CENTRAL ASIA and The Aryan Invasion Myth
The resemblance of Sanskrit and Zend, the principal languages of Europe led some eminent historians of the last century to broach the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Europeans, the Iranians and the Hindus must have originally lived in some place of Central Asia close to Bactria and Iran from which many tribes marched towards the West and settled in different parts of Europe.
But the assumption of identity of race from identity of speech made by philologists was decisively disapproved and rejected by anthropologists. But inspite of the anthropological evidence disproving the common origin of the Aryan speaking races of Europe and Asia, the philologists continued to believe in it. They were agreed that the cradle of the Aryan race must be sought in Central Asia on the upper waters of the Oxus.
The Central Asia theory was first propounded in 1820 by J.G. Rhod on the basis of geographical indications contained in `the first chapter of the Vendiad which pointed to Bacteria as the earlier home of the Iranians. According to Dr. Sampuranand the theory of Central Asia being the original home of the Aryans was first floated by Cuno. Maxmuller, in his ‗The Science of Language‘ had said-"Aryans, whose origin is still doubtful, though it was probably in Central Asia." (P.32l). But, while writing in ‗good words‘ later in August in 1887, he omitted the word ‗Central‘ and said "I should still say, as I said forty years ago, ‗somewhere in Asia‘ and no more."
It would appear that the region now occupied by Sanskrit and Zend must be the nearest to the primitive centre of dispersion. This conclusion is confirmed by the assertion in the Avesta that the first creation of mankind took place in the Bactrian region.
Prof. Rhys, after careful examination has come to the conclusion that "the original home of the Aryans was in Northern Europe, somewhere between Germany and Scandinavia, especially the South of Sweden." (Rhys: Hibbert lectures, p. 637). This last would do well enough, as the country in which the Aryans may have consolidated and organized themselves after sending out their excess of population.
Dr. Taylor, however, argues that "the ideas may be the same and language may also be identical, but the individual Aryans may not be in possession of the same mythology? Against the argument that the cradle of the lndo-Aryans must be the cradle of the Aryan race, because Sanskrit and Zend are the most archaic of the Aryan languages, it is urged that Lithunian is also archaic in its character and, therefore, the region where this language is spoken, may also be regarded as the Aryan cradle. But it is overlooked, because Lithunian does not possess any literature that can be compared with Sanskrit and Zend literatures, showing thereby that the language was taken to Europe by an unprogressive race in its archaic form and remained in its primitive condition, while Sanskrit and Zend, in their native home and congenial environments, flourished luxuriantly, and produced literature that still command the admiration of the world. Admitting Lithunian will only prove the Unprogressive genius of the people who took the language to Europe.
Contending that the undivided Aryans must have been a numerous people inhabiting an extensive territory, Cuno held that a long period-several thousand years-must have passed in evolving an elaborate system of the primitive speech. The necessary geographical conditions were a vast plain, undivided by lofty mountain barriers, by desery tracts or impassable forests together with a temperate climate where numerous people could have expanded and then, in different portions of the territory could have evolved those dialectical differences which afterwards developed into several Aryan languages. There is only one region, he contends, on the whole surface of the globe which presents necessary conditions of uniformity of climate and geographical extension. This is the great plain of Northern Europe, stretching from the Ural mountains over Northern Germany and the North of France as far as Atlantic.
"To this it may be replied that the Steppes of Central Asia, extending eastward of the Caspian for more than a thousand miles, beyond Lake Balkash, also offer the necessary conditions." (Taylor: Origin of the Aryans, P.30-31). But it must be conceded to Cuno that the conditions of climate, of soil, of greater geographical extension and of proximity to the region now occupied by the Aryans are arguments for selecting the European than the Asiatic plain as the probable cradle of the Aryan race. (Ibid 222·223)., But if the plains of Europe be the probable cradle of the Aryan race, how would the fact of near all the principal Aryan speaking races being of the brachycephalic Turanian family of Asia be explained? The original home of the Aryans must, therefore, be sought not in Europe, but in Asia whence the Turanians admittedly went to Europe with Aryan speech.
Prof. Maxmuller, who had forcefully advocated this theory in 1859; made a final pronouncement on the subject in 1887, when he wrote: "If an answer must be given to the place where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation, I should still say, as I said forty, years ago, ‗somewhere in Asia‘, and no more". (Maxmuller: Introduction to the Science of Language, Third Ed. 1885) And this ‗somewhere in Asia‘ was no other than India or Sapta Sindhu.
Agriculture is said to have been the main profession of the Aryans. But the land in central Asia is not fertile. It also suffers from scarcity of water. In the opinion of Prof. Vadel, therefore, the Aryans could not be expected to have lived there before migrating to other areas. One argument in favour of the Central Asian theory advanced by Prof. Sayace in 1874, is the existence of the word ‗Hima‘ as in the prayer to live for a hundred years –‗tarEma tarasaa shatam himaaha‘ (Rig. 5.54.15), i.e. May we pass over hundred winters, indicating that the place where the Aryans originally lived, remained very cold during the greater part of the year. But then the Aryans also prayed to live a hundred ‗autumns‘, as in ‗shatam nO raaswa sharadO vichkshE ashyaamaayUnshi sudhitaani poorvaa ‗ (Rig. 2.27.10) -‗May you grant unto us a long life to behold for hundred ‗autumns‘ ..... And there is no dearth of such prayers.
Prof. Maxmuller, A.B. Keith, Prof. Giles, Griarson and Suniti Kumar Chatterji have been telling us that the invaders (the Aryans) entered by the western passes of the Hindukush and proceeded thence through Punjab to the east. But they concede that that advance is not reflected in the Rigveda- (Maxmuller: Chips from a German Workshop, 1887 p. 64+65; Keith: The Rigveda in the Cambridge History of India, 1962, p. 70-71). If the Aryans had actually lived in Central Asia, how is it that they left no mark of their language, literature and civilisation there. What is strange is that the same tribe as invaders became so strong and effective that it could influence the language and culture of such a vast country as India. According to Jacob, therefore, it was the other way round, that is, the Indians went out as ambassadors of their country.-Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1909, p. 721 Again, why did they leave their homeland for ever? If the exodus was caused by over-population or want of food, at least some of them should have stayed there. What is designated as the original home of the Aryans should turn into a barren land, who would believe?
The theory of Prof. Maxmuller and others about the Central Asiatic home of the Aryans falls to the ground, in as much as Central Asia could not afford sufficient pasturage to the cattle of a large pastoral people as the ancient Aryans are supposed to have been.
Dr. K. L. Alur, a veterinarian surgeon turned archaeozoologist, expounding his theory, pointed out that Lord Rama and Krishna were purely Indian, and from Central India. He argued that the theory of Aryans coming from abroad and settling in India was an imperialistic and politically motivated one. According to him, the physiognomic difference between the Aryans and the Harappans were induced by ecology, food and climate and had nothing to do with the original habitat of the Aryans, as is the current belief.
And to strengthen his views Dr. Alur insisted that if anybody can write the history of a nation, it is only a veterinarian, The 83 year old doctor was recently conferred an honorary Doctorate of Science by the University of Agri-sciences Dharwad.
Earlier, Zoologists did not go beyond determining the species and types of the bone remains found during excavations. According to him archaeological interpretation has necessarily to be an inter-disciplinary effort, involving expertise from the anthropology, veterinary and social sciences. This was needed to study the animal bones and the ceramic and pottery finds. The interpretation by a veterinarian had to be more decisive and scientific all, more definite as almost 80 percent of the finds were animal bones. Human bones could not help much as pre or pro historical periods were concerned. On the other hand, the entire picture of the society and human life of earlier times could be recreated by the archaeo-zoological study of the animal bones found.
Dr. Alurs name features prominently in the world directory of archraeo—zoological along with nine others. He has developed a unique laboratory technique for archaeo-zoological study of faunal remains. According to him, the infrences derived from the animal bones give a more exact picture of the climate, the food, temperature and the nature of rainfall of the period. These inferences could never to be wrong.
Dr. Alur‘s technique sheds new light on Indian history, especially in respect of the original home of the Aryans. Dr. Alur insisted that the inferences drawn from the pottery and the coins excavated show that the Aryans migrated from India, and not vice-versa. - Times of India, Bombay, 20.4.1990
The resemblance of Sanskrit and Zend, the principal languages of Europe led some eminent historians of the last century to broach the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Europeans, the Iranians and the Hindus must have originally lived in some place of Central Asia close to Bactria and Iran from which many tribes marched towards the West and settled in different parts of Europe.
But the assumption of identity of race from identity of speech made by philologists was decisively disapproved and rejected by anthropologists. But inspite of the anthropological evidence disproving the common origin of the Aryan speaking races of Europe and Asia, the philologists continued to believe in it. They were agreed that the cradle of the Aryan race must be sought in Central Asia on the upper waters of the Oxus.
The Central Asia theory was first propounded in 1820 by J.G. Rhod on the basis of geographical indications contained in `the first chapter of the Vendiad which pointed to Bacteria as the earlier home of the Iranians. According to Dr. Sampuranand the theory of Central Asia being the original home of the Aryans was first floated by Cuno. Maxmuller, in his ‗The Science of Language‘ had said-"Aryans, whose origin is still doubtful, though it was probably in Central Asia." (P.32l). But, while writing in ‗good words‘ later in August in 1887, he omitted the word ‗Central‘ and said "I should still say, as I said forty years ago, ‗somewhere in Asia‘ and no more."
It would appear that the region now occupied by Sanskrit and Zend must be the nearest to the primitive centre of dispersion. This conclusion is confirmed by the assertion in the Avesta that the first creation of mankind took place in the Bactrian region.
Prof. Rhys, after careful examination has come to the conclusion that "the original home of the Aryans was in Northern Europe, somewhere between Germany and Scandinavia, especially the South of Sweden." (Rhys: Hibbert lectures, p. 637). This last would do well enough, as the country in which the Aryans may have consolidated and organized themselves after sending out their excess of population.
Dr. Taylor, however, argues that "the ideas may be the same and language may also be identical, but the individual Aryans may not be in possession of the same mythology? Against the argument that the cradle of the lndo-Aryans must be the cradle of the Aryan race, because Sanskrit and Zend are the most archaic of the Aryan languages, it is urged that Lithunian is also archaic in its character and, therefore, the region where this language is spoken, may also be regarded as the Aryan cradle. But it is overlooked, because Lithunian does not possess any literature that can be compared with Sanskrit and Zend literatures, showing thereby that the language was taken to Europe by an unprogressive race in its archaic form and remained in its primitive condition, while Sanskrit and Zend, in their native home and congenial environments, flourished luxuriantly, and produced literature that still command the admiration of the world. Admitting Lithunian will only prove the Unprogressive genius of the people who took the language to Europe.
Contending that the undivided Aryans must have been a numerous people inhabiting an extensive territory, Cuno held that a long period-several thousand years-must have passed in evolving an elaborate system of the primitive speech. The necessary geographical conditions were a vast plain, undivided by lofty mountain barriers, by desery tracts or impassable forests together with a temperate climate where numerous people could have expanded and then, in different portions of the territory could have evolved those dialectical differences which afterwards developed into several Aryan languages. There is only one region, he contends, on the whole surface of the globe which presents necessary conditions of uniformity of climate and geographical extension. This is the great plain of Northern Europe, stretching from the Ural mountains over Northern Germany and the North of France as far as Atlantic.
"To this it may be replied that the Steppes of Central Asia, extending eastward of the Caspian for more than a thousand miles, beyond Lake Balkash, also offer the necessary conditions." (Taylor: Origin of the Aryans, P.30-31). But it must be conceded to Cuno that the conditions of climate, of soil, of greater geographical extension and of proximity to the region now occupied by the Aryans are arguments for selecting the European than the Asiatic plain as the probable cradle of the Aryan race. (Ibid 222·223)., But if the plains of Europe be the probable cradle of the Aryan race, how would the fact of near all the principal Aryan speaking races being of the brachycephalic Turanian family of Asia be explained? The original home of the Aryans must, therefore, be sought not in Europe, but in Asia whence the Turanians admittedly went to Europe with Aryan speech.
