Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Assessing Scientific Evidences in the Aryan Debate


Affiliations
1 Department of Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India
 

For a proper study of the controversy surrounding the Aryan invasion (migration) theory, it is essential to recognize the nature of this controversy. It is a multi-disciplinary controversy among specialist scholars with conflicting expert opinions. Widely accepted ground rules are essential to study such a controversy. Historians’ criteria for expert opinion are validated with Indian judicial standards for expert testimony. They minimize subjectivity in the assessment of evidences. The Aryan debate must be conducted to be consistent with these criteria. Vedic rituals satisfy these criteria, which fundamentally alters the nature of the Aryan debate. Other scientific evidences can also qualify if scientists can demonstrate that they satisfy the criteria. The primary focus of the Aryan debate becomes a scrutiny of the reliability and credibility of the contradictory settled conclusions.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Bryant, E., The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Oxford University Press, 2001.

  • Bryant, E. F. and Patton, L. L. (eds), The Indo-Aryan Controversy, Routledge, London, UK, 2005.

  • Trautmann, T. R. (ed.), The Aryan Debate, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2005.

  • Klostermaier, K. K., A Survey of Hinduism, SUNY Press, Albany, New York, UK, 2007.

  • Witzel, M., Electron. J. Vedic Stud., 2001, 7, 3–107.

  • Kazanas, N., J. Indo-Eur. Stud., 2002, 30, 275–334.

  • Sankalia, H. D., Puratattva, 1975, 8, 72–86

  • Renfrew, C., Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988.

  • Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., Curr. Anthropol., 2002, 43, 63–88.

  • Danino, M., Man Environ., 2003, 28, 21–32.

  • Shaffer, J. G. and Lichtenstein, D. A., In The Indo-Aryan Controversy (eds Bryant, E. F. and Patton, L. L.), Routledge, London, New York, 2005, pp. 75–104.

  • Chakrabarti, D. K., The Oxford Companion to Indian Archaeology, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2006.

  • Joshi, J. P., Harappan Architecture and Civil Engineering, Rupa, New Delhi, 2008.

  • Danino, M., The Lost River: On The Trail of The Sarasvati, Penguin, New Delhi, 2010.

  • Giosan, L. et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2012, 109, E1688–E1694.

  • Valdiya, K. S., Curr. Sci., 2013, 104, 42–54.

  • Giosan, L., Clift, P. D., Macklin, M. G. and Fuller, D. Q., Curr. Sci., 2013, 105, 888–890.

  • Saini, H. S., Tandon, S. K., Mujtaba, S. A. I., Pant, N. C. and Khorana, R. K., Curr. Sci., 2009, 97, 1634–1643.

  • Gupta, A. K., Sharma, J. R., Sreenivasan, G. and Srivastava, K. S., J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing, 2004, 32, 1–24.

  • Mehdi, S. M., Pant, N. C., Saini, H. S., Mujtaba, S. A. I. and Pande, P., Episodes, 2016, 39, 29–38.

  • Orengo, H. A. and Petrie, C. A., Remote Sensing, 2017, 9, 735.

  • Sahoo, S. et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2006, 103, 843–848.

  • Underhill, P. A. et al., Eur. J. Hum. Genet., 2010, 18, 479–484.

  • Moorjani, P. et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet., 2013, 93, 422–438.

  • Tilak, B. G., The Orion, Mrs Radhabai Atmaram Sagoon, Pune, 1893.

  • Jacobi, H., Indian Antiquary, 1894, 23, 154–159.

  • Dikshit, S. B., Indian Antiquary, 1895, 24, 245–246.

  • Aiyar, Kamesvara, B. V., In Proceedings and Transactions of the First Oriental Conference, BORI, Poona, 1920.

  • Sengupta, P. C., Ancient Indian Astronomy, University of Calcutta Press, Calcutta, 1947.

  • Sen, S. N. and Shukla, K. S. (eds), History of Astronomy in India, INSA, New Delhi, 1985, 2000.

  • Abhyankar, K. D., In Scientific Heritage of India (eds Subbarayappa, B. V. and Murthy, S. R. N.), The Mythic Society, Bangalore, 1988, pp. 10–14.

  • Abhyankar, K. D., Bull. Astron. Soc. India, 1998, 26, 61–66.

  • Kak, S., Indian J. Hist. Sci., 1993, 28, 15–34.

  • Iyengar, R. N., Indian J. Hist. Sci., 2008, 43, 1–27.

  • Iyengar, R. N., Indian J. Hist. Sci., 2011, 46, 23–39.

  • Prasanna, T. R. S., Indian J. Hist. Sci., 2011, 46, 573–610.

  • Sinha, S. B. and Verma, D., Malay Kumar Ganguly vs Sukumar Mukherjee and Others, 2009, 9 SCC 221.

  • Hand, L., Harvard Law Rev., 1901, 15, 40–58.

  • Breyer, S., Science, 1998, 280, 537–538.

  • Prasanna, T. R. S., Curr. Sci., 2015, 109, 1882–1888.

  • Caland, W., Pancavimsa Brāhmana, Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1931.

  • Jamison, S. W. and Witzel, M., In The Study of Hinduism (ed. Sharma, A.), University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, 2003, pp. 65–113.

  • Oldenberg, H., The Religion of the Veda, Motilal Banarasidass, 1894.

  • Witzel, M., BEI, 1984, 2, 213–279.

  • Einoo, S., J. Asiatique, 2005, 293, 99–124.

  • Long. J. B., J. Oriental Inst. Baroda, 1972, 21, 5–38.

  • Thibaut, G., Indian Antiquary, 1895, 24, 85–100.

  • Prasanna, T. R. S., Curr. Sci., 2012, 103, 216–221.

  • Hunger, H. and Pingree, D., Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2005.

  • Kochhar, R. K., The Vedic People, Orient Longmann, New Delhi, 1997.

  • Rana, N. C. and Kochhar, R. K., Indian J. Hist. Sci., 1995, 30, 31–34.

  • Thapar, R., Cold Spring Harbour Perspect. Biol., 2014, 6(11), a008599.

  • Boivin, N., In The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia (eds Petraglia, M. D. and Allchin, B.), Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007, pp 341–361.

  • Danino, M., In A Companion to South Asia in the Past (eds Schug, G. R. and Walimbe, S. R.), Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK, 2016, pp. 205–224.

  • Sinha S. B. and Verma, D., ‘Pendyala Satyanarayana vs Kotha China Veerabhadrarao’, 2009, CIVIL APPEAL No. 5065 OF 2009.

  • Evans, R. J., Lying about Hitler, Basic Books, New York, USA, 2001.

  • Schneider, W. E., Yale Law Rev., 2001, 110, 1531–1545.

  • Kane, P. V., History of Dharmasastras, Vol. II, Part-II, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, 1941.


Abstract Views: 562

PDF Views: 127




  • Assessing Scientific Evidences in the Aryan Debate

Abstract Views: 562  |  PDF Views: 127

Authors

T. R. S. Prasanna
Department of Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India

Abstract


For a proper study of the controversy surrounding the Aryan invasion (migration) theory, it is essential to recognize the nature of this controversy. It is a multi-disciplinary controversy among specialist scholars with conflicting expert opinions. Widely accepted ground rules are essential to study such a controversy. Historians’ criteria for expert opinion are validated with Indian judicial standards for expert testimony. They minimize subjectivity in the assessment of evidences. The Aryan debate must be conducted to be consistent with these criteria. Vedic rituals satisfy these criteria, which fundamentally alters the nature of the Aryan debate. Other scientific evidences can also qualify if scientists can demonstrate that they satisfy the criteria. The primary focus of the Aryan debate becomes a scrutiny of the reliability and credibility of the contradictory settled conclusions.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv114%2Fi09%2F1978-1985