Aryan invasion theory

The Aryan invasion theory was first put forward by German Indologist Friedrich Max Müller and others in the mid 19th century. This theory is contentious, for both political and historical reasons, but is currently generally accepted by most historians.

The theory holds that a Caucasian race of nomadic warriors known as the Aryans, originating in the Caucasus mountains in Central Asia, invaded Northern India and Iran, somewhere between 1800 and 1500 BC. The theory further proposes that this race displaced the indigenous Dravidian people and their Indus Valley Culture, and that the bulk of the indigenous people moved to the Southern reaches of the subcontinent. The Aryans brought with them their own Vedic religion, which was codified in the Vedas around the 1000 BC. Upon arrival in India, the Aryans abandoned their nomadic lifestyle and intermixed with the Dravidians remaining in the north of India.

At this time most historians accept the theory, although the idea of a large-scale invasion that was prevalent around 1900 has given way to some extent to the idea of a much more modest invasion, in which the Aryans either merged in with the existing population or formed its upper layer.

This theory has recently been challenged by certain individuals who believe that no such migration or invasion occurred, and that the Indus Valley civilization was the civilization described in the Vedas.

Evidence for and against an invasion

Although there is very little archaeological evidence for an invasion (resulting in the transformation of the theory to a migration), there are a variety of arguments supporting either an Aryan migration or a continuous Indus Valley culture.

The linguistic divide is one of the strongest pieces of evidence supporting a migration. North Indian languages derived from Sanskrit are part of the Indo-European family of languages; the languages of south India belong to a different linguistic family, the Dravidian languages, with Tamil, a very distinct language in its own right (with literature and tradition nearly as ancient as Sanskrit, and disjoint from the Vedic), as the probable root of linguistic evolution.

While Dravidian languages are primarily confined to the south of India, there is a striking exception: the Brahui, which is spoken in the Indus Valley area, indicating that Dravidian languages were formerly much more widespread and were supplanted by the incoming Indo-European languages such as Sanskrit.

It is important to note that the linguistic evidence was put forth by linguists who only have a passing knowledge of south indian languages. The paper http://www.datanumeric.com/dravidian/ puts forth a theory that the proto dravidian language is the common source of indo-european languages. The discovery of dravidian origin of the language of the Gaunches in the Canary Islands of Europe provide evidence regarding connection between Dravidian and Indo-European languages. Gaunches derived from Dravida. Persons who speak both south and north indian languages natively can usually detect words in south indian languages that have the same meaning in european languages but are absent or rarely used in north indian languages. Such as onedu = one; kollu = kill; chali = chill; atta=attic. For a comprehensive list, see Indo-European Dravidian words. Most of these words appear in 10th century kannada literature long before contact with europeans. This discovery pretty much destroys the linguistic evidence supporting the aryan invasion theory.

Another major argument against identifying the Indus Valley civilization with a continuous, indigenous Vedic civilization is that the society described in the Vedas is primarily a pastoral one, whereas the Indus Valley civilization was heavily urbanized. Few of the elements of such an urban civilization (e.g., temple structures, sewage systems) are described in the Vedas.

Recently, the excavation of Dholavira in the Gujarath province of India shows a city that is consistent with vedic principles of city planning: arameshthina, madhyamesthina and avameshtina or upper, middle and lower cities. The external site http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/week_indus.html has more details.

In addition there is little or no evidence of the use of horses in the Indus Valley civilization, while the Vedas make frequent mention of the horse. (The earliest domestication of the horse and the first use of horses in South Asia is a topic of great dispute.) Similar weight has been placed on differences in the types of metals used in either civilization; the worship of the bull in contrast to the Vedic cow-worship; the importance of the tiger in the Indus Valley civilization and its absence in the Vedic texts; and the heavy consumption of fish by the Indus Valley dwellers in contrast to the virtual absence of fish in the Vedas.

However, the above argument is weakened by the fact that the horse was not absent from the sites at Lothal, Surkotda and Kalibangan. The bull is mentioned many times in the vedas, for example verses comparing Soma to the bull [Rig Veda, trans. Wendy O’Flaherty. Penguin Classics, 1981, pages 119, 121] and Exploits of Indra [Rig Veda, trans. Wendy O’Flaherty, pages 138-139, 148-151] Cow worship is not vedic, it originated during the time of Krishna the cowherd. There are no verses in the vedas that speak about cow-worship.

The issue might be settled definitively by the deciphering of the many seals found at Indus Valley sites, which are written with an unknown script. If it were a Dravidian script this would confirm the theory that an indigenous culture was supplanted by an outside one. If it were Indo-Aryan it would support the alternative claims. However, the script remains undeciphered. Attempts to translate the script into some form of Sanskrit have been notable failures.

Opponents of the theory state that evidence in the Vedas points to a considerably earlier dating of the text. As an example, they argue that the positions of stars described in the Vedas occurred in 3500 to 4000 BC and point out that there is no account in the text of an invasion, of a great migration, or of an ancestral homeland in Central Asia.

There is, however, considerable description of a river Saraswati. Recent geological evidence (taken from satellite photographs) has uncovered the existence of a dry riverbed -- the Hakra River -- going through the Punjab area in the Indian subcontinent.

A few historians believe this river is the Saraswati described in the Vedas. Many of the archaeological Indus Valley sites lie along the remains of this riverbed, suggesting that the Indus Valley civilization may have flourished between these two rivers. Around 1900 BC, however, the Hakra river appears to have dried up (due to earthquakes and the shifting of the path of the tributary Yamuna river, which turned from feeding the Hakra to feeding the Ganges), causing the decline of the Indus Valley civilization.

Proponents of the theory of Aryan invasion argue that the identification of the Saraswati with the Hakra would lead to inconsistencies, and that the Saraswati is very probably a particular river in Afghanistan, that is known to have had a very similar name. They also point to the linguistic and religious similarities between the Vedas and early Iranian sacred literature such as the Avesta. The languages and the names of gods are very similar and both involve the ritual drinking of Soma.

Politics

Like much of history, this question is immensely politically charged. Followers of the Hindu nationalist Hindutva movement very much wish to dispense with the Aryan invasion theory in favor of a continuous, ancient, and sophisticated Vedic civilization. In contrast there are many South Indians who have adopted the 'Dravidian' identity as a matter of ethnic pride.

Rejection of the theory by some proponents of Hindutva might also be motivated by the fact that the Aryan Invasion theory indicates that the Indian caste system was probably originally a means of social engineering by the Aryans to establish and maintain a superior position compared to the Dravidians in Indian society. This is a source of discomfort for some. The dominance in post-independence India of socialist accounts of history meant that this view prevailed for many years in Indian universities. The recent emergence of Hindutva as a significant force in Indian politics, and the consequent desire of some for a fantastically glorious historical past, is perhaps the more likely cause of changing attitudes rather than sound archaeology.