Prof. Maxmuller, who had forcefully advocated this theory in 1859; made a final pronouncement on the subject in 1887, when he wrote: "If an answer must be given to the place where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation, I should still say, as I said forty, years ago, ‗somewhere in Asia‘, and no more". (Maxmuller: Introduction to the Science of Language, Third Ed. 1885) And this ‗somewhere in Asia‘ was no other than India or Sapta Sindhu.
Agriculture is said to have been the main profession of the Aryans. But the land in central Asia is not fertile. It also suffers from scarcity of water. In the opinion of Prof. Vadel, therefore, the Aryans could not be expected to have lived there before migrating to other areas. One argument in favour of the Central Asian theory advanced by Prof. Sayace in 1874, is the existence of the word ‗Hima‘ as in the prayer to live for a hundred years –‗tarEma tarasaa shatam himaaha‘ (Rig. 5.54.15), i.e. May we pass over hundred winters, indicating that the place where the Aryans originally lived, remained very cold during the greater part of the year. But then the Aryans also prayed to live a hundred ‗autumns‘, as in ‗shatam nO raaswa sharadO vichkshE ashyaamaayUnshi sudhitaani poorvaa ‗ (Rig. 2.27.10) -‗May you grant unto us a long life to behold for hundred ‗autumns‘ ..... And there is no dearth of such prayers.
Prof. Maxmuller, A.B. Keith, Prof. Giles, Griarson and Suniti Kumar Chatterji have been telling us that the invaders (the Aryans) entered by the western passes of the Hindukush and proceeded thence through Punjab to the east. But they concede that that advance is not reflected in the Rigveda- (Maxmuller: Chips from a German Workshop, 1887 p. 64+65; Keith: The Rigveda in the Cambridge History of India, 1962, p. 70-71). If the Aryans had actually lived in Central Asia, how is it that they left no mark of their language, literature and civilisation there. What is strange is that the same tribe as invaders became so strong and effective that it could influence the language and culture of such a vast country as India. According to Jacob, therefore, it was the other way round, that is, the Indians went out as ambassadors of their country.-Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1909, p. 721 Again, why did they leave their homeland for ever? If the exodus was caused by over-population or want of food, at least some of them should have stayed there. What is designated as the original home of the Aryans should turn into a barren land, who would believe?
The theory of Prof. Maxmuller and others about the Central Asiatic home of the Aryans falls to the ground, in as much as Central Asia could not afford sufficient pasturage to the cattle of a large pastoral people as the ancient Aryans are supposed to have been.
Dr. K. L. Alur, a veterinarian surgeon turned archaeozoologist, expounding his theory, pointed out that Lord Rama and Krishna were purely Indian, and from Central India. He argued that the theory of Aryans coming from abroad and settling in India was an imperialistic and politically motivated one. According to him, the physiognomic difference between the Aryans and the Harappans were induced by ecology, food and climate and had nothing to do with the original habitat of the Aryans, as is the current belief.
And to strengthen his views Dr. Alur insisted that if anybody can write the history of a nation, it is only a veterinarian, The 83 year old doctor was recently conferred an honorary Doctorate of Science by the University of Agri-sciences Dharwad.
Earlier, Zoologists did not go beyond determining the species and types of the bone remains found during excavations. According to him archaeological interpretation has necessarily to be an inter-disciplinary effort, involving expertise from the anthropology, veterinary and social sciences. This was needed to study the animal bones and the ceramic and pottery finds. The interpretation by a veterinarian had to be more decisive and scientific all, more definite as almost 80 percent of the finds were animal bones. Human bones could not help much as pre or pro historical periods were concerned. On the other hand, the entire picture of the society and human life of earlier times could be recreated by the archaeo-zoological study of the animal bones found.
Dr. Alurs name features prominently in the world directory of archraeo—zoological along with nine others. He has developed a unique laboratory technique for archaeo-zoological study of faunal remains. According to him, the infrences derived from the animal bones give a more exact picture of the climate, the food, temperature and the nature of rainfall of the period. These inferences could never to be wrong.
Dr. Alur‘s technique sheds new light on Indian history, especially in respect of the original home of the Aryans. Dr. Alur insisted that the inferences drawn from the pottery and the coins excavated show that the Aryans migrated from India, and not vice-versa. - Times of India, Bombay, 20.4.1990
Comments
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment, as it helps us to improve our articles...!