SOAS is not very high in my estimation personally speaking. (But most social science departments in most universities are not very high in my estimation - they have an agenda which is often in conflict with academic truth). We will just have to agree to disagree; unless of course you can offer me some links to read and if I am convinced I will change my mind.
SOAS is high in it's fields in South Asian studies/Sanskrit which is specialist, a theory is a theory. Have you heard of the out of africa Darwin theory? this was later debunked by the great Polish Anthropologist.
Darwin stated that the west is superior as mankind evolved out of africa and went West but this was later debunked. Again a theory is a theory it is not a fact.
The Aryan Invasion Theory
One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory.
This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.
The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India.
But many people argue that there is now evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong.
Others, however, believe that the case against the Aryan invation theory is far from conclusive.
The matter remains very controversial and highly politicised. The article below sets out the case made by those who believe that the Aryan invasion theory is seriously flawed.
The case against the Aryan invasion theory
The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.
Later research, it is argued, has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely.
Some historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.
The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism.
Dangers of the theory
Opponents of the Aryan invasion theory claim that it denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, and gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere.
They say that it even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.
The theory was not just wrong, some say, but included unacceptably racist ideas:
- it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures
- it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism
- it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences
- it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders
- it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith
- it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes
- it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system
- it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj
- it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier
- it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...tml?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
A new study led by scientists from the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, says there was no genetic influx 3,500 years ago.
The 'Aryan Invasion theory' was first coined in 1848 this was before we had the technological enhancements and post empire to look at it without the context of history through the 'white man'
Hyderabad: Research on three ancient tribal populations of the Indian subcontinent has once again brought to fore the Indo-Aryan migration debate. The study has rejected any migration into the Indian subcontinent in the last 12,000 years, thereby rejecting the Aryan invasion theory.
Anthropological scientists said there has been continuity in lineage since the Neolithic period, rejecting the conventional theory of the influx of the Indo-Aryan populations.
The research study, carried out by Estonian Biocentre and University of Delhi, concluded: “Our high-resolution analysis portraying the three ancient tribal populations strongly rejects any incoming genetic signal of large-scale, recent (during the post-Neolithic) migration either of the present Dravidian or the Indo-European speaking populations to the subcontinent.”
