was indigenous to India, its predecessors must have been also. Hence, if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, all the other cognate languages must have emigrated from there. This contrasts with the mainstream model of Indo-Aryan migration which posits that Indo-Aryan tribes migrated to India after the formation of Proto-Indo-Iranian.

The concept is notable in Indian politics as part of Hindu nationalist propaganda. In its extreme forms, postulating "Aryans" in the Neolithic period (7th to 5th millennia BC), it qualifies as pseudohistory or national mysticism, while some proposals reject Historical linguistics calling it pseudo-science.


Historiographical Context

"Indigenous Aryans" is usually taken to imply that the bearers of the Harappan civilization were linguistically Indo-Aryans. In any "Indigenous Aryan" scenario, speakers of Iranian languages must have left India at some point prior to the 10th century BC, when first mention of Iranian peoples is made in Assyrian records, but likely before the 16th century BC, before the emergence of the Yaz culture which is often identified as a Proto-Iranian culture.

Political significance

Further information: Nationalism and ancient history

The concept is of great notability in Indian politics as the stated ideology of Hindu nationalist ("Hindutva") movements. It is based on Hindu reformist currents such as Arya Samaj or Gayatri Pariwar that emerged in the 19th century.

It is designed as the ideological counterpart of the Anti-Brahmanism of Dravidistan or "self respect" movements on one hand, effectively reflecting the conflict of Indo-Aryan vs. Dravidian ethnic nationalism (the main ethnic division of the population of the Republic of India), and the conflict between Hinduism and Islam in India on the other hand (the main religious division of the Republic of India). The implicit argument is that "Indigenous Aryans" take away any claim of priority from the Dravidian population, making both groups equally "autochthonous" while at the same time facilitating the portrayal of Islam as a recent and "foreign" violent intrusion into a monolithic and immutable native Indo-Aryan (Hindu) culture of incalculable antiquity.

Repercussions of these divisions have reached Californian courts with the Californian Hindu textbook case, where according to the Times of India historian and president of the Indian History Congress, D. N. Jha in a "crucial affidavit" to the superior court of the state of California,

"Giving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, asked the court not to fall for the 'indigenous Aryan' claim since it has led to 'demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture'."

Evidence

Rigveda

Proponents often claim that the Rigveda can be shown to date to the 3rd millennium BC (or earlier), in particular based on arguments in involving the Sarasvati River, and sometimes archaeoastronomy. The date of the Rigveda is clearly a terminus ante quem for Indo-Aryan presence in the Punjab.Bryant 2001 page 6 clearly states that Indigenous Aryan means Out of india see exact quote aboue.

"Indigenous Aryans" and Proto-Indo-European

Main article: Out of India theory

Out of India theory is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenous Aryans Theory. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages. Indo-Aryan was preceded by Indo-Iranian, which was preceded, in turn, by Indo-European; so if Indo-Aryan was indigenous to India, its predecessors must have been also. Hence, if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, all the other cognate languages must have emigrated from there.

Notes

  1. Bryant 2001 page 4
  2. Bryant 2001 page 4
  3. Bryant 2001 page 6
  4. Rajaram 1995, page 230, cited in Bryant (2001) page 74 - Ancient Indian history is ripe for a thorough revision…. one can begin by clearing away the cobwebs cast by questionable linguistic theories, … using every available modern tool from archaeology to computer science
  5. Bryant 2001 page 6
  6. See, e.g., Roman Ghirshman, L'Iran et la migration des Indo-aryens et des Iraniens (Leiden 1977). Cited by Carl .C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Archeology and language: the case of the Bronze Age Indo-Iranians, in Laurie L. Patton & Edwin Bryant, Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History (Routledge 2005), p.162.
  7. US text row resolved by Indian, 9 Sep, 2006
  8. Bryant 2001 page 6

Literature

  • Template:Harvard reference
  • Bryant, Edwin, The indigenous Aryan debate, diss. Columbia University (1997). (abstract)
  • Kazanas, Nicholas (2001b). "Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rgveda". Journal of Indo-European Studies. 29: 257–93. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
  • Lal, B. B., The Sarasvati flows on: The continuity of Indian culture, Aryan Books International (2002), ISBN 8173052026.
  • Mallory, JP. 1998. A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia. In: The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia. Ed. Mair. Washingion DC: Institue for the Study of Man.
  • Template:Harvard reference
  • Talageri, S. G., The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi in 2000 ISBN 81-7742-010-0

See also

External links

See Out of India, Indo-Aryan migration and Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) for links on the philological, historical and archaeological aspects of the topic, and Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia for genetic aspects.

Religious and political aspects

Categories: