Customer Reviews

The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I found this book to be a remarkably even-handed and clearly written overview of a subject that has, bizarrely enough, produced much empassioned debate in the past several hundred years -- the problem of the origins of the Indo-European language family. What is primarly a linguistic problem has been commandeered by missionaries, nationalists of varying stripes, racists, and even Nazis to produce a peculiar body of thought about a so-called "Aryan race" both in Europe and India. Even highly-trained scholars have indulged in circular reasoning, the conflation of disparate bits of evidence, and outright fantasy in their attempts to postulate and prove their answers to the questions posed by the undoubted similarities of the various languages in this far-flung group.
One of the tenets of the conventional, European view is that a group of Indo-European-speaking nomads entered India around 1200 BC and then proceeded to spread their language and culture throughout the northern half of this subcontinent. Beyond the existence of Sanskrit and the Prakrits themselves, the evidence for this movement of people has always been sparse; the reasoning displayed by those determined to prove that this influx existed has generally been flawed -- rough guesses have been turned into proven facts, and these so-called facts then used as the basis for more guesses. This entire controversy might seem of no interest to anyone outside of a handful of academics, but unfortunately, the early and false conflation of language and race has been partly responsible for the deaths of a great many innocent people. Ideas can be fatal in the wrong minds.
Bryant attempts to strip away the muddled thinking that surrounds the "Aryan influx" theory. First, he analyzes the theory itself and discusses its history -- which is primarly a history of colonial exploitation by the British and indigenous exploitation as well, by the upper castes. Bit by bit he examines the evidence that has been brought forward in support of the theory and displays just how inadequate it is. Most of the "sure things" invoked by scholars through the centuries, right up into the last decade, are not sure at all. Many could easily be used to prove the opposite theory, that the language and culture of northern India developed in place, as it were, from some vague Paleolithic or Mesolithic beginning.
I decided to write this review partly because I was startled by the other reviewer here, who seems not have finished Bryant's last chapter. Rather than dismissing the Indigenous Aryan theory or linking it solely with Hindutva, the current Hindi nationalist movement, Bryant takes pains to show that many serious scholars and prehistorians also uphold the theory or at least, have found huge holes in the fabric of the opposing, Aryan Migration, theory. Over and over he repeats that he does not mean to dismiss the solid thinkers and their theories. In fact, when I first read the book the constant repetitions of his support for serious holders of the Indigenous Aryan theory annoyed me; they seemed like overkill. I understand why he repeated himself now. While he himself thinks that the evidence for a migration is stronger than that for indigenous development, he makes it amply clear just how weak the evidence for both theories is. He does, however, have a little fun with the most far-fetched fringe writers on the subject, some of whsom have floated ideas that deserve mockery.
I did have a few minor problems with the book, but those must be laid at the door of Oxford University Press. The book contains so many typos that I can only suppose it wasn't proofread by a professional. The paper is so thin that the printer was forced to use dark gray ink instead of black to avoid show-through, a real nuisance for those of us whose eyes aren't what they used to be. For a book of this price, this kind of penny-pinching is inexcusable.

I am an Indian and a practicing Hindu. I respect all religions and believe in the dictum "If you are a Christian, be a good Christian. If you are a Muslim, be a good Muslim. If you are a Hindu, be a good Hindu..Above all be a good human being." Having said that, let me say a few words about the book.

Edwin Bryant makes a superhuman effort to show all sides of an extremely emotional and complex story where several mutually opposing parties are involved without showing any bias towards any group. He goes after truth like no one else did before. He refuses to brand anyone but let one brand oneself by quoting what one said or wrote on the "Indo-Aryans" subject. Also, he completely refrains from the cheap trick - selective quoting. Now, that is scholarlship.

As a whole Bryant comes out as not only a brilliant scholar who can capture the essence of what has been said on this subject in the last 200 years which in by itself is no small accomplishment but more importantly in doing so establishes himself as a mature, sensitive and a decent human being. Now, that is beyond sholarship.

He doesn't hesitate to go after the establishment when he sees fit. As an example, see Bryant's response to Harvard professor, Michael Witzel, who believes in Aryan Immigration/Acculuturation Theory, on the subject of river names. Just to be sure, Bryant agrees with Witzel on several other readings. I am just using this as an example to show Bryant's fearlessness, integrity and personal resolve to stand firm.

See page 100
Witzel's reading (1999) of the evidence of hydronomy is as follows:
"...Indo-Aryans influence...was from early on powerful enough to replace the local...rive names...One would expect, just as in the Near East or in Europe, a survival of older names and adoption of them by the IA newcomers upon entering the territories of the people(s) of the Induscivilization and its successor cultures..."
To this Bryant counters in the same page:
"Such conservatism is, indeed, extremely surprising, especially since the Indo-Aryans did not enter in sufficient numbers to be perceivable in the skeletal record of the subcontinent...One also wonders how such small numbers of immigration could have eradicated the names of rivers and places in the Northwest of the subcontinent in the few hundred years..."

This book will go down in history as a great contribution to the subject. A must read for anyone who is interested in knowing more about the vedic peple. I won't call them Indo-Aryans. I oppose the word 'Aryan' as after all the abuse it sounds racist. I would just call them "RigVedic people."

I am not an academic in this specific area but very interested in the subject. With that in mind - I found the book fascinating. Wealth of information, very comprehensive and informative. The language is somewhat dry (which one would anyway expect from an academic publication) but still very readable for non-specialist in the field. If it is substance you are after, this book is excellent and very intellectually stimulating.

It is not an easy task to summarize approximately two hundred years of research on the origins of Vedic Culture. It is an even more difficult task to dispassionately review the evidence on the history of the Indo-Aryans - given that participants in the debate have now degenerated to the level of squabbling school children. It is to Mr. Bryant's credit that he admirably succeeds in giving a comprehensive and balanced overview of the vast terrain. Archaeology, Linguistics, Astronomy - all these areas are covered, catering to the level of the general reader albeit without oversimplification. He terms his own position on the 'Origins Question' as 'agnostic'. He does however convince the (non-fanatic) reader that agnosticism is the rational position given the current state of knowledge. His position that only the 'final' decipherment of the Indus script will lead to progress in the debate is also well-supported by his analysis. Altogether, I think this book will remain the best entry point for this topic for at least the next 25-30 years.

Would it be possible to cover such a subject with more balance? I don't think so. Bryant does not "pit 19th century linguistics orthodoxy" against others. Of course he covers the 19th century ideas--and 18th, 20th, and 21st century ideas as well. For goodness sakes, the man cited works that had not even been published yet when he finished his book. Painstaking is indeed the word to describe this magnificent study. Not always easy to follow, but fascinating every page of the book.

As a college history instructor with a minor field in Chinese history but the bulk of my work in European, I have some interest in the rest of Asia's history, and had, of course, heard the Out of India Theory, and like many, dismissed it out of hand. I'd read Mallory's "In Search of the Indo-Europeans", knew Gamkrelidze and Ivanov's ideas, and thought them the last word on the subject. Bryant taught me better. Like Bryant, I tend to think that the weight of the evidence is on the side of the Aryan Invasion Theory, but as Bryant's detailed observations show, a little evidence the other way, and OIT might gain the upper hand. OIT certainly should not be ignored or belittled.

Edwin Bryant brings clear-eyed vision and thorough scholarship to a topic that has lately seen more heat than light. Theories about the prehistory of the Indian subcontinent have tended toward the speculative and ideological, and even scholars who have approached the subject dispassionately and carefully have been picked up by others who want to use their conclusions for political ends. Bryant looks at a couple of centuries of theorizing about the origins of the Indo-European languages, and particularly of Sanskrit. Both entertaining and educational.

The reviewer here that disses Bryant's book clearly didn't read it. He accuses Bryant of conclusions he never came to and beliefs he explicitly disavowed.

This is indeed a good book that attempts to provide a much-needed acamedic update on this subject. Ever since India was left to deal with this subject based on findings from its colonial legacy, Indians in general have seen a lot of books from various authors which have questioned AIT strongly. I have myself read many such books, some cheap and some well explained("Gods, Sages..." by Frawley and "India - The cradle..." by Kak, Frawley, and "In Search of Mystical Krisna" by Rajaram). It is obvious that an academic perspective of old and recent theories has been a big gap and I am glad that Byrant filled up this gap very admirably.

The key question is - now what? Will this topic remain a perennial intellectual debate between academicians - this topic has become so controversial and it appears unlikely that both sides will ever change their positions. The Governments (who ultimately control educuational ministries) will possibly never amend the textbooks (if required) till all academecians will reach a consensus on the subject. Will this subject have a consensus position? Byrnt states that once Indus Script is deciphered, the discussion will be completely closed. Rajaram in his book on Krishna however states that Dr Jha has already deciphered the Script but I do not see any discussion on this topic in the circles. Unless of course, this decipherment is also like that of Kak (based on assumptions that will never be taken as proven evidence!!).

Unlike in the colonial period where opinions of few scholars were considered as a basis for defining history, today's nation states appear much weaker to propose changes to the subject of history. For example, China, has articulated the history of Japanese massacre very clearly in its history books and this has created a strong feeling of hatred amongst Chinese for Japanese. But Indian government treatment of British History or Muslim invasions is more lenient (and balanced) and in retrospect, this is probably preferable as fissures in society could needlessly widen on account of events that have happened hundreds of years back. Nevertheless, even if say, the Indus Script is deciphered justifying the fallacy of AIT, the caution will possibly result in any such truth remain in academic journals rather than history books. Even today, a view can be taken to amend the history books to reflect at least both versions (with their merits and demerits) and this may encourage at least a few young Indians to take up this subject as a career choice.

Be that as it may, Byrant's work is indeed a good start on this subject in the 21st century and if this leads to renewed interest amongst academicia to resolve the mystery, the book is indeed worth the effort.

This is a primer to study the Indo-Aryan problem. You can learn all the sources and their arguments for their pet theories, and their opposition, their criticism etc. The author also writes about the Indian scholars and their viewpoint of an Indian homeland. This is a very good book to learn about the arguments of the various parties involved and get a good idea from where to start with. Of course this book assumes that the reader has some background on the topic though. Read my full review at http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=19780.

The DNA evidence on the likelihood of Aryan migration into ancient India shows that the linguistic and archaeological evidence Bryant painstakingly wasted his time surveying is unreliable. After all this huffing and puffing and resort to academic credentials to buttress arguments one wonders about the methodology of these subjects and credibility. Please read the:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America

S. Sahoo et al., 'A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios', PNAS, January 24, 2006, Vol. 103 no. 4 843848

The book is not properly conceived. It pits the 19th century linguistics orthodoxy about the chronology of the Vedic people against a diverse set of scholars. On the one hand, you have the archaeologists who are completely against the racist basis of the linguists' framework; on the other, you have most Sanskritists and historians of astronomy who claim that the internal evidence within the Vedic books goes against the linguists' chronology. Bryant conflates all these diverse scholars with "Hindu nationalists", suggesting a political agenda behind the views!

He has created a false dichotomy of AIT and OIT. In fact, most of the scholars who reject AIT reject its chronology of invasions or immigration around 2000 BC, preferring to stay silent on the situation before 4000 BC or so.

The intellectural framework for the book is weak. Its one redeeming feature is that it brings together many different views. Bryant is to be commended for not taking sides too brazenly.