What do you think?
Rate this book
The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate
Western scholars have argued that Indian civilization was the joint product of an invading Indo-European people--the "Indo-Aryans"--and indigenous non-Indo European peoples. Although Indian scholars reject this European reconstruction of their country's history, Western scholarship gives little heed to their argument. In this book, Edwin Bryant explores the nature and origins of this fascinating debate.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
16 people are currently reading
331 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 7, 2021
The consensus is now (and has been for a while) that the Proto-Indo-European homeland should be located in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, but it's widely acknowledged that this consensus is a tentative one, and that it would not be very surprising if it were to change in the future. One place where it absolutely definitely wasn't—based on linguistic, archaeological, and even literary evidence—is India, but belief that it was (or at least that Indo-Aryan is native to India, which is not strictly the same thing) is popular among a certain kind of person, mainly in India itself.
In some of the most laborious prose imaginable, Bryant tries to examine the state of this "debate".
Unfortunately, he's not a linguist or an archaeologist but a professor of religion and a yoga teacher (alright, that's mean: he's an Indologist with a PhD in Indian Languages), and while he's clearly done a significant amount of reading (or at least skimming), it quickly becomes obvious he isn't actually capable of evaluating the relevant evidence.
His attempted overview of the linguistic evidence mentions famous controversies (e.g. the salmon problem, where he also gives the PIE etymon as *loḱs rather than *laḱs) but muddies them with fringe nonsense he cannot recognise as such (the idea that Sanskrit lākṣā 'lac' is cognate, as if, semantics aside, a PIE palatovelar would yield a plain velar in a satem language!) and is generally peppered with mostly minor but extremely basic errors (that the PIE for 'horse' is *ekwos; that "Anatolian" is a language; &c.); no wonder he repeatedly and spuriously tries to place modern comparative linguistics at the tail end of a tradition that started with humanists randomly guessing that Hebrew must be the source of all languages: he doesn't understand that comparative linguistics is an actual science.
He doesn't fare much better with archaeology, repeatedly playing up former posited homelands to conjure up a present uncertainty well beyond what is reasonable. As if the prominence of that William Jones quote about Sanskrit means his concern with Biblical chronology fits into the history of the academic search for the PIE homeland! As if the fact that there's been a succession of academic hypotheses means that they're all equally random guesses, and not reflective of our improving understanding! No wonder either that the whole thing falls apart into a "he said, she said" where Bryant places genuine archaeologists on the same level as incompetents like S. R. Rao, cranks like Subhash Kak, and outright lunatics like Koenraad Elst.
The only parts that are any good are the parts where he tries to articulate why Indians might be distrustful or resentful of (what is perceived as) western academics, but even there he's often too generous to the reaction that motivates this bullshit, using words like "anti-colonialism" where he should be using words like "fascism". Because let there be no doubt: Indigenous Aryanism is a position exclusively held by hyper-nationalist Hindutva extremists and their equally far-right foreign sympathisers.
On some level Bryant is clearly aware that Indigenous Aryanism isn't supportable by the evidence, but in trying to make the point that this is a thing that should be taken seriously anyway (because there are a lot of Hindutva lunatics now), he often instead ends up arguing that there is a genuine academic controversy here—there isn't.
Bryant managed to confuse himself; don't let him confuse you.
In some of the most laborious prose imaginable, Bryant tries to examine the state of this "debate".
Unfortunately, he's not a linguist or an archaeologist but a professor of religion and a yoga teacher (alright, that's mean: he's an Indologist with a PhD in Indian Languages), and while he's clearly done a significant amount of reading (or at least skimming), it quickly becomes obvious he isn't actually capable of evaluating the relevant evidence.
His attempted overview of the linguistic evidence mentions famous controversies (e.g. the salmon problem, where he also gives the PIE etymon as *loḱs rather than *laḱs) but muddies them with fringe nonsense he cannot recognise as such (the idea that Sanskrit lākṣā 'lac' is cognate, as if, semantics aside, a PIE palatovelar would yield a plain velar in a satem language!) and is generally peppered with mostly minor but extremely basic errors (that the PIE for 'horse' is *ekwos; that "Anatolian" is a language; &c.); no wonder he repeatedly and spuriously tries to place modern comparative linguistics at the tail end of a tradition that started with humanists randomly guessing that Hebrew must be the source of all languages: he doesn't understand that comparative linguistics is an actual science.
