Aryan invasion debate

[nanda chandran]

Sameer Abbas writes :
>This is an intersting model, and would be internally consistent (does >not
>violate genetics, anthropology). There are two possibilities: either >the
>Dravidians invaded by sea from Africa and drove the Aryans north; or >the
>Dravidians invaded via Iran-Gujarat-Maharasthra and then settled in >South
>India, bypassing the main Aryan homelands of Punjab-Ganges Valley. >Which
>version do you favour ? Is there more evidence in favour of such a
>`Dravidian' invasion ?

Actually at the time the original AIT was 'created', there was also another
theory regarding the 'two races', but though more realistic than the AIT, it
didn't gain much currency, probably because it didn't favor the Brits in
anyway.

This theory held that the homeland of Aryans was in Central Asia and they
came into India and settled in the North Western parts of the sub continent
(but didn't invade or destroy any existing civilization). The Dravidians are
supposed to have been aborgines of the South Pacific islands and they
migrated into the Southern parts of the sub continent by sea.

Though there might have been sporadic physical conflicts between the two
civilizations, later mixing and the 'civilizational' ardour of the brAhmanas
brought them together as one, with the dravidian culture itself peaking with
Aryan influence (Buddhism, Janism, Shaivism and Vaishnavism).

This IMO, seems more realistic as the relationship between the 'Aryans' and
the 'Dravidians' seem more like a stronger culture to a weaker one, than
conqueror and conquered.

And this doesn't in anyway, cut the scope of the theory that the original
homeland of the Aryans was Bharatvarsha itself.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com