As a result of the discovery of similarities between Sanskrit and the classical languages of Europe, scholars hypothesized the existence of an early “proto-Indo-European” people who spoke the language from which the other Indo-European speakers evolved. The solution to this Indo-European homeland problem has been one of the most consuming intellectual projects of the last two centuries. At first it was assumed that India was the original home of all the Indo-Europeans. Soon, however, Western scholars were contending that the Vedic culture of ancient India must have been the by-product of an in ... More

As a result of the discovery of similarities between Sanskrit and the classical languages of Europe, scholars hypothesized the existence of an early “proto-Indo-European” people who spoke the language from which the other Indo-European speakers evolved. The solution to this Indo-European homeland problem has been one of the most consuming intellectual projects of the last two centuries. At first it was assumed that India was the original home of all the Indo-Europeans. Soon, however, Western scholars were contending that the Vedic culture of ancient India must have been the by-product of an invasion or migration of “Indo-Aryans” from outside the subcontinent. Over the years, Indian scholars have raised many arguments against this European reconstruction of their nation’s history, yet Western scholars have generally been unaware or dismissive of these voices from India itself. Edwin Bryant offers a comprehensive examination of this ongoing debate, presenting all of the relevant philological, archaeological, linguistic, and historiographical data, and showing how they have been interpreted both to support the theory of Aryan migrations and to contest it. Bringing to the fore those hitherto marginalized voices that argue against the external origin of the Indo-Aryans, he shows how Indian scholars have questioned the very logic, assumptions, and methods upon which the theory is based and have used the same data to arrive at very different conclusions. By exposing the whole endeavor to criticism from scholars who do not share the same intellectual history as their European peers, Bryant’s work newly complicates the Indo-European homeland quest. At the same time it recognizes the extent to which both sides of the debate have been driven by political, racial, religious, and nationalistic agendas.