User:Sbhushan/Out of India

Category:Indo-European Out of India Theory (OIT) is the hypothesis that the Indo-European languages (I-E) originated in India, from which they spread into Central and Southwestern Asia and Europe. The theory suggests that the Indus Valley Civilization was Proto-Indo-Iranian (in obsolete or popular terminology, "Aryan"). It suggests the spread of Proto-Indo-European from within Northern India. It uses mainly archaeological and Hindu textual references. The theory has some adherents in India but is not accepted by the general linguistic community because it is difficult to reconcile with the linguistic evidence.

In the early history of Indo-European linguistics it was a more widely held theory, espoused most notably by Friedrich Schlegel. Schlegel wrote in a letter to Ludwig Tieck that India was the source of all languages and thoughts. With the development of historical linguistics and the subsequent understanding of the internal structure of the Indo-European linguistic family the theory has been abandoned by linguists. However the theory has gained wide support in modern Indian Hindu movements which give high priority to the primacy of Sanskrit and the indigenous origins of Vedic culture.

Variants of the theory is still occasionally debated in academic literature, however, most recently by Nicholas Kazanas in JIES, where Kazanas' arguments were rejected by no less than five mainstream scholars, among them JP Mallory. The theory as presented by another recent proponent, Koenraad Elst assumes a similar timeframe as, but opposite direction of migration than, the Anatolian hypothesis proposed by Colin Renfrew, and like the latter contrasts with the mainstream Kurgan hypothesis that proposes a 4th millennium BC expansion from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. In terms of Proto-Indo-Iranian, the OIT assumes an Iranian migration out of India in place of the commonly postulated Indo-Aryan migration in the other direction.

History and political debate

 * See also Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies).

When the finding of connections between languages from India to Europe led to the creation of Indo-European studies in the late 1700s some Indians and Europeans believed that the Proto-Indo-European language must be Sanskrit, or something very close to it. Some of the earliest Indo-Europeanists, such as Friedrich Schlegel, had a firm belief in this and essentially created the idea that India was the Urheimat of all Indo-European languages. Most scholars, such as William Jones, however realized from earliest times that instead, Sanskrit and related European languages had a common source, and that no attested language represented this direct ancestor.

The theory had some notable backing in its early years, but fell behind the Aryan Invasion Theory in the 19th century. Nevertheless, it was still widely believed at this time that Vedic Sanskrit was the closest of known languages to the postuated Proto-Indo-European language. In the light of other 2nd millennium BC records of I-E dialects discovered since (Mycenaean Greek and Anatolian), this is now held to be due to the early time of attestation rather than to a special position of Indo-Aryan within the I-E family tree. However, there are numerous beliefs that the theory was created off weak evidence to aid in European domination over Indian subcontinent. Some claim that this theory was used to create a rift between Indian castes and cultures, as it suggests that Dravidians were pushed to the south by Aryans (whether this was violent or peaceful) and some Dravidians began to form the lower castes in Indian society. This has been refuted by many Indians, who believe such a division never existed, Dr. S.V. Ketkar has been quoted as saying "all the princes whether they belonged to the so-called Aryan race or to the so-called Dravidian race, were Aryas. Whether a tribe or a family was racially Aryan or Dravidian was a question which never troubled the people of India until foreign scholars came in and began to draw the line". This view is not only held by Hindu nationalists, but include Buddhist Indians who are strong opponents of the alleged modern injustice in the caste system.

In the 1920s, the idea of an invading force was reinforced by the finding of a developed Harappan culture existing before the postulated Aryan invasion that seemed to fall into decline precisely at the time assumed for Indo-Aryan arrival.

In more recent times, the theory has regained some notability in the context of Hindu claims of "Proto-Vedic continuity". These authors allege that the Indus Valley Civilization had aspects of "Vedic culture" and that it must thereby have been Indo-Aryan. Supporters of the theory cite alleged flaws of the Aryan Invasion model as apparent proof for the Out of India model. The present debate takes place largely outside mainstream scholarship and is fuelled by political and religious (Hindutva) propaganda, described by economist  Amartya Sen as the "rewriting of history" by Hindutva forces, the main problem with the "anti-invasionist" scenario being, according to Sen, "its obvious falsity, going against all the available evidence based on archaeology and literature." However, the distinguished British anthropologist Edmund Leach wrote that after the discovery of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization “Indo-European scholars should have scrapped all their historical reconstructions and started again from scratch. But this is not what happened. Vested interests and academic posts were involved."

Among the authors from Indian religious and nationalist circles are Swami Vivekananda, Rabindranath Tagore, Shri Aurobindo and Bhagwan S.Gidwani. Their claims are more based on ideology than on science and the debate in the scholarly community sorrounds different variants of proposed Indo-Aryan migration.

Scenarios
Neolithic and Bronze Age Indian history is periodized into the Pre-Harappan (ca. 7000 to 3300 BC), Early Harappan (3300 to 2600), Mature Harappan (2600 to 1900) and Late Harappan (1900 to 1300 BC) periods.

The OIT is little debated and much less endorsed in mainstream Indology, and it is difficult to find recent scholarly literature on the topic. One recent author with a degree in Indology is Koenraad Elst who is at least aware of the context of Indo-European studies. Most other literature has a religious or political background, such as that of David Frawley.

Koenraad Elst
The timeline of the breakup of Proto-Indo-European, according to what Elst calls the "emerging non-invasionist model" is as follows: During the 6th millenium BC, the Proto-Indo-Europeans were living in the Punjab region of Northern India. As the result of demographic expansion, they spread into Bactria as the Kambojas. The Paradas moved further and inhabited the Caspian coast and much of Central Asia while the Cinas moved northwards and inhabited the Tarim Basin in northwestern China, forming the Tocharians group of I-E speakers. These groups were Proto-Anatolian and inhabited that region by 2000 BC. These people took the oldest form of the Proto Indo-European (PIE) language with them and, while interacting with people of the Anatolian and Balkan region, transformed it into its own dialect. While inhabiting Central Asia they discovered the uses of the horse, which they later sent back to Urheimat. Later on during their history, they went on to take Western Europe and thus spread the Indo-European languages to that region. During the 4th millenium BC, civilization in India was evolving to become the urban Indus Valley Civilization. During this time, the PIE languages evolved to Proto-Indo-Iranian Some time during this period, the Indo-Iranians began to separate as the result of internal rivalry and conflict, with the Iranians expanding westwards towards Mesopotamia and Persia, these possibly were the Pahlavas. Their also expanded into parts of Central Asia. By the end of this migration, India was left with the Proto-Indo-Aryans. At the end of the Mature Harappan period, the Sarasvati river began drying up and the remained of Indo-Aryans split into separate categories. Some travelled westwards and became the Mitanni people by around 1500 BC. The Mitanni are known for their links to Vedic culture, after assimilating and establishing a presence in the Hurrian homeland, they established a culture very similar to that of Vedic India. Thus the Mitanni language is still considered Indo-Aryan. Others travelled eastwards and inhabited the Gangetic basin while others travelled southwards and interacted with the Dravidian people.

David Frawley
David Frawley relates the early Rig Veda to the Neolithic Pre-Harappan culture and suggests that it was composed during a period in which the Sarasvati river was flowing. The Four Vedas are connected to the Early Harappan period of history. The Mature Harappan period corresponds to the Indus Valley Civilization proper. After this period is the Late Harappan civilization, reaching down to the early Iron Age. The later Hindu texts are dated by some as during the second millenium BCE. All four of these civilizations are considered "Indo-Aryan" by David Frawley.

The later Hindu texts, which mention the movement of Kshatriyas into Persia, Bactria/Hindu Kush, Scythia, and China as Pahlavas, Kambojas, Sakas, Paradas and Cinas respectively, are dated by Frawley to the early part of the Late Harappan culture. These groups of Indo-Aryans are then believed to have spread into Europe. The Kambojas are mentioned as the inhabitants of Allai valley and Badakshan in a variety of Hindu texts. Some ancient texts also indicate their location in Bactria and to its north. According to the Matsya Purana, the oldest Puranic text, the Paradas spread to the north of the Syr Darya, prior to the spread of the Sakas. The Sakas are mentioned in a wide variety of later Hindu texts as having been located in the north-west of the Indian subcontinent. The well-known Manusmriti and Mahabharata statements that the Sakas, Kambojas, Paradas, Pahlavas etc were originally noble Kshatriyas but later degraded to lower status after having lost contact with the Brahmanas is taken to indicate that the above Kshatriya tribes had moved beyond the Brahmanical sphere of influence i.e they had outmigrated from India proper to Iran, Central Asia and beyond thus losing cultural contacts with the Vedic Brahmanical society.

Archaeology
thumb|200px|Ancient [[Lothal, dating 2400 BCE, as envisaged by the Archaeological Survey of India. The OIT suggests that the Indo-Aryans had built this advanced city. ]] Archaeological evidence cited in favour of OIT surrounds the question of inasmuch the Indus Valley Civilization should be considered a "Vedic" or "Aryan" culture, and is thus at best indirectly connected to the linguistic content of OIT, viz. the origin of PIE in India. Archaeological evidence interpreted to the effect of the Harappan people having a similar religion to those that lived in the region a millenium later (i.e. around 1500 BC), for example claims of Shiva (see Pashupati) existing as long ago as 4000 BC The Aryan Migration hypothesis suggests that the historical Vedic religion was founded in India from around 1500 BC after the migration of nomadic Indo-Aryan tribes from Central Asia into India; it is undisputed that prehistorical elements contributing to later Hindu culture originated in India far earlier than 1500 BC, and the derivation of aspects of Shiva from Harappan times is admitted as a perfectly plausible effect of acculturation and syncretism in the mainstream view.

According to one archaeologist, J.M. Kenoyer: "'Although the overall socioeconomic organization changed, continuities in technology, subsistence practices, settlement organization, and some regional symbols show that the indigenous population was not displaced by invading hordes of Indo-Aryan speaking people. For many years, the ‘invasions’ or ‘migrations’ of these Indo-Aryan-speaking Vedic/Aryan tribes explained the decline of the Indus civilization and the sudden rise of urbanization in the Ganga-Yamuna valley. This was based on simplistic models of culture change and an uncritical reading of Vedic texts...'"

The examination of 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley Civilization and comparison of those skeletons with modern-day Indians by Kenneth A. R. Kennedy has also been a supporting argument for the OIT. Kennedy claims that the Harappan inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization are no different from the inhabitants of India in the following millennia. However, this does not rule out one version of the Aryan Migration Hypothesis which suggests that the only "migration" was one of languages as opposed to a complete displacement of the indigenous population.

Linguistics
While Elst argues that the Proto-Indo-European language emerged in the Indus but had radically mutated by the time that the Rigveda was composed, a number of other Indian authors have tried to reassert the traditional primacy of Sanskrit as the first recoverable I-E language. Thus M. Mishra argues that Sanskrit evolved in the Indus from an earlier monosyllabic language which had become agglutinative at the height of the Indus Valley Civilization. It then emerged into the fully inflected form of Vedic Sanskrit, from which it spread to Iran in the west and the Ganges in east. S. S. Misra also argues for Indian origins of I-E. Mishra's view is influenced by 18th and 19th century theories of linguistic Romanticism or Darwinism, postulating a progress from primitive ('savage') to more complex ('civilized') languages, held for example by Herder or Adelung but now outdated since at least a century.

Shrikant Talageri asserts that the Indo-Aryan languages expanded from Haryana westwards towards the Indus and beyond during the Rigvedic period.

Neither Mishra nor Talageri specialize in historical linguistics.

Model for Dravidian languages
Most supporters of the OIT maintain that Dravidian languages were mainly confined to the South for most of their history in the period of breakup of Proto-Indo-European. However, the instance of a Dravidian language based in the Balochistan area (the Brahui language) seems to indicate that Dravidian languages were once in this area. Koenraad Elst, a proponent of the OIT, has placed his support in David McAlpin Elamo-Dravidian theory which suggests a homeland and movement for Proto-Elamo-Dravidian. . This theory suggests that the ancient homeland for Proto-Elamo-Dravidian was in the Mesopotamia region, from where the languages spread across the coast towards Sindh and eventually to South India where they still remain. .