He doesn't fare much better with archaeology, repeatedly playing up former posited homelands to conjure up a present uncertainty well beyond what is reasonable. As if the prominence of that William Jones quote about Sanskrit means his concern with Biblical chronology fits into the history of the academic search for the PIE homeland! As if the fact that there's been a succession of academic hypotheses means that they're all equally random guesses, and not reflective of our improving understanding! No wonder either that the whole thing falls apart into a "he said, she said" where Bryant places genuine archaeologists on the same level as incompetents like S. R. Rao, cranks like Subhash Kak, and outright lunatics like Koenraad Elst.
The only parts that are any good are the parts where he tries to articulate why Indians might be distrustful or resentful of (what is perceived as) western academics, but even there he's often too generous to the reaction that motivates this bullshit, using words like "anti-colonialism" where he should be using words like "fascism". Because let there be no doubt: Indigenous Aryanism is a position exclusively held by hyper-nationalist Hindutva extremists and their equally far-right foreign sympathisers.
On some level Bryant is clearly aware that Indigenous Aryanism isn't supportable by the evidence, but in trying to make the point that this is a thing that should be taken seriously anyway (because there are a lot of Hindutva lunatics now), he often instead ends up arguing that there is a genuine academic controversy here—there isn't.
Bryant managed to confuse himself; don't let him confuse you.
March 26, 2015
The ancient history of Vedic ancestors
The Indo-Aryan migration debate has been going on ever since European scholars claimed (in later part of 19 century) that the practitioners of the Vedic rituals and the authors of RgVeda were “Aryans” of European ancestry. Despite the images of tall blonde, soma belching Germanic supermen riding their chariots, hooting and tooting their trumpets as they trampled the inferior aboriginal dasas of ancient India, numerous Indian scholars have challenged this theory. This debate is not over since the evidence obtained from philology, archeology and internal evidences gleaned from RgVeda provides a forum for contrasting interpretations.
A brief summary of the book is as follows: This book may be broadly classified into two sections that deal with the discussions about the identity of the Vedic ancestors, and the date of the earliest writings of RgVeda. Scholars are divided over the earliest writings of RgVeda but some estimates put this date to be around 1500 BCE. At this time, the Indo-Aryans were a separate entity from Iranians that descended from a larger Indo-Iranian population. This conclusion is largely based on the similarities in the linguistics of RgVeda and Avesta (sacred texts of Zoroastrianism). The separation of two populations may have occurred as early as 2200 BCE. In contrast to this theory, some authors have suggested, based on astronomical data of RgVeda, the earliest writings to an earlier date of 2500 BCE. The references to the river Sarasvati in RgVeda makes the strongest suggestion that Vedic ancestors were present in the mature Harappan period.
With regards to the origin of Vedic people, more far reaching conclusions could be drawn based recent genetic studies and the origin of the Indo-European language (1). Most indigenous tongues spoken today, from Hindi to Italian, English to Russian and Spanish to Greek belong to one parent Indo-European language. This classification is based on shared features of vocabulary and grammar. To identify indigenous population in ancient Eurasia, archeologists used distinctive types of pottery and cultural practices associated with burials and settlements into individual "archaeological cultures". Significantly, animal grave offerings were made (cattle, sheep, goats and horse), a feature associated with Proto-Indo-Europeans, and later by the Vedic ancestors. However, it hasn't been clear whether there is a genetic basis for these group boundaries or whether they're just cultural. Recent genetic analysis reveal that this group of pastoralists with domestic horses and oxen-drawn wheeled carts were responsible for up to 75% of the genomic DNA seen in Indo- European cultures about 4,500 years ago. The study identified a massive migration of herders and farmers from the Yamna culture of the north of the Black and Caspian Seas (Ukraine). This is called the “Steppe hypothesis.” This would have favored the expansion of at least of few of these Indo-European languages throughout the Eurasia. This “steppe” expansion explains the intriguing link of modern Indo-European languages to one mother language. It is also quite likely that the Indo-European languages spoken in India and Iran were probably diverged from those spoken by the Yamna people before they blazed a trail into Eastern and Central Europe. Recent archeological evidences also favor these findings. In 2009, a 6,000-year-old ancient 'cathedral' was discovered in Ukraine near modern-day Nebelivka. The place of worship contained altars and burnt bones of lambs as well as humanlike figurines (gods) shedding light on practices within a huge prehistoric settlement. Some of these practices were carried though the Vedic period in India. Another genetic analysis suggest that humanity’s most recent common male ancestor, the "father" of us all, would have lived between 174,000 and 321,000 years ago (2). These studies give an overall picture of human evolution and population migrations. Perhaps in few short years to come, we can solve the puzzle of the ancestry of Indo-Aryans more precisely.
The author reviews the literature thoroughly and presents a contrasting picture that emerges in the ancient history of India and the roots of Vedic culture. This book is of great interest for those interested in the ancient history of India and the earliest period of modern Hinduism.
Reference:
1. Wolfgang Haak et al. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14317
2. Agnar Helgason, et al. The Y-chromosome point mutation rate in humans. Nature Genetics, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/ng 3171
The Indo-Aryan migration debate has been going on ever since European scholars claimed (in later part of 19 century) that the practitioners of the Vedic rituals and the authors of RgVeda were “Aryans” of European ancestry. Despite the images of tall blonde, soma belching Germanic supermen riding their chariots, hooting and tooting their trumpets as they trampled the inferior aboriginal dasas of ancient India, numerous Indian scholars have challenged this theory. This debate is not over since the evidence obtained from philology, archeology and internal evidences gleaned from RgVeda provides a forum for contrasting interpretations.
A brief summary of the book is as follows: This book may be broadly classified into two sections that deal with the discussions about the identity of the Vedic ancestors, and the date of the earliest writings of RgVeda. Scholars are divided over the earliest writings of RgVeda but some estimates put this date to be around 1500 BCE. At this time, the Indo-Aryans were a separate entity from Iranians that descended from a larger Indo-Iranian population. This conclusion is largely based on the similarities in the linguistics of RgVeda and Avesta (sacred texts of Zoroastrianism). The separation of two populations may have occurred as early as 2200 BCE. In contrast to this theory, some authors have suggested, based on astronomical data of RgVeda, the earliest writings to an earlier date of 2500 BCE. The references to the river Sarasvati in RgVeda makes the strongest suggestion that Vedic ancestors were present in the mature Harappan period.
With regards to the origin of Vedic people, more far reaching conclusions could be drawn based recent genetic studies and the origin of the Indo-European language (1). Most indigenous tongues spoken today, from Hindi to Italian, English to Russian and Spanish to Greek belong to one parent Indo-European language. This classification is based on shared features of vocabulary and grammar. To identify indigenous population in ancient Eurasia, archeologists used distinctive types of pottery and cultural practices associated with burials and settlements into individual "archaeological cultures". Significantly, animal grave offerings were made (cattle, sheep, goats and horse), a feature associated with Proto-Indo-Europeans, and later by the Vedic ancestors. However, it hasn't been clear whether there is a genetic basis for these group boundaries or whether they're just cultural. Recent genetic analysis reveal that this group of pastoralists with domestic horses and oxen-drawn wheeled carts were responsible for up to 75% of the genomic DNA seen in Indo- European cultures about 4,500 years ago. The study identified a massive migration of herders and farmers from the Yamna culture of the north of the Black and Caspian Seas (Ukraine). This is called the “Steppe hypothesis.” This would have favored the expansion of at least of few of these Indo-European languages throughout the Eurasia. This “steppe” expansion explains the intriguing link of modern Indo-European languages to one mother language. It is also quite likely that the Indo-European languages spoken in India and Iran were probably diverged from those spoken by the Yamna people before they blazed a trail into Eastern and Central Europe. Recent archeological evidences also favor these findings. In 2009, a 6,000-year-old ancient 'cathedral' was discovered in Ukraine near modern-day Nebelivka. The place of worship contained altars and burnt bones of lambs as well as humanlike figurines (gods) shedding light on practices within a huge prehistoric settlement. Some of these practices were carried though the Vedic period in India. Another genetic analysis suggest that humanity’s most recent common male ancestor, the "father" of us all, would have lived between 174,000 and 321,000 years ago (2). These studies give an overall picture of human evolution and population migrations. Perhaps in few short years to come, we can solve the puzzle of the ancestry of Indo-Aryans more precisely.
