Out-of-India theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Out-of-India-Theory (OIT) is in contrast to the prevailing doctrine among Indo-Europeanists , according to which there was supposed to have been several waves of Bronze Age immigration of Indo-Aryan- speaking peoples to India from the northwest. Instead of such a more or less peaceful penetration by Aryans into the area of ​​the native population who were later oppressed by them, who are identified with the Dasyus or Dasas of the Vedas , it is assumed within the OIT that both the Aryans (Indo-Europeans) and the Dasas actually Were indigenous people who spread their culture and language from northern India. Gradually, the individual Indo-European languages ​​(IE) split off from the Aryan language and were spread to Central and Southwest Asia and Europe by the respective speakers.

Historically, this theory was occasionally represented in the West in the early 19th century, for example by Friedrich Schlegel in 1808, before the thesis of an invasion or migration from outside that could not refer to a local tradition prevailed in the second half of the century. Today there are many nationalists and supporters of the Hindutva movement among the proponents of the OIT . In the publishing houses Voice of India and Aditya Prakashan under the direction of Sita Ram Goel and his son respectively, various books have been published which seek to refute the theory of the “Aryan Invasion”, including the books by Koenraad Elst (1999) and Shrikant G. Talageri (2000). The OIT has no support in academic Indo-European Studies or Indology ; with Braj Basi Lal , however, there is a prominent archaeologist who represents a version of the OIT.

In 2002 the American Journal of Indo-European Studies saw itself compelled to give an advocate (Nicholas Kazanas) outside of his normal selection criteria the opportunity to make a presentation. Kazanas' article appeared along with nine reviews that explained why the out-of-India theory is now generally rejected as untenable.

Linguistic reasoning

The assumption of a largely reliably reconstructable hypothetical Proto-Indo-European language (PIE), also called the Indo-European original language , is considered scientifically accepted . There is less agreement about the geographic region in which this precursor language should be located. The OIT pursues the argumentation goal that PIE originated in India and from there took its starting point in other regions (mainly Europe). The Dravidian languages , Austro-Asian languages such as Munda and other substrate languages contributed to the further development of PIE to Sanskrit . Numerous loan words testify to this.

The linguist Satya Swarup Misra tries to prove the traces of an Indo-Aryan substratum among the Mittani (around 1400 BC), which is said to testify to a migration from India to the Middle East . It is more similar to Prakrit than Sanskrit, so it has to be assigned to about the same time as that. Misra's scenario culminates in a dating for Vedic Sanskrit that deviates significantly from consensus, which instead of around 1500 BC Around 5000 BC To be settled.

Philological reasoning

Rigveda

An important source of evidence for a linguistic investigation is the Aryan Rigveda , the oldest part of the Vedas , because this text must have been written during the disputed period. Consequently, he tells us about the habits, environmental conditions and knowledge of the Aryans.

The river Sarasvati , which we know today only as a dry river bed, is referred to in the Rigveda as a torrent. Hydrological studies showed that the Sarasvati had this status no later than 2000 BC. Chr. Has lost. The Aryans must have been at home in this area at that time. At this time , the Indus culture was still flourishing there and in the Five Rivers, whose rivers were also known by name to the Aryans . Representatives of the OIT argue here that it is very unlikely that two such high cultures have coexisted. Consequently, the Indus culture is said to be identical to the Aryan.

Epics

Approaches to the subject by comparing the great epics, the Mahabharata on the Indian side and the Odyssey on the European side, can at most prove a marginal contact between cultures, if at all. At best, one can speculate about the direction in which the influence took place. Did both stories arise from one source or did one arise from the other? Of course, both were created far too late, but here too you can search for borrowed ideas, loanwords and archaic names.

Archaeological reasoning

Archaeological findings do not allow any clear conclusions. There are, for example, finds of a recurring peacock motif that apparently spread from India, but as is so often the case, at most a very loose contact between the cultures concerned can be established. On the other hand, there do not seem to be any finds that would clearly prove an invasion or immigration of the Aryans.

horse

The domesticated horse and its importance in religion and culture occupy a special position within the archaeological discussion on this topic. In pre-war times, the two-wheeled combat vehicle was also in contact with him. The original home of the former can be localized with a certain probability in today's Ukraine. But can we therefore assume that the Aryans, in whose culture the domesticated horse plays a decisive role, came to India with the domesticated horse? Or did horses already exist in both regions and the emigrating Aryans only gave them a more important role outside of India because other domestic animals such as cattle - well known in the Indus culture - were absent here?

In Harappa of the Indus Valley Civilization we have finally found already terracotta miniatures and bones of horses. Therefore, according to OIT, the Indus culture has to be called Aryan.

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ The Homeland of Indo-European Languages ​​and Culture: Some Thoughts ( Memento of November 29, 2007 in the Internet Archive ); Lecture at a seminar of the Indian Council for Historical Research, 7. – 9. January 2002