The Aryan Invasion Theory: more than meets the eye
Koenraad Elst
The IE-framework, however, in spite of the copious genetic and other evidence to the contrary, still insists on 'Aryans' entering 'Dravidian' India, merely in order to satisfy its linguistic model.
The linguistic model central to the IE framework is non-falsifiable, because it does not lend itself to extra-linguistic scrutiny or evaluation. Logically speaking, the rejection of the major AIT/AMT-related scenarios, which posited that Caucasian IE-speakers came to India (and upon which hinged indology's model of IE language diffusion in the subcontinent), should have made indologists take another look at their basic premise and the very nature of the linguistic connections. Yet indologists still refrain from questioning their linguistic model: they do not re-assess their central assumptions about PIE, the Aryans and the Urheimat. This is why present-day findings in genetics, Indian archaeology and anthropology, including that of the Tarim Basin, has but lessened the force of the IE world-view's thrust. Since indology still retains the basic premise that underpins its whole framework, it attempts to bypass the findings of the other sciences by giving rise to new scenarios of small-scale Aryan migrations down to tiny influxes.
There might be other explanations to account for the similarities that Samskritam and Avestan bear to the various European languages; explanations which do not necessarily coincide with the monolith of the IE framework. Indology's continued insistence on linguistics being the final determinant in all matters relating to the spread of IE languages and in defining the nature of the connections between various languages deemed IE, could well be obstructing the envisioning of new paradigms: models that might be able to explain the observed similarities between Samskritam, Avestan and European languages, whilst still being consistent with the data revealed in the other sciences.
Time to ask why
Why does their model still persist? Why do indologists not reconsider the fundamental premise of their theory? Though they have retracted the Aryan Invasion and have been forced to give up large scale migrations (to the point where, at present, one must imagine tiny bands of Aryan entrants to have silently crept into India, wiped out all records of their presence and interactions there, and then disappeared or died out without passing on their genes), they refuse to reformulate or even re-evaluate their basic assumption.Why? What are the reason(s) governing indology's non-self-critical approach when dealing with counter-evidence from other sciences?
Read it online: