Is the aryan dravidian theory true? | AskHistorians Archive Observer

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by Aryan Dravidian theory, so I'll just explain the primary controversy and what I think you mean. That said, I last studied this a few years ago, so if there were any major findings in the last 5 years, my sources wouldn't have covered it.

So, a little background. What is commonly known as the Indus civilization was first found in 1924, and the original theory, as put forward by archaeologists like Mortimer Wheeler and Colonel Gordon, was known as the "Aryan Invasion Theory". This theory argued that the Indus civilization was destroyed by the invading Aryans as described in the Vedas ("on circumstantial evidences Indra stands accused" as Wheeler put it). With better dating techniques in the late 50s and 60s, it was found that the Indus civilization clearly predated the believed arrival date of the Aryans, and that its decline was unrelated . Eventually a new "Aryan Migration Hypothesis" replaced the earlier theory, stating the Aryans had arrived, absorbed what remained of the Indus civilization (taking from it some material techniques, such as in pottery, and some vocabulary), and eventually overtook much of the rest of India.

Against the immigration hypothesis, a second Indigenous Aryanism also emerged. The Indigenousists argue that continuity in material records and human remains both show no sign of any large scale Aryan immigration. They also argue that the Vedic evidence supports an indigenous origin, largely arguing that the Indus-Sarasvati region was the setting for the Vedas and the homeplace of the Aryans (among other arguments, they note that the Sarasvati river was greatly reduced due to tectonic movements at just about the time that civilization appears to have begun to decline). Some proponents of this theory go even further and argue that India is the birthplace of the Indo-European people, but I'm not going to get into that...it gets silly.

Unfortunately, things are not so clear cut. One of the biggest issues in the Indigenous theory might seem a little out of left field, but it is a serious issue...horses. The Vedas are all about horses. Gods use them. People pray for them. And there is no evidence of them at all in the Indus-Sarasvati region until around 2,000-1,900 BC. That leaves almost a millennia of the peak of the civilization without horses. Lots of bulls, on pottery, terracota, and elsewhere...but no horses. Then around 2,000 BC they start showing up, and are almost India-wide by 500 BC, both in material remains and in art. And it's not just horses that are missing. There are no signs of chariots or wheels either, and if you've read any of the Vedas, well...those are important.

So what of the Indigenousist criticisms then? Well, they don't really hold water. There are material remains, both biological and material, that show a discontinuity in the general region towards the start of the 2nd Millennia BC (including skeletal remains, both human and horse, pottery, and other materials). There is also linguistic evidence that the Vedas appear to show more loanwords in later texts, with many of those loanwords being agricultural in nature (the Aryans are argued to have been pastoralists, a fact which may also explain the limited material remains, as they would likely use local artifacts and pottery, rather than carry their own). Lastly, it has also been argued that the migration may have been limited in scope. Language replacement can occur so long as the new language has high sociopolitical value, such as in the establishment of a new ruling class (the change from Sumerian to Akkadian is pointed to as another example of this phenomena).

Unfortunately, while the migration theory has the best evidence behind it, the indigenous theory does not seem to be going away. Part of this is nationalism, plain and simple. There are vested interests in India that want to prove an Indian-origin for the Aryans (and this gets even more ridiculous when they attempt to prop up the importance of findings in India over those in Pakistan...despite the fact that Pakistan appears to have the more important sites), and the result is bad history and bad science being pushed out as legitimate. Long story short, if you see something about Aryans or ancient Indian history, make sure you consider the source.