Aryan invasion debate

[Paul Kekai Manansala]

Samar Abbas wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Sep 1999, Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
> > [M]y research over the last half decade and new discoveries now
> > make me completely doubt any 'Aryan' invasion,
>
> Your change is a remarkable turnaround. I respond to your points below.
>
> > There are different groups present in India, but not all got there
> > via invasion.
>
> What about the Thakurs (Tokharians), the Gujaratis & Gujars (Khazars), the> Abhiras (Avars), the Huns (Hoon Rajputs), the Saurasthrians (Saura Matii),> the Sessodia Rajputs (Sassanians), the Jats (Getae), the Trigarttas (Tyri> Getae), the Arabs (Shaikhs), the Pathans (Pashto) and the Mughals (Turks +> Mongols) ? Did they not all `invade' India ? Even if the Aryans and> Dravidians are `native', the bulk of the population of the North is still> `immigrant'.
>

My point is you don't need to explain the presence of any ethnic group
in any region only by "invasion."  Obviously the New World was not
settled originally by invaders.

Borders were more open and movement was likely much easier during the
very early periods when populations were small and there were plenty
of open corridors and passages between "nations."


> > The arguments of Risley that one could distinguish castes by complexion
> > and nasal indice have been refuted with the possible exception of the
> > northwest region.
>
>  I consider 19th century anthropologists to have been much better than
> present-day scientists in the classification of peoples. I have yet to see
> the `refutation' of Risley's theories. Who did so ? Did that person obtain
> different nasal indices ? How large was his sample size ?
>

I can get the exact reference after the holiday here. You can find some
of the data in the 1973 Gazetteer of India.

My own experience would tend to back up any refutation of Risley. I have
never had the impression that brahmins were particularly lighter in
complexion than other people living in the same region. This is
especially true if the brahmins are doing the same work as the other
people. Thus, brahmin farmers in Nepal are generally just as dark as
other caste farmers. In some cases, there subgroups of very light or
very dark brahmins.

> > Natural back and forth flow could have resulted in the establishment of
> > population centers between India and regions to the West and Northwest.
>
> There is only one `back' flow - that of the gypsies.

How do you know? You seem to be referring to maybe only 5000 years of
some 150,000 years of modern human population movements. What about the
modern Indian diaspora?

>Compare that to more
> than 20-30 waves of invaders (excluding the controversial Aryans) from the
> north-west.

Well those invaders came into India from the Northwest but they may have
originated from the East (Mongolia), the Southwest (Arabia) or from
other directions.

>How many `back' flows have there been from America to Europe ?
>

Things are much different now. Borders are tightly guarded and national
identities are much more clearly defined. In some parts of the world, it
is still possible for people to freely cross borders along
old migration and trading routes. The fact is that is that evidence
points out that strong national identities excluding the free passage of
people were much less common long ago than they are now.

> > As an example, I might point to the case of Nepal.  How does one account
> > for the dizzying array of ethnic groups in that country?  How often does
> > an invasion scenario arise in such explanations?
>
> It is established that the various groups in Nepal have immigrated from
> outside - whether Tibeto-Burman or IE.

Immigrated yes, but not necessarily invaded.  I am not arguing as to who
is or is not indigenous to India. What I am saying is there is no
evidence of an Aryan "invasion."  There is evidence of Arab, Turkish,
Mongol and other invasions.

The Aryan invasion theory generally invovles a scenario where nomadic
invaders from the Northwest invade India and drive the Munda Dravidian
populations south and/or assimilate the remnnants of these populations.

The necessary *hard* evidence of this invasion is entirely lacking. What
we have are different ethno-linguistic groups present in India. How they
got there and the specific historical circumstances remain a mystery
with the evidence and literature providing only obscure clues.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.geocites.com/Tokyo/Temple/9845/austric.htm