Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
There are too many problems with the AIT staring with the very name. Is it the Aryan Invasion Theory or Aryan Immigration theory?
It never changed from the Aryan Invasion Theory, for two reasons. It is useful to retain that name, if for no other reason than to measure the distance traversed since the first outlines were published. Second, it simply does not attract sufficient interest among historians any longer, and, just to set the record straight, it was a linguists' subject matter in the first place. That many 'eminent' historians are supposed to be in support of it is due to the fact that there is nothing better to put in its place. Look upon it as a place-marker, if you will. It will do until something better supported comes along.
While we are told that there are eminent historians backing this theory and that those opposing it can barely muster up a decent "historian", the reality is that eminent or not, there is simply no real proof of the theory.
Don't take anyone else's word for it, and report it sceptically. Why not dig in, and get your hands dirty? It might be an interesting exercise for you to check for yourself, not about historians, but about academic opinion in any field connected. Even the archaeologists don't support the alternatives, while agreeing that there is no link between the archaeology and the linguistics.
The theory, as has been argued has been forced to change so many times in the face of overwhelming evidence against parts of it and yet somehow manages to retain the "eminent" historians support.
And what would you have 'eminent' historians do in the absence of even half-baked alternatives? Keeping in mind that it seemingly is a futile effort convincing the lay public that there is in fact some difference between pre-history, proto-history and history itself, and that pre-history and proto-history are perforce subjected to more relaxed rules of evidence than history proper?
The proponents of the theory have used different arguments at different points, sometimes contradicting each other, to explain various parts of the Rg veda.
So did theories of the relative positions of the Sun and the Earth. I take it that you have no difficulties with astronomical views today, considering that there were contradictory views yesterday.
Sarasvati has been a serious problem for the theory. In parts of the Rg veda it is very clear that the river being spoken about flowed in Haryana, yet some eminent historians insist that the river being spoken of in another mandala refers to a river in Afghanistan, not because there is definite proof of that but merely because there is no agreed direct direct reference to put it in the same place that other references to the river show. Common sense would suggest that unless there is definite proof that the river mentioned is a different one, it should be taken as the one being referred to elsewhere for which there are geographic references. However since Sarasvati's drying out & the dates now being assigned to it probably kills any theory of an "Aryan" immigration/Invasion because it severely messes up the dates that can worked with, obfuscation is required. Not this river, something else. In some places, the passages of the Rg veda are read as being indicative of a violent campaign against the "local" population, yet the general argument is that there no one now believes in any invasion but what happened was merely a slow immigration.
First, why a river name should not indicate different rivers at different points of time, and during different geographical surroundings has to be explained. Assuming for a moment that there was an incursion of Indo-Aryan speaking individuals, groups or tribes, and assuming that the Andronovo complex was a possible starting point, which were the likely routes that they might have taken into the sub-continent?
The extreme northern, following today's alignment of the Karakorum Highway? That would bring them to Swat, and there are burial sites and excavated sites in Swat that point to a possible way-point for incoming elements.
The north-west, through the Khaibar? This has been everybody's subsequent favourite passage, but is not the only aperture in the Hindu Kush. This would need some preliminary travel through the mountains of Afghanistan. Now, if these imagined immigrants were not going from place A to place B, in the shortest route possible without loss of life, it might be argued that there would be no time to inspect the vicinity or to pause to name geographical points of interest. If, on the other hand, they were settling down wherever they could, moving on whenever they had to, due to weather, harsh environment, hostile opposition or a surplus of population, presumably they traversed a route in an irregular way, not in a straight line, but moving from one destination to another, without any clear idea of where they were heading.
The Helmand might have come their way during this kind of interrupted travel, or it might have been a river crossed on their way across the Bolan. There is nothing that bars knowledge of Afghanistan, even of features within Afghanistan. And, considering that the name Sindhu itself was thought to designate a large water body, either the Caspian or either of the Oxus or Jaxartes, in older passages, it seems strange that the name Saraswati should be held in reserve for one and only one of the rivers that they passed
Some of these "eminent" historians seem to have no problem with a bit of intellectual dishonesty. Maybe they figure that it is okay because the other side does not have the same "eminent" historians.
A surprising statement, least expected from you. Perhaps if you re-visit the issue, and view it in terms of the Vedas not having been representative of all the migrants but of some tribes among them, and having been composed by the bards of those tribes, glorifying the exploits of their war-bands and their war-chiefs alone, you might think less unkindly about the grave scholar occasionally being taken over by a fit of speculation!
Archaeologists who have opposed this theory because there is absolutely no proof of it are barely mentioned when in fact, it is they who should be in the forefront of any such assertion. The AIT has evolved so much in the face of evidence developed against it that almost anything goes, depending on the argument raised, the quality of the opponent involved etc. Eminent historians or not, the AIT has become something of a Chimera. The unexplained linguistic connection has now become the sole hanger on which to hang the rest of the Chimera carcass.
And what would you hang the linguistic connections on, in their turn?