scholarly journals Teeth nibble away at invasion theory

Nature ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 503 (7476) ◽  
pp. 315-315
Keyword(s):  
Invasion Theory

Colonial Roots of the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory and the Contemporary Archaeological Evidence in Western Sources

2021 ◽  
pp. 037698362110521
Author(s):  
Kundan Singh
Keyword(s):  
European Ancestry ◽  
Common Ancestry ◽  
Graduate Study ◽  
Archaeological Evidence ◽  
Current Form ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Invasion Theory ◽  
Imperial Power ◽  
Migration Theory ◽  
The Common

William Jones, famously, by identifying close linkages between Sanskrit and European languages, gave birth to research into the common ancestry between Indians and Europeans. In the earlier years of contention on the matter, India was considered the cradle of civilisation and Sanskrit as the mother of all Indo-European languages. With the rise in the imperial power of Europe over India, the cradle of civilisation began to shift outside India and ultimately landed in Europe. Simultaneously, the idea of invasion of India by the ‘Aryan race’, or the Aryan invasion theory (AIT), was promoted. Since then, however, one archaeological find over another have consistently refuted the AIT, proving it as false. As flawed as it remains, this theory has, nonetheless, persisted and morphed in its current form as the Aryan migration theory (AMT) and continues to find mention and favour in contemporary academic discourse. In mainstream academia, today, whether in grade-school texts or in texts meant for undergraduate and graduate study, whenever India and Hinduism are mentioned, the coming of Aryans from outside of India and establishing Hinduism and civilisation in India are discussed as veritable facts. By examining the theory in anticolonial and postcolonial contexts, we show that despite considerable archaeological evidence refuting the theories of the invasion or migration of Aryans into India, its colonial embeddedness in the notion of the racial superiority of the Europeans or people with European ancestry that the theory does not fade into oblivion.

The general protected invasion theory: Sex biases in parental and alloparental care

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hudson K. Reeve ◽  
Janet S. Shellman-Reeve
Keyword(s):  
Alloparental Care ◽  
Invasion Theory ◽  
Sex Biases

The Sword-bearers

Antiquity ◽  
1930 ◽  
Vol 4 (14) ◽  
pp. 157-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Estyn Evans
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Bronze Age ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Late Bronze Age ◽  
British Isles ◽  
Type Specimens ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
Invasion Theory ◽  
Corroborative Evidence ◽  
The Bronze Age

Eight years ago, in an article entitled ‘A prehistoric invasion of England’, Mr O. G. S. Crawford put forward the hypothesis that ‘towards the close of the Bronze Age the British Isles were invaded by the first wave of Celtic-speaking peoples bringing with them leaf-shaped bronze swords, many other entirely new types of bronze objects, and at least two types of pottery new to these islands’. It may perhaps be said that this view, with certain qualifications, notably as regards chronology, has met with general acceptance. A comparative study of types of bronze implements over a wide geographical field, while yielding corroborative evidence in support of the invasion theory, has also raised important problems in other directions; and it is my present object to give the results of an enquiry into the origins and distributions of certain type-specimens of the late Bronze Age cultures of western Europe.

Aryans versus Non-Aryans: A Study of Dalit Narratives of India’s Ancient Past

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashish Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Indian History ◽  
Ancient India ◽  
Race Science ◽  
Counter Narrative ◽  
Counter Narratives ◽  
Invasion Theory ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Social Reformers

This article discusses the Dalit narratives of India’s ancient past, particularly varied interpretations of Aryan invasion of India. The colonial administrators introduced Aryan theory and race science in order to justify their authority over India. In a response, social reformers and nationalist scholars, largely coming from upper castes, constructed their own narratives of Indian history, which promoted the idea of glorious Aryan-Hindu past. Contrary to the colonial and nationalist scholars, who had characterized the Aryan race as a founder of Hindu civilization, Jotirao Phule’s counter-narrative projected them as foreign invaders. In addition, as Brahmanas were identified with Aryans, all non-Brahmanas including Shudras and untouchables were identified as original inhabitants of India in Dalit writings. However, Ambedkar, who challenged the colonial and nationalist views on Aryan invasion, refused to accept Jotirao Phule’s identification of Aryans with foreign invaders. Instead, he rejected the Aryan invasion theory and presence of distinct warring races in ancient India. The article highlights the impact of the rapidly changing political atmosphere of the 1940s on Ambedkar’s counter-narratives that proposed a common Aryan identity for all—Brahmanas, Shudras and untouchables.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document