雅利安人入侵/迁移理论的殖民根源与西方来源的当代考古证据

IF 0.1 4区 历史学 0 ASIAN STUDIES Indian Historical Review Pub Date : 2021-10-20 DOI:10.1177/03769836211052101
Kundan Singh
{"title":"雅利安人入侵/迁移理论的殖民根源与西方来源的当代考古证据","authors":"Kundan Singh","doi":"10.1177/03769836211052101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"William Jones, famously, by identifying close linkages between Sanskrit and European languages, gave birth to research into the common ancestry between Indians and Europeans. In the earlier years of contention on the matter, India was considered the cradle of civilisation and Sanskrit as the mother of all Indo-European languages. With the rise in the imperial power of Europe over India, the cradle of civilisation began to shift outside India and ultimately landed in Europe. Simultaneously, the idea of invasion of India by the ‘Aryan race’, or the Aryan invasion theory (AIT), was promoted. Since then, however, one archaeological find over another have consistently refuted the AIT, proving it as false. As flawed as it remains, this theory has, nonetheless, persisted and morphed in its current form as the Aryan migration theory (AMT) and continues to find mention and favour in contemporary academic discourse. In mainstream academia, today, whether in grade-school texts or in texts meant for undergraduate and graduate study, whenever India and Hinduism are mentioned, the coming of Aryans from outside of India and establishing Hinduism and civilisation in India are discussed as veritable facts. By examining the theory in anticolonial and postcolonial contexts, we show that despite considerable archaeological evidence refuting the theories of the invasion or migration of Aryans into India, its colonial embeddedness in the notion of the racial superiority of the Europeans or people with European ancestry that the theory does not fade into oblivion.","PeriodicalId":41945,"journal":{"name":"Indian Historical Review","volume":"3 1","pages":"251 - 272"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Colonial Roots of the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory and the Contemporary Archaeological Evidence in Western Sources\",\"authors\":\"Kundan Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03769836211052101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"William Jones, famously, by identifying close linkages between Sanskrit and European languages, gave birth to research into the common ancestry between Indians and Europeans. In the earlier years of contention on the matter, India was considered the cradle of civilisation and Sanskrit as the mother of all Indo-European languages. With the rise in the imperial power of Europe over India, the cradle of civilisation began to shift outside India and ultimately landed in Europe. Simultaneously, the idea of invasion of India by the ‘Aryan race’, or the Aryan invasion theory (AIT), was promoted. Since then, however, one archaeological find over another have consistently refuted the AIT, proving it as false. As flawed as it remains, this theory has, nonetheless, persisted and morphed in its current form as the Aryan migration theory (AMT) and continues to find mention and favour in contemporary academic discourse. In mainstream academia, today, whether in grade-school texts or in texts meant for undergraduate and graduate study, whenever India and Hinduism are mentioned, the coming of Aryans from outside of India and establishing Hinduism and civilisation in India are discussed as veritable facts. By examining the theory in anticolonial and postcolonial contexts, we show that despite considerable archaeological evidence refuting the theories of the invasion or migration of Aryans into India, its colonial embeddedness in the notion of the racial superiority of the Europeans or people with European ancestry that the theory does not fade into oblivion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Historical Review\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"251 - 272\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Historical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03769836211052101\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Historical Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03769836211052101","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

著名的威廉·琼斯(William Jones)通过发现梵语和欧洲语言之间的密切联系,引发了对印度人和欧洲人共同祖先的研究。在早期关于这个问题的争论中,印度被认为是文明的摇篮,梵语被认为是所有印欧语言的发源地。随着欧洲对印度的皇权的崛起,文明的摇篮开始从印度转移到欧洲。与此同时,“雅利安种族”入侵印度的想法,或雅利安入侵理论(AIT)得到了推广。然而,从那时起,一个又一个的考古发现一直在反驳美国在台理论,证明它是错误的。尽管这一理论仍然存在缺陷,但它坚持并演变成目前的形式,即雅利安移民理论(AMT),并继续在当代学术话语中得到提及和青睐。今天,在主流学术界,无论是小学教材还是本科和研究生教材中,只要提到印度和印度教,就会把来自印度以外的雅利安人的到来以及在印度建立印度教和文明作为名副其实的事实来讨论。通过在反殖民和后殖民背景下检验这一理论,我们表明,尽管有大量考古证据驳斥了雅利安人入侵或迁移到印度的理论,但它在欧洲人或有欧洲血统的人的种族优越论中的殖民嵌入,这一理论并没有被遗忘。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Colonial Roots of the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory and the Contemporary Archaeological Evidence in Western Sources
William Jones, famously, by identifying close linkages between Sanskrit and European languages, gave birth to research into the common ancestry between Indians and Europeans. In the earlier years of contention on the matter, India was considered the cradle of civilisation and Sanskrit as the mother of all Indo-European languages. With the rise in the imperial power of Europe over India, the cradle of civilisation began to shift outside India and ultimately landed in Europe. Simultaneously, the idea of invasion of India by the ‘Aryan race’, or the Aryan invasion theory (AIT), was promoted. Since then, however, one archaeological find over another have consistently refuted the AIT, proving it as false. As flawed as it remains, this theory has, nonetheless, persisted and morphed in its current form as the Aryan migration theory (AMT) and continues to find mention and favour in contemporary academic discourse. In mainstream academia, today, whether in grade-school texts or in texts meant for undergraduate and graduate study, whenever India and Hinduism are mentioned, the coming of Aryans from outside of India and establishing Hinduism and civilisation in India are discussed as veritable facts. By examining the theory in anticolonial and postcolonial contexts, we show that despite considerable archaeological evidence refuting the theories of the invasion or migration of Aryans into India, its colonial embeddedness in the notion of the racial superiority of the Europeans or people with European ancestry that the theory does not fade into oblivion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Indian Historical Review (IHR), a peer reviewed journal, addresses research interest in all areas of historical studies, ranging from early times to contemporary history. While its focus is on the Indian subcontinent, it has carried historical writings on other parts of the world as well. Committed to excellence in scholarship and accessibility in style, the IHR welcomes articles which deal with recent advancements in the study of history and discussion of method in relation to empirical research. All articles, including those which are commissioned, are independently and confidentially refereed. The IHR will aim to promote the work of new scholars in the field. In order to create a forum for discussion, it will be interested in particular in writings which critically respond to articles previously published in this journal. The IHR has been published since 1974 by the Indian Council of Historical Research. It is edited by an Editorial Board appointed by the Council. The Council also obtains the advice and support of an Advisory Committee which comprises those members of the Council who are not members of the editorial board.
期刊最新文献
Recruitment in the Indian Armed Forces, 1939–1945 Book review: Tahir Hussain Ansari, Mughal Administration and the Zamindars of Bihar Giving the Devil His Diu: Malik Ayyaz, the Estada da India and Reassessing Comparative Naval Power in the Early Modern Indian Ocean Book review: Amarjit Singh Narang, Region, Religion and Politics: Hundred Years of Shiromani Akali Dal Jute Trade in Colonial Goalpara of Assam
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1