A. Introduction and Scope

In the late 18th century, it was discovered that most languages of Europe, India, Iran and Caucasus had striking similarities. Hence, several scholars belonging to academic and non-academic disciplines actively sought a genetic link between them. In the following century, philologists constructed ‘language trees’ to show the supposed genetic relationships-kinship between various members of this newly discovered ‘Indo-European’ (or variously called ‘Aryan’ and ‘Indo-German’) family of languages. India and Western Europe formed the eastern and western extremities of the continuum/spectrum of this proposed language family, which explains the name ‘Indo-European’ (henceforth ‘IE’).

The equation ‘language = races/people’ was a standard underlying assumption in those days. Therefore, it was concluded that the speakers of these languages, spread over a vast geographical area, might have descended in whole or in part from an original set or race of people who spoke the ‘Proto-Indo-European’ (henceforth PIE) language, before dispersal from their ‘homeland’. This dispersal supposedly led to the fragmentation and diversification of the original tongue PIE into various IE languages. There was (and is) no unanimity on the geographical location of the original homeland of these ‘proto’ Indo-Europeans. But, most of the suggestions by Europeans placed this homeland in various parts of Europe, and a few in western Central Asia, which was close to Europe. This was partly due to certain philological and logical reasons, and partly because of allegiance to ideologies and notions like White-Caucasian superiority, European imperialism and colonialism, the notion of ‘White Man’s Burden’, Judeo-Christian biases, European ethnocentrism, and German Nationalism on the part of these scholars [Chakrabarti 1999:10-11; Kennedy 2000:80-84; Halbfass 1988:138-139; Poliakov 1974; Rajaram:1995] – a phenomenon whose details are beyond the scope of the present essay.

A branch of the IE peoples, speaking the ‘Indo-Aryan (IA) Languages’ (from which medieval and modern Indian languages are derived) are said to have transferred their languages to the aboriginal, non-IA speakers of India. So far, the following scenarios have been used till date to explain the supposed arrival of IA speakers and/or languages into India around the middle of the 2nd millennium BC[1] -

1. The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT)

2. The Aryan Migration Theory (AMT)

3. Pure Acculturation Models: There is a school of thought that [Kenoyer 1998; Shaffer 1986:230 and 1999] holds that this process of language transfer took place entirely by acculturation and culture shifts and no migrations of Aryan speakers were involved [2]

4. Complex/Composite Models – various combinations of the first three models. In this web page, we deal with the AMT cum acculturation model in a little detail, focusing on the role of migrations in such a model (see below).

This web page intends to introduce the readers to the basics of the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT). It must be noted that AMT is typically used in conjunction with Acculturation and other complex models to explain the ‘Aryanization’ of much of South Asia. Details on the evidence for and against the AMT, the relationship of the AMT to AIT and to other related viewpoints and models (e.g. acculturation models); as well as the ideological implications/affinities of AMT would be dealt with in separate web-pages. For a consideration of some of the issues not dealt with here in much detail, the reader may also refer to the forthcoming book by Edwin Bryant [2001]. Elst [1999] and Danino [2000] have described and have critiqued a wide range of evidence related to AIT, and much of their[3] discussion is applicable to corresponding issues in AMT as well. A brief summary of the relevant arguments is also contained in a recent article by the Greek Sanskritist Nicholas Kazanas [1999]. Following a somewhat different perspective, the Communist historian R. S. Sharma [1999] offers a multi-faceted argument in favor of AMT, which is somewhat selective in its awareness of the latest archaeological data.

back

top

next