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 16:02, 28 February 2007 view sourceSbhushan (talk | contribs)784 edits BB Lal says Sanskrit and not Proto Indo-Iranin. As always I am finding what you quote is not what the citation says. I have been cleaning up your POV for about 4 months now.← Previous edit Revision as of 17:34, 28 February 2007 view source Dbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 editsm Reverted edits by Sbhushan (talk) to last version by Paul BarlowNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
The notion of '''''Indigenous''''' (viz., to ]) '''''Aryans''''' is the proposal that speakers of ], 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. He proposes the label "Indigenous Aryanism" for this thesis, and clarifies that, in strict linguistic terms, "Indigenous Indo-Aryanism" would be correct, to differentiate from other connotations of "Aryan".</ref> It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenous Aryan 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. The notion of '''''Indigenous''''' (viz., to ]) '''''Aryans''''' is the proposal that speakers of ], 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. He proposes the label "Indigenous Aryanism" for this thesis, and clarifies that, in strict linguistic terms, "Indigenous Indo-Aryanism" would be correct, to differentiate from other connotations of "Aryan".</ref> This contrasts with the mainstream model of ] which posits that Indo-Aryan tribes migrated to India.
⚫ 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 ]<ref>some "proponents" do attempt to give it a "scholarly" face by rejecting mainstream academia as outdated, thus Rajaram 1995, page 230, (cited in Bryant 2001 page 74) ''"Ancient Indian history is ripe for a thorough ] one can begin by clearing away the cobwebs cast by questionable linguistic theories, using every available modern tool from archaeology to computer science''"</ref> 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.<ref>e.g. ] who in claims that the Rigveda "must antedate ca. 2000 BCE" based on what he calls "literary-cum-archaeological-cum-hydrological-cum-radiocarbon evidence".</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 ]<ref>some "proponents" do attempt to give it a "scholarly" face by rejecting mainstream academia as outdated, thus Rajaram 1995, page 230, (cited in Bryant 2001 page 74) ''"Ancient Indian history is ripe for a thorough ] one can begin by clearing away the cobwebs cast by questionable linguistic theories, using every available modern tool from archaeology to computer science''"</ref> or ], while more moderate proposals (postulating the 5th millennium BC ] as the locus of Proto-Indo-Aryan) can qualify as bona fide scholarship, albeit far removed from mainstream opinion.<ref>e.g. ] who in claims that the Rigveda "must antedate ca. 2000 BCE" based on what he calls "literary-cum-archaeological-cum-hydrological-cum-radiocarbon evidence". Putting together the various parts of this jigsaw puzzle, it would mean that if the Vedas reflect the literary counterpart of the Harappan archaeological complex, the Harappans spokes a language called Sanskrit. And since the Harappan Culture had its roots going deep at least into the fifth millennium BCE, it would imply that the Sanskrit-speakers were there in this area as early as that.</ref>


==Historiographical Context== ==Historiographical Context==
Line 22: Line 21:
{{main|Out of India theory}} {{main|Out of India theory}}


The "Indigenous Aryans" position would be a necessary corollary of an Indian origin of the ].<ref>if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, some predecessor of any daughter langauge found outside India must have emigrated from there; Bryant 2001 page 6</ref>. Thus ] Theory is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenous Aryan 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> The "Indigenous Aryans" position would be a necessary corollary of an Indian origin of the ].<ref>if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, some predecessor of any daughter langauge found outside India must have emigrated from there; Bryant 2001 page 6</ref>. Hence, it is often conflated with the stronger claim of an "]" origin of Indo-European, which has been suggested sporadically since the 19th century (notably by ]), but has virtually no support in mainstream scholarship.


==Notes== ==Notes==

Revision as of 17:34, 28 February 2007

The notion of Indigenous (viz., to India) Aryans 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. This contrasts with the mainstream model of Indo-Aryan migration which posits that Indo-Aryan tribes migrated to India. 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 more moderate proposals (postulating the 3rd millennium BC Harappan civilization as the locus of Proto-Indo-Iranian) can qualify as bona fide scholarship, albeit far removed from mainstream opinion.

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, and its earliest portions are usually dated to the mid 2nd millennium BC, consistent with a Proto-Indo-Iranian breakup of ca. 2000 BC.

"Indigenous Aryans" and Proto-Indo-European

Main article: Out of India theory

The "Indigenous Aryans" position would be a necessary corollary of an Indian origin of the Indo-European languages.. Hence, it is often conflated with the stronger claim of an "Out of India" origin of Indo-European, which has been suggested sporadically since the 19th century (notably by Friedrich Schlegel), but has virtually no support in mainstream scholarship.

Notes

  1. Bryant 2001 page 4. He proposes the label "Indigenous Aryanism" for this thesis, and clarifies that, in strict linguistic terms, "Indigenous Indo-Aryanism" would be correct, to differentiate from other connotations of "Aryan".
  2. some "proponents" do attempt to give it a "scholarly" face by rejecting mainstream academia as outdated, thus 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"
  3. e.g. B.B. Lal who in The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts claims that the Rigveda "must antedate ca. 2000 BCE" based on what he calls "literary-cum-archaeological-cum-hydrological-cum-radiocarbon evidence".
  4. Bryant 2001 page 6
  5. 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.
  6. US text row resolved by Indian, 9 Sep, 2006
  7. if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, some predecessor of any daughter langauge found outside India must have emigrated from there; 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
  • N. S. Rajaram, The politics of history : Aryan invasion theory and the subversion of scholarship (New Delhi : Voice of India, 1995) ISBN 81-85990-28-X.
  • 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: