What do you think?
Rate this book
The Indo-Aryan Controversy
For the first time in a single volume, this book presents the various arguments in the Indo-Aryan controversy. It also provides a template for the basic issues addressing four major areas: archaeological research, linguistic issues, the interpretation of Vedic texts in their historical contexts, and ideological roots. The volume ends with a plea for a return to civility in the debates which have become increasingly, and unproductively, politicized, and suggests a program of research and inquiry upon which scholars from all sides of the debate might embark.
534 pages, Paperback
First published June 30, 2004
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 6, 2024
Like Thomas Trautmann (The Aryan Debate), Edwin E. Bryant and Laurie L. Patton give voice to the different points of view in the fierce controversy about the earliest history of the Indian subcontinent. The question is whether the proto-Hindu civilization only took shape in the course of the 2nd and 1st millennium bce , after the arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers, or earlier under what is known as the Harappan-Indus civilization, in the 3rd millennium bce. Or, in other words, whether the latter was already Indo-Aryan-speaking. As I explained in my reviews of the books of Andrew Robinson and Thomas Trautman, that question is a sensitive one, especially among today's Hindu nationalists. Because they do not want to hear that their culture has an external origin. Bryan and Patton do not really take a stand themselves, and argue for respect and dialogue. They see their book as an attempt to find common ground, to get away from polemic. That's commendable, but not without risk. More about that in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
Read
October 21, 2024For the main features of the unsavory Aryan debate, see my earlier review of Thomas Trautmann's book ( here). As with Trautmann, this is also a sometimes very specialized book, especially in the contributions that delve deeply into linguistic evolutions. But unlike Trautmann, Bryan and Patton also allow slightly more controversial voices to speak in their collection. For example, that of Satya Swarup Misra, who claims that the Rigveda, one of the earliest scriptures of Hinduism, originated around 5,000 BCE. Also the somewhat eccentric Belgian India specialist Koenraad Elst has a contribution. In contrast to the many non-professional speakers in this debate, these are academically trained opponents of the 'standard view'. But in including them in this reader (and thus putting them on a par with established science) Bryan and Patton provide a forum for people who consciously place themselves outside of the scientific consensus, and that is a risk (just think of the climate debate or the debate about vaccines in the corona approach). I'm not going deeper into the tricky sides of this issue. Instead I would like to focus on possible remedies to get out of the polemic.
The first is included in almost all publications: it's the (hopefully) future decipherment of the Indus script, the script used during the time of the Harappan/Indus civilization (2600-1900 bce). Hundreds of attempts have already been made to read it, but so far there has been no breakthrough. But if it comes to pass, one of the essential topics in the Aryan Debate could be debunked, namely whether the Harappan/Indus civilization itself was Indo-Aryan or not. The majority of academic linguists have long been convinced it was not: Indo-Aryan only entered the area after 1900 BCE; there is still some debate about how this happened and how Indo-Aryan was subsequently mixed with other language families in the area (especially Dravidian and Munda). But this is challenged in the most diverse ways by opponents who claim that all the Harappa/Indus inhabitants already spoke Indo-Aryan; some of them even maintain that Indo-Aryan, and especially Sanskrit, itself is the basis of the Indo-European language family, which thus spread north and west from the Indian subcontinent itself (this is called the ‘Out-of-India-theory’). As mentioned, the decipherment of the Indus script could put an end to this sometimes acrimonious discussion.
Secondly: the new science of archaeogenetics, which is the study of the DNA material of ancient remains, or the reconstruction of very old relationships based on current DNA material. That research only really started in 2010, so it is still quite recent. But it has already produced spectacular results, especially for regions with a temperate climate, where DNA can be extracted relatively easily from ancient remains (and we are talking up to about 100,000 years ago). Numerous studies have already been carried out for Europe, for example, and this has thoroughly adjusted our picture of the period 10,000-2,000 BCE in particular. Archeogenetics could therefore potentially also provide a definitive answer to the Aryan debate. And a number of studies have already been published that announce with much fanfare that the DNA material now makes it clear that a substantial migration from the Central Asian steppe region to the Indian subcontinent is indeed noticeable in the period after 1900 BCE. The change in the DNA pattern would even have happened in such a short time that there is talk of an invasion again (see, for example, the chapter on India in David Reich's book Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past). Right, you think, debate closed. Only: if you take a closer look at those studies, it turns out that they are generally based on very limited ancient DNA material, and that in the case of research on recent DNA, going back 150 generations, there’s a lot of statistical probability involved (depending very much on how you interpret the concept of generation). Moreover, the research for Europe shows that since the beginning of archaeogenetics, scientists have had to adjust or nuance their findings several times (and of course that is a normal scientific process). From all this, common sense would conclude that it is better to remain a bit cautious (although caution appears to be of no use to some archaeo-geneticists, just like to some archaeologists or linguists).
In short: we are not there yet, but I am confident that sooner or later the fog will lift. But sometimes it pays to be patient.
The first is included in almost all publications: it's the (hopefully) future decipherment of the Indus script, the script used during the time of the Harappan/Indus civilization (2600-1900 bce). Hundreds of attempts have already been made to read it, but so far there has been no breakthrough. But if it comes to pass, one of the essential topics in the Aryan Debate could be debunked, namely whether the Harappan/Indus civilization itself was Indo-Aryan or not. The majority of academic linguists have long been convinced it was not: Indo-Aryan only entered the area after 1900 BCE; there is still some debate about how this happened and how Indo-Aryan was subsequently mixed with other language families in the area (especially Dravidian and Munda). But this is challenged in the most diverse ways by opponents who claim that all the Harappa/Indus inhabitants already spoke Indo-Aryan; some of them even maintain that Indo-Aryan, and especially Sanskrit, itself is the basis of the Indo-European language family, which thus spread north and west from the Indian subcontinent itself (this is called the ‘Out-of-India-theory’). As mentioned, the decipherment of the Indus script could put an end to this sometimes acrimonious discussion.
Secondly: the new science of archaeogenetics, which is the study of the DNA material of ancient remains, or the reconstruction of very old relationships based on current DNA material. That research only really started in 2010, so it is still quite recent. But it has already produced spectacular results, especially for regions with a temperate climate, where DNA can be extracted relatively easily from ancient remains (and we are talking up to about 100,000 years ago). Numerous studies have already been carried out for Europe, for example, and this has thoroughly adjusted our picture of the period 10,000-2,000 BCE in particular. Archeogenetics could therefore potentially also provide a definitive answer to the Aryan debate. And a number of studies have already been published that announce with much fanfare that the DNA material now makes it clear that a substantial migration from the Central Asian steppe region to the Indian subcontinent is indeed noticeable in the period after 1900 BCE. The change in the DNA pattern would even have happened in such a short time that there is talk of an invasion again (see, for example, the chapter on India in David Reich's book Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past). Right, you think, debate closed. Only: if you take a closer look at those studies, it turns out that they are generally based on very limited ancient DNA material, and that in the case of research on recent DNA, going back 150 generations, there’s a lot of statistical probability involved (depending very much on how you interpret the concept of generation). Moreover, the research for Europe shows that since the beginning of archaeogenetics, scientists have had to adjust or nuance their findings several times (and of course that is a normal scientific process). From all this, common sense would conclude that it is better to remain a bit cautious (although caution appears to be of no use to some archaeo-geneticists, just like to some archaeologists or linguists).
In short: we are not there yet, but I am confident that sooner or later the fog will lift. But sometimes it pays to be patient.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews