On 1/26/06, sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "spread of Proto-Indo-Iranian peoples before and after the linguistic
> split and the migration of various Indo-European groups into India" was a
> continuous process that went on for many centuries.
IANAHistorian. AFAIK, the "invasion" theory has long been supplanted
by the "migration" theory. If your contention is that it was a
migration rather than an invasion, I am in agreement wit you. If your
contention is that there was no Central Asian immigration into India,
I have to disagree.
> I would like to see evidence for the following theory that was taught to me in
> school:
>
> "The Dravidians were a race of darkskinned primitive people who lived in
> India. They were conquered and driven to the South of India by the fair
> skinned and advanced Aryans who came from Europe, speaking Sanskrit and
> having an advanced culture.
Is that a quote from a textbook? Which one?
> They set up great cities with streets and
> drainage systems and ruins of those cities can now be found at Mohenjo Daro
> and Harappa" the remains of the Indus valley civilization"
Actually, historians think tat the Moenjo Daro and Harappan
civilizations pre-date the arrival of the Central Asians. The Harappan
civilization is attributed to people that lived in the region before
the arrival of the "aryans".
> One of the biggest criticisms of the "Aryan Invasion" theory is very political
> and racist in nature. It is alleged that it was expedient for the conquering
> Britons to choose to believe that an "advanced Indus valley civilization"
> that seemed to speak the Sanskrit that was related to European languages must
> have come from Europe because the natives of India were such savages.
For quite a few decades now the accepted theory is that the "aryans"
were from Central Asia and *not* Europe. Historians also accept that
the Harappans did not speak Sanskrit. Because the Harappan script has
not been deciphered, we do not know what their language was related
to.
> Of course there
> ghas been continuous exchange between India and Europe over centuries. But no
> "Invasion od civilizing Aryans driving primitive Dravidians South"
Some 5 years ago I bought the CBSE high school history text books to
see what they said. I don't remember whether they talked about an
"invasion". But they do not talk about the Harappans being primitive
or the "aryans" being more advanced. If anything, the current
scientific thinking is that the "aryan" immigrants were country
bumpkin pastoralists while the harappans were quite advanced, urban
city-dwellers, agriculturalists and traders.
Thaths
--
"Bart! With $10,000 we'd be millionaires! We could buy all kinds of
useful things... like love." -- Homer J. Simpson