The author reviews the literature thoroughly and presents a contrasting picture that emerges in the ancient history of India and the roots of Vedic culture. This book is of great interest for those interested in the ancient history of India and the earliest period of modern Hinduism.
Reference:
1. Wolfgang Haak et al. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14317
2. Agnar Helgason, et al. The Y-chromosome point mutation rate in humans. Nature Genetics, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/ng 3171
July 18, 2021
আর্যরা কি ভারতে বহিরাগত, নাকি ভূমিপুত্র? সহজ প্রশ্ন, কিন্তু উত্তর দিতে গেলে চড়তে হয় জ্ঞানকাণ্ডের দুর্গম সব শাখায়। সদুত্তর খুঁজতে গিয়ে ঊনবিংশ শতক থেকে উপনিবেশক ইংরেজ, উপনিবেশ ব্যবসায় লেট-লতিফ জার্মান আর ভারতবর্ষের হিন্দুর নানা রাজনৈতিক বিশ্বাসের গোড়ায় বারবার কোপ পড়েছে, যার অভিঘাত গড়িয়েছে একটি বিশ্বযুদ্ধ পর্যন্ত। এ বইটি সে উত্তরসন্ধানের পেছনের কারণ, উদ্দেশ্য, প্রক্রিয়া আর বিবর্তনের নিবিড় বর্ণনা। রচনাকালে ডিএনএ পরীক্ষার রমরমা ছিলো না বলে অনেক নতুন তথ্য এখানে নেই, তাই কিছু মীমাংসার অভাবে কয়েকটি তর্ক অনিষ্পন্ন মনে হতে পারে।
একটা ভালো বই আরও দশটা ভালো বই পড়তে উসকায়। কিছু পুরনো সন্দর্ভের সূত্রনির্দেশ আছে বইটিতে, সেগুলোর লেজ ধরে বইটির বাইরে আরও কিছু তর্ক পড়া হলো।
একটা ভালো বই আরও দশটা ভালো বই পড়তে উসকায়। কিছু পুরনো সন্দর্ভের সূত্রনির্দেশ আছে বইটিতে, সেগুলোর লেজ ধরে বইটির বাইরে আরও কিছু তর্ক পড়া হলো।
May 16, 2021
Brilliant book.after reading this book and his lectures on YouTube I have immense respect for Edwin Bryant,who is rare gem in west who understands India it's sensitivity and legitimate arguments against AIT.
Book is 2 decade old but gives good overall view of issue which requires multidisciplinary approach. But he doesn't conclude as evidences and hard data not enough favour in any model or altogether different scenario.
From his viewpoint only Indus script and correct dating of Rigveda solve this issue. Recent genetic studies have not in this book because this book is old.
Entire quest for so called Aryan people a as usual human drama it has everything biases racism nazism academic dominance scoring political points by selectively interpreting data.
From my perspective I am astonished that 200 your old theory its basic assumptions are a racist and are still propagated as wisdom or fact. It Deserves credit for indigenous Aryanist for pointing out shaky grounds, but Indian scholarship need to step up.
I conclude by saying this you can't deny possibility of Sanskrit coming from Central Asia or Sanskrit being indigenous development. Proto-indo-european and its origin and spread is a tricky subject unless archaeological survey is done meticulously in Afghanistan Pakistan and India and more genetic data and study of early languages we can't decide till then. Genetics data show current Indian share 50% ancestry from Indus valley people. So Aryan migrationist have to explain how how small steppe people impose language on India without altering any archaeological and cultural remains. Why would Indus valley people give up their language if if their language was different than Sanskrit.genetics not equal to language. I hope Indian scientist research India better archaeologicaly and find different DNA samples of different times to give correct picture. My hunch is that reality and historical truth is entirely different and complex our petty human mind is simplified complicated history into simple theoretical models many thousand years after. I hope there is serious dialogue between scientist even if there political background ideologies are not you like what should matter is there point not there own politics.in the end only truth matters.nothing else.
