Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Historical Methodology and Expert Opinion in the Aryan Debate


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

We show that Trautmann’s criteria to accept expert opinion are compatible with the guidelines for an ‘objective historian’ proposed by Schneider based on the ‘generally accepted standards of historical scholarship’ described by Evans. Taken together, they form a credible framework to assess evidences in the Aryan Debate. We show that Sanskrit scholars who support the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory have implied transmission of cultural practices from 3rd millennium BC India to 2nd millennium BC Eurasia. This tilts the debate on common features found in Indo-European cultures in favour of transmission out of India. We propose the Sanskrit in Indus Civilization Theory (SICT) based on joint consensus between Sanskrit scholars and scientists that Vedic rituals date to 3rd millennium BC. All theories of the origins of the Indo-European language family must incorporate the main elements of SICT when discussing Indian evidences later than 3rd millennium BC. We discuss the methodological issues related to claims based on recent genetic studies. We show that SICT can accommodate the results of recent genetic studies.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Bryant, E., The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 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, NY, USA, 2007.

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

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

  • Tilak, B. G., Orion, Pune, 1893.

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

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

  • 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, Indian National Science Academy, 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.

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

  • 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, UK, 2005, pp. 75–104.

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

  • Dhavalikar, M. K., Ann. Bhandarkar Orient. Res. Inst., 2006, 87, 1–37.

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

  • Coningham, R. and Young, R., The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c. 6500 BCE–200 CE, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2015.

  • Prasanna, T. R. S., Curr. Sci., 2018, 115, 1978–1985.

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

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

  • Evans, R. J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, Basic Books, New York, USA, 2001.

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

  • Caland, W., Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1931.

  • Long, B., J. Orient. Inst. Baroda, 1972, 21, 15–38.

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

  • Falk, H., Bruderschaft und Wuerfelspiel, Freiburg, 1986.

  • Einoo, S., J. Asiatique, 2005, 293, 102.

  • Heesterman, J. C., Indo-Iran. J., 1962, 6, 1–37.

  • Edholm, K., Electron. J. Vedic Stud., 2017, 24, 1–17.

  • Kershaw, K., J. Indo-Euro. Stud., 2000.

  • Anthony, D. W. and Brown, D. R., Paper presented at the Roots of Europe – Language, Culture and Migrations Conference, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 12–14 December 2012.

  • Witzel, M., Beyond the flight of the falcon, Lecture given at International College for Post Graduate Buddhist Studies, Tokoyo, Japan, 2018; http://www.icabs.ac.jp/wp/iibs_html/abstract_Witzel.pdf

  • Keith, A. B., Rigveda Brāhmaṇas, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1920.

  • Seidenberg, A., Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., 1978, 18, 301–342.

  • Seidenberg, A., Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., 1962, 1, 488–527.

  • Mondal, M. et al., Hum. Genet., 2017, 136, 499–510.

  • Silva, M. et al., BMC Evol. Biol., 2017, 17, 88.

  • Narasimhan, V. M. et al., Science, 2019, 365, 7487.

  • Haak, W. et al., Nature, 2015, 522, 207– 211.

  • Singhvi, G. S. and Dattu, H. L. (Justices), Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs Regency Hospital Ltd. and Ors, 2009, Civil Appeal No. 5991 of 2002.

  • Klejn, L. et al., Eur. J. Archaeol., 2017, 21, 3–17.

  • Klejn, L., Acta Archaeol., 2018, 88, 193– 204.

  • Romer, P., Commons Memorial Lecture of the Omicron Delta Epsilon Society, 5 January 2016; https://paulromer.net/trouble-with-macroeconomics-update/WP-Trouble.pdf


Abstract Views: 317

PDF Views: 165




  • Historical Methodology and Expert Opinion in the Aryan Debate

Abstract Views: 317  |  PDF Views: 165

Authors

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

Abstract


We show that Trautmann’s criteria to accept expert opinion are compatible with the guidelines for an ‘objective historian’ proposed by Schneider based on the ‘generally accepted standards of historical scholarship’ described by Evans. Taken together, they form a credible framework to assess evidences in the Aryan Debate. We show that Sanskrit scholars who support the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory have implied transmission of cultural practices from 3rd millennium BC India to 2nd millennium BC Eurasia. This tilts the debate on common features found in Indo-European cultures in favour of transmission out of India. We propose the Sanskrit in Indus Civilization Theory (SICT) based on joint consensus between Sanskrit scholars and scientists that Vedic rituals date to 3rd millennium BC. All theories of the origins of the Indo-European language family must incorporate the main elements of SICT when discussing Indian evidences later than 3rd millennium BC. We discuss the methodological issues related to claims based on recent genetic studies. We show that SICT can accommodate the results of recent genetic studies.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv118%2Fi4%2F664-670