Out of India theory

The Out-of -India Theory (OIT ) is in contrast to the prevailing school of thought among Indo-Europeanists, according to which there should have been towards a more comprehensive waves of Indo-Aryan immigration Bronze Age -speaking peoples into India from the northwest. Instead of such a more or less peaceful invasion of Aryans into the territory of the later of them oppressed indigenous people, whom they identified with the Dasyus or Dasas of the Vedas, is accepted within the OIT that both the Aryans ( Indo-Europeans ) and the Dasas actually natives of India were and their culture and language of Northern India from widespread. Gradually, the individual Indo- European languages ​​( IE) have split off from the Aryan language and had been spread by the respective speaker to Central and Southwest Asia and Europe.

Historically, this theory has sometimes been represented in the early 19th century in the West, by Friedrich Schlegel in 1808, before the second half of the century the theory of an invasion or migration from outside interspersed who could not rely on a local tradition. Nowadays, among the supporters of the OIT many nationalists and supporters of the Hindutva movement. In the publishers Voice of India and Aditya Prakashan, headed by Sita Ram Goel and his son several books have been published that seek to disprove the theory of " Aryan Invasion", including books by Koenraad Elst (1999) and Shrikant G. Talageri ( 2000). In the Indo-European academic or Indology, the OIT has no support; with Braj Basi Lal however, there is a prominent archaeologist, who represents a version of the OIT.

The American Journal of Indo- European Studies was prompted in 2002, an advocate ( Nicholas Kazanas ) outside its normal selection criteria give an opportunity for a presentation. Kazanas ' article appeared along with nine reviews who discussed why the out-of -India theory is now generally rejected as untenable.

• 3.1 horse

Linguistic arguments

As a scientifically accepted Presume not sure a reconstructed, hypothetical Proto -Indo- European language (PIE ), also called Indo-European proto-language. Less agreement you are about it, in what geographic region, these precursors language is to settle. The OIT is pursuing the objective reasoning that PIE was born in India. In the further development of PIE to the Dravidian languages ​​Sanskrit, Austro Asiatic languages ​​such as Munda and other substrate languages ​​have participated. This is evidenced numerous loanwords.

Satya Swarup Misra The linguist attempts to prove on the tracks of an Indo- Aryan substrate at the Mittani (around 1400 BC) to compete, which should bear witness to the Middle East from a migration from India. It is the Prakrit similar than Sanskrit, must therefore be assigned to about the same time be like that. Misras scenario culminates in a serious deviating from the consensus dating of the Vedic Sanskrit, which was BC to settle instead of around 1500 to 5000 BC.

Philological argument

Rigveda

Important clues fundus for a linguistic study is the Aryan Rig Veda, the oldest part of the Vedas, because this text must have been in the disputed time. Thus he tells us of the life habits, environmental conditions and knowledge of the Aryans.

Thus, the river Sarasvati, whom we know only as a dried up river bed today, addressed in the Rigveda as a torrent. Hydrological investigations revealed that Sarasvati has this status no later lost in 2000 BC. The Aryans had at that time so have been wrong in this area. At that time there flourished and the five current country whose rivers were the Aryans also known by name, nor the Indus Valley Civilization. Representatives of the OIT argue here that very unlikely two such civilizations may have existed alongside each other and that, consequently, the Indus Valley Civilization must be identical with the Aryan.

Epics

Approaches to the topic through a comparison of the great epics, the Mahabharata on Indian and the Odyssey on the European side may prove more than a touch of cultures. Furthermore, the direction in which the influence vonstattenging, may at best be speculated. If both went narratives from a source out or was the one from the other? Of course, both have emerged over time much too late, but can also be here after borrowed ideas, borrowed words and archaic names search.

Archaeological reasoning

Archaeological findings do not allow any firm conclusions. While there are, for example, finds a recurring peacock motif, which was apparently diffuses from India, but, as so often, more than one contact between the cultures concerned can be stated again. On the other hand, it certainly seems to be no findings that would clearly prove an invasion or immigration of the Aryans.

Horse

A special position within the archaeological discussion on this topic occupies the domesticated horse and its importance in religion and culture. In touch with him was also the two -wheeled battle wagons in warlike past. The original home of the former can probably locate very safe in today's Ukraine. But can we therefore assume that the Aryans, in their culture, the domesticated horse just played a crucial role, came with him to India? Or was there simply horses in both regions already and the migrating Aryans speak to him only outside India to play a more important role because other pets like the ox - well known in the Indus Valley Civilization - missing here?

In Harappa of the Indus Valley Civilization we 've finally found already terracotta miniatures and bones of horses. Therefore, according to OIT, one had to the Indus Valley Civilization already called Aryan.