Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 12th, 2014, 03:00 AM   #1

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410
Inherent flaw of Aryan 'migration' theory


Scholars currently have started inclining themelves towards a migration theory of Aryans as against the original theory of invasions which was based on the emphasis of war in early Brahmanical accounts - but this transition is basically due to pressure from the later new school of nationalistic historians. But this theory of migrations is inherently flawed because of a very simple reason which is often overlooked, and which has to do with the definition of migration itself.

Migration of Aryans eastwards towards India would imply the part they occupied and later dominated - so much so that the region became identified as 'Aryavarta' - wad previously an uninhabited territory of virgin forests. Because if it wasn't uninhabited , the original inhabitants should have resisted their 'encroachment' into their territories, as is expected in the tribal stages. And if there was conflict for territory,after which the Indo-Aryans imposed their dominance in the Haryana/Punjab area, it means that the original inhabitants were either largely displaced, massacred or enslaved. In any of these cases, the 'Aryan' advance towards the east cannot be a simple migration, but an invasion. For example, the Europeans were not merely migrants to America, they were also invaders.

So why do the scholars keep pushing the theory of migrations of Aryans despite this flaw?
Rakshasa is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 12th, 2014, 04:37 AM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2014
From: Lithuania
Posts: 1,553

I think it is quite common when speaking about event that were so long ago, that we have no written sources and no other archaeological findings that prove existence of war between two groups.

For example ancestors of today Lithuanians begun to form 5000 years ago. All we have are archaeological findings of two kinds of ceramic pots. People who made more primitive pots already lived near Baltic sea, and another group that used rope to decorate ceramics came to the region and become dominant culture.

We can fantasize that there was war and resistance, but we have no proof whatsoever. So historians state only what they know, that new culture migrated to Baltic Sea and become dominant. To say more would be fiction, not science.
janusdviveidis is online now  
Old March 12th, 2014, 05:29 AM   #3
hob
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 453

It defies logical inference doesn't it?


A. If a group of non ANI people 'migrated' into ancient north India, and were too small in number to effect the genetics of the local population--how would such a number be able to influence an urban civilization to abandon their own language and culture? And not only to abandon their own language and culture but to change the very place names into purely Sanskrit ones?

B. If language and cultural displacement in North India actually happened, it would need to be by a large group that didn't speak the local languages at all. For the 'migration' theory to remain consistent, these people would have to move in to the area just as the locals are abandoning the Indus cities and moving towards the Genetic-plain leaving the area empty.

C. Since genetically there is no such indication of a non ANI or non ASI group in the local genomes coming into North India in the last 12000 years, this would mean that this group genetically was either ANI or ASI.


C. If we maintain that The Indus civilization did not speak Indo-european langauges, that could only mean that a ASI group spoke this language and practiced this culture and they introduced it. That would mean that there was an influx of people into South India from South east Asia that effected the local Indo-european culture there pushing those people north into abandoned Indus sites. As these sites became totaly inhospitable these people expand into persia, central asia, and the middle east and then europe. By inference that would mean that the Indus Valley people spoke Tibeto-Burman languages. That Vedic culture is completely South Indian. And last, it still would mean a OIT, only with ASI expanding instead of ANI.

Conversely a group of Vedic ANI were already living somewhere in central asia and they invaded into North India pushing the ASI south.


OR, we can assume that a proto Sanskrit Indus valley people who are proven to have been trading with Central Asians and Mesopotamians, who already knew these areas, spread the 'Indo-european' languages. That it is just ANI spreading further into India, central Asia, the Middle east and into eastern europe due to the ecological shifting of their river systems making their cities inhabitable.
hob is offline  
Old March 12th, 2014, 06:12 AM   #4

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,210
Blog Entries: 2

Indo-Aryan migration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basic Research people, you'll find the answers to most of your questions here itself. There's a reason a majority of historians back this theory. It has something to do with this tiny thing historians like to rely on to formulate theories. We call it evidence...
tornada is offline  
Old March 12th, 2014, 08:55 AM   #5

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
Indo-Aryan migration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basic Research people, you'll find the answers to most of your questions here itself. There's a reason a majority of historians back this theory. It has something to do with this tiny thing historians like to rely on to formulate theories. We call it evidence...

Can you summarize please? Some of us here cannot read the whole wiki article. I dont use wiki as absolute source anyway.


Do you believe that the Aryans migrated to North India which was largely uninhabited?

If it wasn't uninhabited what reason do you give for the fact that the region was "Aryanized" (i.e Aryan culture, religion and language imposed on the natives) without any force? Can you give any other similar transition from elsewhere on Earth at the same time when a migrant ended up influencing the native majority instead of vice versa?

Do you think that the belligerence evident from the Hymns of the Vedas is mere bulls ****s and has no historical correlation? The Vedas give the impression that the Indo-Aryans were not simply nomadic wanderers, but they were war like tribes not different from the Central Asian Turkic peoples or Hunas or Mongols etc.
Rakshasa is offline  
Old March 12th, 2014, 09:03 AM   #6

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,210
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
Can you summarize please? Some of us here cannot read the whole wiki article. I dont use wiki as absolute source anyway.


Do you believe that the Aryans migrated to North India which was largely uninhabited?

If it wasn't uninhabited what reason do you give for the fact that the region was "Aryanized" (i.e Aryan culture, religion and language imposed on the natives) without any force? Can you give any other similar transition from elsewhere on Earth at the same time when a migrant ended up influencing the native majority instead of vice versa?

Do you think that the belligerence evident from the Hymns of the Vedas is mere bulls ****s and has no historical correlation? The Vedas give the impression that the Indo-Aryans were not simply nomadic wanderers, but they were war like tribes not different from the Central Asian Turkic peoples or Hunas or Mongols etc.
No. I will not summarize. I've summarized, explained and debated in circles often enough with you in the past to see that it is fruitless. I am not here to convince you. You've said that there are inherent flaws in the theory. I've posted a link which presents the theory, and various scholarly works are cited, based on which the article in question is built (I also don't care if you don't consider wiki a source for anything). This is simply so that people who see this thread are given a context. Whether they choose to agree with the theory or with your refutations is not a debate i will engage in for the umpteenth time.

Last edited by tornada; March 12th, 2014 at 09:07 AM.
tornada is offline  
Old March 12th, 2014, 09:04 AM   #7

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Quote:
A. If a group of non ANI people 'migrated' into ancient north India, and were too small in number to effect the genetics of the local population--how would such a number be able to influence an urban civilization to abandon their own language and culture?
Who are the ANI? The Jats, Gujjars, Rajputs etc, and other similar Caucasians of Northern India did not come to India in "ancient times". They are the Indo-Scythians, Hepthalites, Kushans/Yue-Chih, Greeks, and other Iranic Caucasians who came around the time of the birth of the Christ. If you exclude them, most of the North Indians today do not look Caucasians at all - in other words, they do not look any different from the Southern Indians.

So I doubt the classification of ancient Indians as ANI and ASI based on genetic sampling of modern Indians. Its like throwing a dart on a white wall, and then marking a circle around it to claim victory. THis classification extremely flaws because it assumes that there was an invisible great wall of India in the North Western boundaries of India which restricted the migration in and out of the boundary to India. The problem is that significant peoples like the Gurjara-Pratiharas, the white Hunas, the Indo-Scythians, etc have been coming to India, and reaching as far as Central India till a very late time in history.

Futhermore, what is the "urban civilization" of Northern India before the arrival of Caucasian (Iranic or Turkic?) Indo-Aryans? Was it the urban civilization of the Austro-Asiatic or Dravidoid peoples of India?
Rakshasa is offline  
Old March 12th, 2014, 09:11 AM   #8

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
No. I will not summarize. I've summarized, explained and debated in circles often enough with you in the past to see that it is fruitless. I am not here to convince you. You've said that there are inherent flaws in the theory. I've posted a link which presents the theory, and various scholarly works are cited, based on which the theory is built. This is simply so that people who see this thread are given a context. Whether they choose to agree with the theory or with your refutations is not a debate i will engage in for the umpteenth time.
'Migration' is not mutually exclusive to 'invasion'. In fact, 'migration' is often preceded or accompanied by an invasion or simply a movement towards a free land. For example, Europeans migrated to Australia - which also involved an invasion. 'Migration' could also imply the mass movement of a persecuted people to a foreign land - but they never end up dominating their hosts culturally and linguistically.

My problem is with people who try to use the word 'migration' to imply that the settlement - and imposition of culture and language - was a peaceful process, as opposed to an "invasion".

What do you think was the racial demographics of India in 2nd AD?
Rakshasa is offline  
Old March 17th, 2014, 08:47 PM   #9

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,429

migration: an act of going from one country, region, or place to another.

invasion: an act of entering forcefully as an enemy, especially by an army.

P.S: definitions taken from dictionary.com
mnsr is offline  
Old March 17th, 2014, 09:05 PM   #10

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 6,052
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
Can you give any other similar transition from elsewhere on Earth at the same time when a migrant ended up influencing the native majority instead of vice versa?
The Persians began as a vassal immigrant tribe in the Iranic lands of today's Iran. I take it that at first they were a minority, even if a substantial minority.

And then there were also the Hittites. But they were a powerful military elite who melded into the native majority of the then Anatolia, the Hatti, n blended into their culture, while imposing the Hittites' own language on the latter.

Last edited by Dreamhunter; March 17th, 2014 at 09:11 PM.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
aryan, flaw, inherent, migration, theory



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aryan Invasion Theory - India Rasta Asian History 1554 December 28th, 2014 01:35 AM
The lie that Slavs were non-Aryan under the Third Reich? They were Aryan! SphereSmiler General History 15 November 4th, 2013 09:29 AM
Eisenhower: Fatal Flaw JBach717 American History 16 November 20th, 2011 09:08 PM
Inherent Worth Robespierre Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 12 July 11th, 2011 06:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.