Linguistic Arguments for AIT/AMT
Neutral Source:
Indo-Aryan migration is a theory based primarily on linguistics and the Kurgan hypothesis which suggests that the proto-Indo-Aryan people of South Asia were settlers from Central Asia who migrated to northern part of the Indian subcontinent more than two millennia ago. Models of this theory discuss scenarios of prehistoric migrations of Indo-Aryans to their historically attested areas of settlement in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, postulated to have started around 1500 BC. Claims of migration are drawn primarily from linguistic research. According to Shaffer, archaeological evidence for a mass population movement, or an invasion of South Asia in the pre- or proto- historic periods, has not been found. At best, there is evidence of small-scale migrations approaching South Asia. Archaeological evidence suggests that the change from the Indus Valley civilization to Vedic civilization could have been a gradual cultural change. It has been proposed by some scholars that the Indo-Aryan language derives from an earlier Proto-Indo-Iranian stage, usually identified with the Bronze Age Sintashta and Andronovo culture northeast of the Caspian Sea. Migration of Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers to and within Northwestern parts of South Asia is consequently presumed to have taken place in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, contemporary to the Late Harappan phase (ca. 1700 to 1300 BC). Linguistics has been the primary basis of Aryan Immigration theories; no evidence of massive migration has been found through examination of skeletal remains. The ancient Harappans were not markedly different from modern populations in Northwestern India and present-day Pakistan. Craniometric data showed similarity with prehistoric peoples of the Iranian plateau and Western Asia, although Mohenjodaro was distinct from the other areas of the Indus Valley
Indo-Aryan migration theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The AIT is primarily supported by a linguistic argument which goes like this. In whatever place one presumes to position the original homeland(Central Asia, Southern Russia), one has to first account for the presence of every member of the Indo-European family to be present & then all of them to migrate in a particular order, every single one of them with no exceptions and which is followed by a return by one of the earliest migrating groups back to the original homeland after all others have left. Why one group cannot simply stay there is this; the Indo-Aryans, the Iranians, the Greeks & the Armenians have to be the last to leave with the Indo Aryans & Iranians separating last after the Greeks at first & the Armenians later separated from this group. The evidence for this line of separation is from the Isoglosses.
Why is this important? Some suggest that they do not subscribe to the dating normally provided for Aryan Migration since other evidence conflicts with it but still subscribe to the theory itself and offer up other earlier dates as a concession. However the linguistic pattern of migration as set out now requires a certain date since there are other migrating branches who need to be dated to their earliest attested lands by the time the Indo-Aryans & the Iranians end up in their final places. Earlier than 1500 BCE & all existing linguistic hypothesis start to fall by the wayside.
The linguistic "evidence" is also used to test any hypothesis put forward. Contrary to what some here like to portray, there is no overwhelming consensus on a particular homeland theory, only preferred hypothesis, each of whom are vehemently disputed by scholars supporting another theory.
The problem with any long migration
(Linguistically) is that it simply fails to explain the
Greek-Indo-Iranian problem. All evidence(linguistic) points to an extremely late separation between Greek & Indo-Iranian, in the very last stages of the PIE. A long migration southwards & an early separation between Greek & Indo-Iranian from the very north or a North-South migration from the Anatolian homeland makes it difficult to explain the close grammatical correspondence between them & is a point constantly raised by linguistic opponents of the Anatolian homeland theory even though the same problem crops up even for a northern homeland. A problem that remains to be solved.
There is also the Tocharian problem. Linguists simply have not come with any clear theory on the Tocharians, they simply mess up any pattern of linguistic migration that is sort to be set out. In any migration theory put out, Tocharian was among the first group of languages to leave the "original homeland"(2nd after Hittite) and moved towards central asia
(Hock dialectological arrangement makes a case). Yet the Indo-Iranians who are the last to migrate & having to pass through central asia, never did have any contact with the Tocharians at all
(on linguistic evidence)
Even notable linguists cannot agree on a particular homeland theory. To suggest that it is a settled matter is simply not keeping with the facts. This is not to suggest that either hypothesis are incorrect, merely that there is no overwhelming consensus.
Other questions/controversies:
# Centum-Satem
The discovery of centum characteristics in Bangani , a N.Indian language has confused many scholars who seem unable to reconcile the presence of a even traces of a Centum language in the sub-continent with the prevailing linguistic theories. After initial attempts at discrediting the research, scholars have largely taken the claim more seriously.
From: "Hans H. Hock" hhhock@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Bangani
Pasted from <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pehook/bangani.hock.html>
The controversy over Bangani and the authenticity of its apparent evidence for a centum language in northern South Asia does not seem to be coming to an end. In the opinion of some scholars, the claims by Dr. George van Driem and Dr. Suhnu Ram Sharma that their own fieldwork shows Dr. Claus-Peter Zoller's centum forms in Bangani to be spurious has in effect laid the claim -- and the controversy -- to rest. Recent fieldwork by Professor Anvita Abbi (Linguistics and English, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi) supports Zoller's evidence and in so doing casts doubt on the fieldwork and/or claims of van Driem and Sharma. As a consequence, Zoller's evidence must be taken seriously and its implications for Indo-European comparative linguistics and for South Asian linguistic prehistory must be carefully considered.
As is well known, in the course of fieldwork on Bangani, a language of northern South Asia, Zoller unearthed lexical items that appear to show centum developments of PIE palatalo-velars, instead of the satem outcomes expected in an Indo-Aryan language. At the same time, the language also contains lexical layers that are clearly Indo-Aryan and therefore satem; some of these result from recent influence of languages such as Hindi, others exhibit features typical of the northern languages belonging to the Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian family.
Among the forms with centum features are various words derivable from PIE *GenH-, such as OgnOM 'unborn' and gOnNO 'give birth', as well as kOtrO 'fight' (cf. Skt. Zatru-, Gaul. catu- 'battle') and dOkru 'tear' (*(d)aKru). [O = open _o_; G(h), M = nasalization, N = retroflex nasal, z = s with hacek, Z = palatal voiceless sibilant, S = retroflex voiceless sibilant, K = PIE palatalo-velars, uu = long [u:], I = Slav. front jer.]
While some of the forms are marked as doubtful, either by Zoller or by Abbi, and some other forms involve etymologies from Pokorny that many Indo-Europeanists would consider uncertain, there remains an impressive residue. What is especially interesting is that dOkru 'tear', with its initial d-, suggests affiliation with a western Indo-European language (cf. Gk. dakru, Lat. dacruma > lacrima, Germ. Zaehre, Engl. tear), while more eastern members show forms without d-: Skt. aZru, Av. asru, Lith. azara, Toch. B akruuna. More western affiliation is also suggested by lOktO 'milk' and gOsti 'guest (of honor)', which have good correspondences in Gk. galakt-, Lat. lact- and Lat. hostis, Gmc. *gasti-, OCS gostI, but not in more eastern Indo-European languages. Note that these forms do not necessarily contain original palatalo-velars (the fact that OCS has _gostI_ may be attributable to the transition-area status of Slavic and Baltic between satem and western centum languages); but they are nevertheless important, since they suggest western IE (rather, than, say Tocharian or even Indo-Iranian) origin.
Van Driem and Sharma claim that their fieldwork suggests that Zoller's forms are spurious, that some are based on misidentification and others are simply non-existent. In a recent summary of arguments pro and con, Dr. Kevin Tuitte further suggests that Zoller may have fallen victim to fieldwork consultants' tendency to provide evidence that they think may please the investigator. Even a priori, however, the latter suggestion is dubious, since it would be hard to imagine how illiterate villagers would be able to know that words like _dOkrO, lOktO, gOsti_ would please an investigator (to have that knowledge would require more than a superficial understanding of comparative Indo-European linguistics).
In January 1997 I had the opportunity to meet with Abbi and to go over some of her Bangani notes from fieldwork that she recently conducted in situ. She will provide a fuller report on her work in due course, but has asked me to provide a preliminary report, so as to set the record straight. While van Driem and Sharma appear not to have actually entered Bangani-speaking territory but limited themselves to interviewing Bangani speakers on the fringes of the territory, Abbi went into the territory and interviewed, among others, at least one monolingual speaker of Bangani. According to her fieldwork, most of Zoller's forms are genuine.
Her fieldwork also confirms that the lexicon of Bangani contains at least three layers: Words of the type _dOkrO, lOktO, gOsti_, words that exhibit "northern" Indo-Aryan features, and words that seem to be borrowed from more southern Indo-Aryan languages, such as Hindi.
Given these circumstances, Bangani poses several challenges to linguistics.
First, there is the question of what appears to be western centum influence………
Hans Henrich Hock
Professor of Linguistics and Sanskrit
Linguistics, 4088 FLB, University of Illinois
707 S. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801
e-mail: hhhock@staff.uiuc.edu
Acting Director, Program in South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies
# The odd phenomenon of Iranian sharing some isoglosses with Armenian/Phrygian & Greek which is not shared with Indo-Aryan; the change of *s > h from initial *s before a vowel, from intervocalic *s, and from some occurrences of *s before & after sonants, while *s remained before & after a stop (MEILLET, (PAUL JULES) ANTOINE) and also the change of the original Proto-Indo-European *tt to ss (while it remained tt in Indo-Aryan) (Hock). This makes the common theory of a separation of the Greek & Armenian branches with Indo-Iranian suspect as it suggests that Indo-Aryan & Iranian were separate dialects from each other long before the separation from other dialects
Scholars who agree:
WINN (1995): "…a period of close contact between Indic & Iranian people brought about linguistic convergence, thus making the two languages misleading similar"
Meillet(1908): "It remains quite clear, however that Indic & Iranian developed from different Indo-European dialects, whose period of common development was not long enough to effect total fusion."
# The Uralic Connection
A substantial number of words found specifically in the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic languages are borrows from Indo-Aryan or Iranian (Vladimir Napolskikh has proposed that borrowings in Finno-Ugric indicate that the language was specifically of the Indo-Aryan type) This has been used to argue as constituting proof for an Indo-Iranian migration through Uralic Homelands. The problem with that is simple.
The borrowing are in in a single direction; from Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian to Uralic. There is not a single agreed example of a reverse borrowing. The chance of that happening is in the realm of the highly improbable.
This is all the more so because included are such words like for Bactrian camels which are purely central asian animals. Essentially suggesting that the absurd idea that Indo-Iranians somehow knew about Bactrian camels even while still far away in the Uralic homelands on the way to central Asia.
"The name & cult of the Bactrian camel were borrowed by the Finno-Ugric speakers from the Indo-Iranians in ancient times" - Kuzmina(2001)
"Another problem is how to account for Indo-Iranian isolates which have been borrowed into Uralic…..the new vocabulary which most probably was acquired by the Indo-Iranians in Central Asia." - Lubotsky (2001)
"So called “Andronovo culture” is an archaeological myth. There are no features of “Steppe cultures” in cultures of India and Iran. And there are no Finno-Ugric borrowings in languages of Avesta and Rig Veda"
S.A.Grigoryev (THE SINTASHTA CULTURE AND
SOME QUESTIONS OF INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINS.)
Institute of history and archaeology.
Ural brunch of Russian Academy of Sciences.
Chelyabinsk.Russia
There would not be much discussion here if that line was taken to dismiss any Pakistani opinion. Assumptions of motive does not allow for commonsensical discussion.