According the Elst, this theory would support the idea that Early Harappan culture was possibly bi- or multi-lingual. He claims that the presence of the Brahui language, similarities between Elamite and Harappan script as well as similarities between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian indicate that these languages may have interacted prior to the spread of Indo-Aryans southwards and the resultant intermixing of races and languages. He believes that there is evidence suggesting that Dravidian influences in Maharashtra and Gujarat were largely lost over the years. He traces this to linguistic evidence. Some occurences in Sangam Tamil, or ancient forms of Tamil, indicate small similarities with Sanskrit or Prakrit. As the oldest recognizable form of Tamil have influences of Indo-Aryan, it is possible that they had Sanskrit influence through a migration through the coastal regions of western India. Influence of Sanskrit or Prakrit on Sangam Tamil can be seen in some particular terms. For example, AkAyam (meaning sky) is thought to be derived from AkAsha, while Ayutham (meaning weapon) is thought to be derived from Ayudha.

Hindu and Vedic Texts
While the AIT links linguistic and archaeological evidence, the OIT relies on linking archaeological evidence with selected Vedic and Puranic passages and archaeoastronomical evidence. One prominent argument cited by OIT supporters concerns the Sarasvati River mentioned in the Vedas: The Ghaggar-Hakra river, identified in this argument with the mythical Sarasvati of the Rigveda, has been claimed as beginning to dry out between 5000 and 4000 years ago by geologists. This has been linked to the transition of the presentation of the Sarasvati as a mighty river in the Rigveda to its description  as a slowly drying river losing itself in the desert in the Mahabharata. Dr. Narahari Achar of the University of Memphis proved that archaeoastronomical evidence points to the Mahabharata war occurring in 3067 BC, long before AIT estimates. Based on this link between philology and geology, OIT supporters believe that the Vedic civilization is at least around 5000 years old. An ancient city, estimated to have been built around 9000 years ago was mentioned in ancient Hindu texts but was dismissed by some historians as mythological, supported the idea of an advanced civilization which originated in the Indian subcontinent, which was also dubbed "Vedic", another 2000 years earlier. Scholars have claimed that no Hindu or Vedic literary text has ever shown a trace of a migration from outside of India. However, there are some who claim that the movement of people into Central Asia described in the Puranas and Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra support the Out of India theory and suggest that the migrating waves mentioned in these texts represent the breakup of Proto-Indo-European from an Indian Urheimat.

There are some who refer to later Hindu texts to support the Out of India theory.The Vishnu Purana (4.3.18-21) also mentions the Shakas who are the Scythians of ancient Central Asia, the Pahlavas who are the Persians, and the Cinas who are the Chinese. They are all considered as fallen nobility or Kshatriyas who had been driven out of India during the reign of King Sagar. The Rigveda and the Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas suggest that ancient Anatolians, Greeks and Egyptians had connections with Vedic leaders who had left India. Those who support these ideas date Aryan migrations from India into Mesopotamia and Persia at around 2000 BC, a date consistent with mainstream assumptions about the breakup of Proto-Indo-Iranian.

In addition to this, the Rig Veda details the spread of Dasyus westwards, towards the Middle East. While the Iranian Avesta mentions that the Zoroastrians had a homeland outside of the Middle East, the Rig Veda provides no mention of such an external homeland. Leading to the idea that the Avesta's external homeland is the Indus Valley, where the Rig Veda was composed. F.E. Pargiter claimed, in his studies, that the origin of the Aryans could have been in the Ganges basin. He believed "the earliest connexion of the Vedas to be with the eastern region and not with the Pun­jab".

Most scholars agree that the 8th MaNDala of the Rig Veda is one of the youngest in the book. This section of the Rig Veda is based in the geographical scenery of modern-day Afghanistan, with mentions of deserts and camels. The older sections of the Rig Veda depict a region similar to that of the Indus Valley. This would thus suggest expansion into Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush was a later event than the settlement of the Indus Valley, as opposed to an earlier event. However, pro-AMT scholars such as Michael Witzel dismiss such evidence and even Koenraad Elst is quoted in saying "The status quaestionis is still, more than ever, that the Vedic corpus provides no reference to an immigration of the so-called Vedic Aryans from Central Asia. This need not be taken as sufficient proof that such an invasion never took place, that Indo-Aryan was native to India, and that India is the homeland of the Indo-European language family."

It has been pointed out that the Vedas present no direct mention of a Urheimat, unlike other ancient texts such as the Thora. To have forgotten a homeland which they may have left a few centuries ago (based on Aryan invasionist models) is incoherent with what has been seen in other parts of the world in Ancient History. However, if the Indian subcontinent, the site of the composition of the Vedas, was the Urheimat of the Vedic people, this problem would not be present. It is also pointed out that unlike the Vedas, the Avesta does provide knowledge of an external Urheimat (see below).

Supporter of the Aryan Migration Theory Michael Witzel stirred controversy in 1989 when he claimed that the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra (BSS) spoke directly off a migration of foreigners into the Indian subcontinent. . However, Koenraad Elst interpreted the same text as one in direct support of the Out of India theory. He believed that the text spoke of the later break-up of Proto-Indo-Aryan to the Mitanni culture and the cultures of Gangetic basin. A number of prominent scholars, including George Cardona, Hans Hock, Toshifumi Goto, Willem Caland, C.G. Kashikar, Visahl Agarwal and D.S. Triveda, supported Elst's claim and confirmed that the BSS indeed talks of migration to the west of Punjab.

Iranian Avesta
The Iranian Avesta is the oldest literary text of Zoroastrianism, which was prominent in the Iranian regions in ancient times. The Avesta and Rig Veda have much in common, which suggests that they both originated from the one culture (Proto-Indo-Iranian). The point at contention is the direction of the split. Supporters of the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis believe it was a split from Central Asia in two waves. The Out of India theory, on the other hand, suggests that it was a split in the Indian subcontinent after internal conflict between the Proto-Indo-Iranians.

In relative terms, the Avesta has been dated by scholars as a later text when compared to Rig Veda. This leads to the idea that the Avesta was simply an Iranian branch of the Rig Veda following the break-up of Proto-Indo-Iranian in which the Iranians travelled westwards, leaving the Proto-Indo-Aryans inside the Indian subcontinent.

The Iranian Avesta is considered to be a literary indication of Proto-Iranian culture after they were split from Vedic culture sometime during the 3rd millenium BC. The word for God in the Vedas (deva) is the word for demon in the Avesta (daeva) while the word for demon in the Vedas (asura) is ths the word for god in the Avesta (ahura). This indicates the possibility of a rivalry between the Proto-Indo-Iranian which eventually led to split of the culture to the Iranian and Indo-Aryan cultures. The Avesta also shows that Iranians of the time called themselves Dahas, a term also used by other ancient authors to refer to peoples in the area occupied by Indo-Iranian tribes.. . The Rig Veda (see previous section) depicts conflict with Dasas and Dasyus.

The Avesta also mentions the homeland of the Iranians as Airyanem Vaejah. Scholars on the subject have placed the location of this homeland within the Hindu Kush, aroud Afghanistan and Bactria. Other scholars have removed the possibility of a Central Asian homeland for the Iranian people. . This leads to the idea that the Iranians came from the Indian subcontinent within their history, after a rivalry with the Indo-Aryans who remained there.

Archaeogenetics
Recent studies in genetics have also been in support of the Out of India theory. The University of Massachusetts has not only found that modern Indian people trace their origin to nowhere other than the Indian subcontinent, but also determined that a movement of people out of India towards Europe is a more likely model. This was proposed by two of the leading researchers in the field: Dr. V. K. Kashyap and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University.

Other geneticists have carried out studies amongst varying castes of India. Dr. Vijendra Kashyap carried out a study of 936 Y chromosomes and determined that people living in India 10,000 years ago carry the same genetic traits as those living in India in modern times. However, this does not necessarily rules out one model for Indo-Aryan migration which proposes that instead of an influx of migrants from Central Asia, the Indo-European languages travelled via a small group of people who carried their languages and cultures throughout Asia.