The shifts in the interpretation of term Aryan
 |
| Source: https://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/The-True-Aryans.jpg |
The
present historical hypothesis in defining the word ‘Aryan’ is mainly based upon
historiography, archaeology, linguistics, comparative mythology, social
anthropology and more recently, genetics. The emergence of new disciplines
enhancing research, availability of more archaeological data, advances in the
study of historical linguistics, etc can led to changing prevalent notions. It
goes while interpreting the term “Aryan”. No doubt the term is a politicized
word which further leads to emergence of more theories and myths associated
with it. And as Dorothy M. Figueira correctly points out, History, once
transformed into myth, becomes an instrument to construct social forms. It
shapes the present through an evocation of the past and specific groups that
inhabit it.[1]The effort to define the
word which began with the 1st reading of Vedas, still continues to
do so. The issue of Aryan identity is among the most contentious issues
prevalent in social as well as scholarly sphere.
The
term Aryan is derived from the term “Arya” found in Rigveda meaning “good or
noble, someone speaking Sanskrit, following Vedic rituals” etc.[2] The importance given by
Brahmanical tradition to Vedas led to the quest of Aryan identity. It also
became the source of understanding Indian culture by European colonialist who
were guided by the ideas of enlightenment in the 18th century.
Comparison of it with European religious beliefs led to practical analyses, in
this manner, Montesquieu’s Esprit des lois (1748) presented, for the
first time in European literature, an examination of India with the purpose of illuminating
universal history. He showed that although nature was the same all over,
climates differed and affected human behavior.[3] Thus,
pointing out, that differences of climates and geography can led to development
of a different culture in different parts of world.
Voltaire
inspired by Montesquieu analysis went on for further understanding of east. For
him Asia became the ideal, and thus he went on arguing that Aryan religion was
the oldest religion known to man and represented a pure form of worship which
went on forming the basis of Christianity. Basically, the Aryan myth provided
certain thinkers like Voltaire and Kant with an origin story that could compete
with the Biblical one to diminish the importance of the West’s Jewish heritage.
Towards
the end of the eighteenth century when William Jones discovered that Sanskrit
was similar to Greek, Latin and other European languages[4],
the notion of monogenesis was proclaimed leading to evolution of philology in
European universities. Aryan became the accepted label for those speaking
language derived from Indo-European. Biological studies led to classifications based
on race. The principles of Linnaeus for defining genera and species, and the
theory of the survival of the fittest were applied to human societies. This
opened a new approach for Europeans to scientifically trace their origins and
with their colonialist and imperialist urges it became a tool for showing their
advancement. Thus, as argued by Romila Thappar, that in many ways race was
invented by European Colonialism.
The
fittest race was considered to be of Aryans. Later, only to be used by Hitler
as a tool for establishing his Fascist government by associating it with a myth
of pure race. The original Aryan was relocated and was made part of Europe. Aryans were divided into Asian and European. The former had their
homeland in Central Asia and the latter were said to have originated from the
Nordic blondes of northern Europe[5](Taylor1889). Max Muller
argued that there 
was an original Aryan homeland
in Central Asia from where there was a dispersal of Aryan speakers branching
off in two directions, the one went to Europe and the other migrated to Iran
eventually splitting again with one segment invading north-western India. His
interpretation led to the argument that the Dasas who were indigenous to India
were conquered by the Aryan invaders. Though Muller denied any association of
race to his argument, Dasas were linked with black pigmented skin and the
Aryans, the superior race with fair skin. The Aryan conquest was thought to
introduce both Indo-Aryan language and race thus a trend of associating
language with race emerged. This theory favoured colonial ideology and was even
accepted by many historians of the period.
was an original Aryan homeland
in Central Asia from where there was a dispersal of Aryan speakers branching
off in two directions, the one went to Europe and the other migrated to Iran
eventually splitting again with one segment invading north-western India. His
interpretation led to the argument that the Dasas who were indigenous to India
were conquered by the Aryan invaders. Though Muller denied any association of
race to his argument, Dasas were linked with black pigmented skin and the
Aryans, the superior race with fair skin. The Aryan conquest was thought to
introduce both Indo-Aryan language and race thus a trend of associating
language with race emerged. This theory favoured colonial ideology and was even
accepted by many historians of the period.
There
was reaction to this theory with the emergence of idea of Nationalism in India. The elites and non-elites gave different theories. For example,
Jyotibha Phule argued that the original inhabitants of India were the Adivasis,
including sudras, atisudras and Dalits who were descendents of daitya king,
Bali. For him Brahmanas became the invaders, the Aryans who destroyed the
‘golden age’ of sudras. The upper caste Hindus presented their own theory.
Tilak for example argued that the European Aryans relapsed into barbarism, but
those that settled in India retained their original superior culture which they
imposed on the local non-Aryans.[6]Thus
the upper caste became the lineage of Aryans and others were side lined.
ARYAN MIGRATION
 |
| Source: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSI5cpxspBY9RdR3jOPZPwSgpxI4j9TbUee4L-6djeja-qz8e2Z&usqp=CAU |
In early 20th century the populist authors linked the Aryan identity with religious identity where non-Hindus like Muslims, Christian, parsis became non- aryan. Thus, again the concept of race based on biology got superimposed upon language as the basis of Aryan identity. However, language did play a role in identification which was associated with race. The Dravidian south Indian were seen differently from north Indian race based on the differences of their languages.
The
archaeological discovery of Indus Civilisation opened a new dimension to
analyse the theory which was earlier only based on Philology. However, in the
beginning there was a tendency for the archaeological data to be read in the
light of literary sources.[7]
The Indus Civilization was considered non-aryan which was invaded and destroyed
by aryans. Sir Mortimer Wheeler’s statement based upon findings of skeletons
remains found in Mohenjo-Daro was taken as archaeological proof of this
invasion theory. This theory was however not true as the skeletons were not of
a single period as was pointed out by George F. Dales. Even today no proper
analysis of decline of Harrapans is agreed upon leading the Aryan question to
be still associated with the decline theories of IVC.
Presently,
historical inquiry looks upon linguistics and archaeology as an important field
for studying the Aryan question. However, study in other fields like population
genetics and combining them with textual and mythological data has provided a
way for critical thinking in the arena. Scholars have thrown light upon two questions-
1) whether the Aryans were alien or indigenous? And 2) Rather than the concept of who were 'the
Aryans', the focus has shifted to what is meant by 'Aryan'?
The
second question i.e. what is meant by Aryan mostly focuses on the aspects of
Aryan culture. The term ārya connotes a
cultural community in the Rigveda. Speaker of both the Indo-Aryan and the
Indo-Iranian languages is called Aryan. The Avesta mentions the country of the
Aryans where Zoroastrianism began. If the colour of the skin is regarded as a
test of identity, some of the Ṛg Veda hymns show the Aryans as separate
community. Their enemies are described to be black-skinned. But Bailey argues
that all the references to the term ārya in the Ṛg Veda cannot be taken in the
sense of race or caste. The term ārya means master of a person of noble birth
in the Avesta, and this meaning suits several references in the Ṛg Veda.[8]Mostly the honoured people
of society came to be known as Aryans.
The
horse is seen an important part of life of Indo-Europeans and the ability of
horse to transform modes of subsistence, transport and warfare during ancient
times is seen very essential to be part of a superior culture. Hence, horse
becomes an important indicator of Aryan culture. Another aspect which aryans
are related to which are the sacrifices and rituals. The Vedic and the Avestan
people are distinguished by their rituals. However, evidences have shown that
sacrifices were part of many cultures in different parts of world. In the
social aspects Indo-European society is considered to be a patriarchal society.
Agriculture is seen as the main part of their economy.
The
question of Aryan origin is very much still contested and debated in society. The
new linguistic approach which developed in mid-20th century due to
the works of Murray B. Emeneau and F.B.J. Kuiper, throw light on the origins of
Aryan by analysing the association of languages. Their works has shown that how
the languages belonging to different families like Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, and
Austro-Asiatic came to share a large number of common linguistic features
through diffusion, rather than common ancestry.[9] As
argued by Hans Hock this diffusion must be result of centuries of intimate
bilingual contact. Hence, it becomes important to discover when this contact
began.
Mostly,
the convergence of South Asian language is considered to be unidirectional from
Dravidian to Sanskrit with very little effort to look upon in opposite way. The
basic argument which flowed in scholarly circle was that the Aryans came to
contact with non-Aryan people who learned Sanskrit as there second language.
However, by 1990s an “Out of India’’ argument also developed. These writers of
indigenist Aryan school claimed aryas to be indigenous to India. Though
Indo-Europeans are called aryans, the study of O. Szemerenyi has shown that the
term arya is found mostly in eastern European languages. The term Iran itself
is connected with the term ārya.[10] Madhav M. Deshpande
states that in the careful linguistic use of term Aryan, it is used to refer to
speakers of Indo-Iranian language. S.S Mishra demonstrated that Vedic Sanskrit
was identical to Proto-Indo-European language. No doubt the validity of this
argument is counter-questioned by many scholars, it is also true that the view
of Indigenous Aryan position is often ignored and marginalized in linguistic
circle.
Looking
upon the origin theory archaeologically, Jaya Menon points to three relevant threads:
(i) the claim for biological continuity; (ii) settlement patterns along the
Ghaggar/Hakra and; (iii) the presence/absence of the horse. As far as question of settlement pattern around
Hakra river is concerned the archaeological survey by M. Rafique Mughal has
shown 174 settlements near Hakra river near Cholistan desert. The river is
often linked with mythical Saraswati river of Rigveda. However, any clear proof
is lacking. Thirdly, the Arya people who are associated with keeping horses,
the quest for finding evidence of horse is done very much but archaeology
hasn’t given any clear evidence of horse during IVC. The decline of Harrapans
must have led to influx from other regions. Material from the oasis settlements
of Bactria and Margiana [the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Culture (BMAC)]
have been found in the Jhukar levels at Mohenjo-Daro and Chanhudaro, as well as
from late levels at Harappa.[11]
There is no evidence of these people to have known Indo-European language.
As far as biological data is concerned, a
study of skeletal data in the early 1990s suggested that there was no evidence
of the incursion of a new population into the subcontinent in the period after
Harappan decline.[12]The genetics analysis
through the ancient DNA study samples extracted from petrous bones of skeletons
has helped in archaeological analysis where a Harvard study of David Reich has
shown that Indian people are mix of 'Ancestral North Indians' (ANI) and
'Ancestral South Indians' (ASI). ASI formed by the mix of hunter gatherer south
Indians (75%) and 9000 years ago migrants of Iran (25%). The ANI were the 5000
years ago migrants of central Asia (50% steppe ancestry and 50% Iranian farmers
ancestry). Reich’s study show that Harrapans were either ASI, ANI or unmixed
descendants of Iranian related farmers.
Another
aspect which genetic study points out is the absence of gene Rla often loosely
called 'the 'Aryan gene'.[13] This
also points out as argued Kai Friese that IVC preceded and was distinct from
the so called aryan culture. Still there is controversy on the agreement of
findings. Romila Thappar has expressed some reservations about this new
science, particularly with regard to issues of 'contamination', sample size,
and the problems of investigating new sources of information.[14]
Kai Friese argues that while India did witness phases of extensive genetic
mixing for nearly a millennium after the collapse of the IVC, this was followed
by a long period of deep endogamy.[15]Razib
Khan argues that until more ancient DNA results are reported from India the
temporal and spatial details of how the aryans spread across South Asia in the
centuries after their arrival will be highly conjectural. As genome analysis is
mostly only show the degree of relatedness between population, with even
subsuming in itself some degree of natural mutations it is very difficult to
have clear conclusion with samples which are late and with chances of
mishandling of those.
Thus,
the study of these variant dimensions probing upon the identity of aryans comes
with some limitations of those. Also, since the word is a very politicized one,
it becomes very important to critically evaluate upon it while knowing the fact
that no bold analysis might have been made out by such researches due to their
contentious associations with politics. Also, the question of aryan which begun
by reading of text Rigveda is just a mythical identity which is made to be
related to some real identity. The word is a factoid as pointed by Kenoyer.
While dealing with such words it becomes very important to us analyse between
myth and practicality. As also argued by Figueira there are many instances when
myth becomes a reality and also of reality understood as myth. Hence, still no
clear notion of Aryan question can be formed.
REFERENCE:
- R.S. Sharma, Looking for the Aryans, Orient Longman, Hyderabad, 1995.
- Romila Thapar, et al, India: Historical Beginnings and the Concept of the Aryan, NBT, Delhi, 2006.
- Dorothy M. Figuera, Aryans, Jews, Brahmins: Theorizing Authority Through Myths of Authority, SUNY, Albany, 2002, chapter 1.
- Romila Thapar, et al, Which of Us Are Aryans? Rethinking the Concept of Our Origins, Aleph, Delhi, 2019.
[1] E.
Brasher, Brenda. (2004). Aryans, Jews, Brahmins: Theorizing Authority Through
Myths of Identity. By Dorothy M. Figueira. Pg-1.
[2] THAPAR,
R. (2006). India: historical beginnings and the concept of the Aryan.
New Delhi, National Book Trust. Pg-42
[3] E. Brasher, Brenda. (2004). Aryans, Jews,
Brahmins: Theorizing Authority Through Myths of Identity. By Dorothy M.
Figueira. Pg-9.
[4] SHARMA,
R. S. (1995). Looking for the Aryans. Madras, Orient Longman. Pg-10
[5] THAPAR,
R. (2006). India: historical beginnings and the concept of the Aryan.
New Delhi, National Book Trust. pg. no-8
[6]
Ibid. Pg. no-16
[7]
Ibid. pg. no- 21
[8] SHARMA,
R. S. (1995). Looking for the Aryans. Madras, Orient Longman.
[9] THAPAR,
R. (2006). India: historical beginnings and the concept of the Aryan.
New Delhi, National Book Trust. Pg-123
[10] SHARMA,
R. S. (1995). Looking for the Aryans. Madras, Orient Longman.
[11] Thappar,
Romila (2019). Which of us are Aryans?: rethinking the concept of our
origins. Pg- 110
[12]Ibid.
Pg-111
[13]
Ibid. pg-119
[14]
Ibid.pg-126
[15]
Ibid. pg-128
Comments
Post a Comment