Book is 2 decade old but gives good overall view of issue which requires multidisciplinary approach. But he doesn't conclude as evidences and hard data not enough favour in any model or altogether different scenario.
From his viewpoint only Indus script and correct dating of Rigveda solve this issue. Recent genetic studies have not in this book because this book is old.
Entire quest for so called Aryan people a as usual human drama it has everything biases racism nazism academic dominance scoring political points by selectively interpreting data.
From my perspective I am astonished that 200 your old theory its basic assumptions are a racist and are still propagated as wisdom or fact. It Deserves credit for indigenous Aryanist for pointing out shaky grounds, but Indian scholarship need to step up.
I conclude by saying this you can't deny possibility of Sanskrit coming from Central Asia or Sanskrit being indigenous development. Proto-indo-european and its origin and spread is a tricky subject unless archaeological survey is done meticulously in Afghanistan Pakistan and India and more genetic data and study of early languages we can't decide till then. Genetics data show current Indian share 50% ancestry from Indus valley people. So Aryan migrationist have to explain how how small steppe people impose language on India without altering any archaeological and cultural remains. Why would Indus valley people give up their language if if their language was different than Sanskrit.genetics not equal to language. I hope Indian scientist research India better archaeologicaly and find different DNA samples of different times to give correct picture. My hunch is that reality and historical truth is entirely different and complex our petty human mind is simplified complicated history into simple theoretical models many thousand years after. I hope there is serious dialogue between scientist even if there political background ideologies are not you like what should matter is there point not there own politics.in the end only truth matters.nothing else.
November 15, 2019
In 18th century, Mr. William Jones identified the similarities between European languages and Sanskrit. From then on, several researchers plunged and floated an outside India origin for Aryans - Germans took it to the next level which got culminated in Nazism.
Vedas were timed to fit into biblical timelines. The oldest known literature to mankind was compared to languages with non existent literature during the period. People relied on other archeological evidences available across Europe and Central Asia. All these exercises were done in an euro centric manner. The process largely ignored the voices of the actual custodians of Vedas and Vedic culture. While the internal evidences pointed to the antiquity much older than randomly proposed timelines, It was largely ignored.
It also created wide spread divisions in Indian society the effects of which were evident in today’s politics.
This book impartially examines various facets of the Debate and articulates the position of the actual custodians too. The author doesn’t take pro / anti stand and justly presents the arguments. He also highlights the methodical differences between the rigor of western academia and not-so-perfect indian side.
The book is written in academic verbose and very difficult for an ordinary reader like me. Once you get used to it, It is a treasure trove of information. Mr. Edwin Bryant’s effort in writing this book is commendable.
Couple of months back, I read Mr. David Reich’s ‘Who we are and how we got here’ and combining the information, I get a wholistic picture.
Vedas were timed to fit into biblical timelines. The oldest known literature to mankind was compared to languages with non existent literature during the period. People relied on other archeological evidences available across Europe and Central Asia. All these exercises were done in an euro centric manner. The process largely ignored the voices of the actual custodians of Vedas and Vedic culture. While the internal evidences pointed to the antiquity much older than randomly proposed timelines, It was largely ignored.
It also created wide spread divisions in Indian society the effects of which were evident in today’s politics.
This book impartially examines various facets of the Debate and articulates the position of the actual custodians too. The author doesn’t take pro / anti stand and justly presents the arguments. He also highlights the methodical differences between the rigor of western academia and not-so-perfect indian side.
The book is written in academic verbose and very difficult for an ordinary reader like me. Once you get used to it, It is a treasure trove of information. Mr. Edwin Bryant’s effort in writing this book is commendable.
Couple of months back, I read Mr. David Reich’s ‘Who we are and how we got here’ and combining the information, I get a wholistic picture.
December 7, 2019
Solid analysis of the current state of the Aryan migration theory.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews