-
Jun 0728('
’Aryan Invasion Theory has been proved to be a myth and as a wrong theory long back. But let me explain in detail the actual history and dirty politics behind this theory. Note that this theory was used as a basis by Hitler to advocate his theory of the supremacy of the Aryan race and to mindlessly kill whom he claimed to be non-aryans!
Definition
Let us first see what the Aryan Invasion Theory says.
It calls the race which belonged to the vedic age as Aryans. It says that at around 1500 BC Aryans, (which it says was a tribe from the Europe) invaded north India plundering and pushing down the local Dravidians (who it says were the original natives of India) who lived there to down South India. In a nutshell, it says the North Indians of today belong to an Aryan race which came to India from Europe and today’s South Indians are the native Indians (called Dravidian Race!) who lived in North India before the Aryans came! The vedic people who lived in North India during the vedic ages were these Aryans, it says!
First let us see how did they arrive at these dates! It was well known in India in the british period that Vedas pre-dated Christ, since they definitely pre-dated Buddha who lived some 400 years before Christ. Some scholars(!) then said that as per Bible the world was created in 4000 BC(!), and Noah’s flood took place in 2500 BC(!). So they decided that Aryan Invasion of India must have taken place only after this flood and before Buddha, and hence would be around 1500 BC! This is the funniest investigation I have ever heard about. I doubt if anybody can dare to call this a scientific investigation! This is what some call as, adjusting history to be compliant with religious texts
Now let us see some of the obvious proofs that have thrown this theory into dustbin.
Aryan is not a race!
First of all Aryan is not a race. No where in the vedas and other ancient Indian text is the terms Aryan used to refer to a race!! Aryan in Sanskrit means Gentleman. It is used in Sanskrit like how in English we use the term Mr, that s all about it!Even Max Muller who initially termed vedas as childish (only to be later criticized by other scholars as a person who doesnt know even basic sanskrit!), later tried to correct himself in many occassions about the Aryan race! He said:
I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan languageto me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.
(Max Mueller, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas, 1888, pg 120)Dravidians was not a separate race!
The people of south India whom the Aryan Invasion theory says were the original natives, are NOT a race separate from the North Indians! They all belong to one and the same race. The ancient Indian vedic race. This is because, the languages of both, the so called Aryan and Dravidian people have their roots in Sanskrit language. Both worship the same Gods. Both have the same epics. Both have same philosophies. Both have histories which date back to BC..
Given these facts, how can then Aryans and Dravidians be two separate races? If Aryans had invaded India then why are Dravidians following the same customs and religion as aryans. How do they speak languages which originated from the same parental language?
Why dont any dravidian folk lore or ancient texts or sayings or stories or epics exist which talk about the so called Aryan invasion? Also why do the vedic texts talk about locations in South India? The Ramayana, Mahabharatha all talk about South Indian locations even below and beyond the main land of India into the Indian ocean like Srilanka! If Aryans were from europe and if they invaded North India and pushed local people down to South India, where did these locations come from?
This proves beyond doubt that there do not exist any separate Aryan and Dravidian races. Instead natives of both North India and South India belong to one single race called the Vedic Indian race!
No mention of Europe!
There is no mention of any location outside the mainland of India in any of the vedic texts! If aryans came from Europe, then why havent the so called aryans mentioned any of the european locations in any of the vedic or related texts? The farthest location away from India towards the west mentioned in the vedas is Kadhahar of present day Afghanistan, which was called Gandhar in the vedic texts and was said to be the kingdom of Shakuni.
Why haven’t any of the texts mentioned about their European locations? Why is there no vedic text which talks about migration from Europe?
No European Rivers!
None of the vedic texts talk about rivers outside India! Everybody knows that rivers were the major sources of water for all ancient civilizations and so all ancient civilizations were centered around the world’s major rivers. Why is there no mention of any European river or a river outside India anywhere in the vedic texts? Wouldn’t a race mention something or the other about its native place in at least one of its texts?
Saraswati River
This is a death blow to the Aryan Invasion theory. According to the Aryan Invasion theory the aryans who invaded India in around 1500 BC settled on the banks of Indus or Sindhu river in North India.
The vedic texts talk about Ganga Yamuna Saraswati as the trio river , the three great rivers of their age. Ganga and Yamuna rivers exist even today in North India and till sometime back Saraswati was thought to be a mythological river. But vedas talk about Saraswati as a mighty river that flowed in the north India during the vedic ages!
There is also the mention of the Ganga Yamuna Saraswati merging at a place called Prayag , which was also called the Triveni Sangam (the current Allahabad in North India where today only Ganga and Yamuna meet). It is said that the Saraswati that merged here with the other two rivers was a subterranean channel of the main river of Saraswati.
The Mahabhartha talks about Saraswati river saying that it dried up in a desert! So it has to be noted here that Mahabhartha can be dated back to the drying up of the Saraswati river!
Recent satellite images and geological excavations have proved the existence of a ancient river in North India, with exactly the same features of river Saraswati described in the vedas and Mahabharatha! Today Saraswati is a dried up river today. Before Saraswati dried up, the present Rajasthan was a lush green area! The drying up of Saraswati created the Thar desert in Rajasthan. Even the current dry beds of Sindh and Baluchistan (currently in Pakistan) were lush green fertile lands before the Saraswati river dried up!
See Saraswati Darshan for a related video and explanation. Below is a image of the path of Saraswati river in ancient India. The source is http://www.aryashaadi.com/.
Below is a satellite image of the dried up bed of Saraswati river. The source is http://www.stephen-knapp.com . Note that in some places the river is as wide as 7 kilometers!
Why did the Saraswati river dry up? The plate tectonics of the Indian sub continental plate and the himalayan sources of this river are thought to be the main reason for that. Sutlej and Yamuna were the main sources of the Saraswati river. As the Indian plate moved up towards the main Eurasian plate, the course of Yamuna got altered in the Himalayas moving more water of Yamuna towards the Ganga river and that of Sutlej got altered to join Indus! This caused a major loss in terms of its water source for the river Saraswati and is thought to have been the cause for its drying up.
Now what does Saraswati river have to say about the Aryan Invastion theory of 1500 BC? Well, the geological excavations give a date of about 4000 BC for the drying up of Saraswati river !
Same Human Race
There are four primary human races in the world. They are Caucasian, Mongoloid, Australian and Negroid. The so called aryan and dravidian people both belong to the Caucasian race where people only get a bit darker as one moves towards the equator which is a natural phenomenon all over the world. More sunlight means more melanin pigment in the skin. As simple as that.
So if Aryan invasion is true then it means that the Caucasian race which first evolved and lived together, then got separated into Aryans and Dravidians and both moved geographies apart, and then became one by Aryans invading Dravidians! Is there any proof for this in AIT?Why Aryan Invasion Theory?
Then why was the Aryan Invasion Theory created? Well, more than saying created, it was popularized and promoted by the British without investigating its merits and demerits because it suited their divide and rule policy in India. The same way they divided the Hindus and Muslims in India based on religion, they also divided the Indians using this theory as Aryans (North Indians) and Dravidians (South Indians). This was the politics behind this theory. Also read this .
Conclusion
See what modern science and technology has to say about vedic science
In a nutshell, the ancient vedic people were settled in India much before 4000 BC and have nothing to do with the myth of 1500 BC invasion theory! There is no separate aryan or dravidian race. There is one single ancient Indian vedic race with roots IN INDIA. Indus valley civilization is NOT the most ancient Indian civilization. It was probably only a remnant civilization of an ancient Civilization that existed till the end of the Mahabaratha war. The most ancient Indian civilization was therefore the Saraswati valley civilization (or a Ganga-Yamuna-Saraswati civilization) of the vedic age.
Finally read this link to look beyond my thoughts on this invasion that never really happened!
Aryan Invastion Theory – THE END
Related posts:
242 Responses to “The Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory”
-
Vishy says:
Shree,
Not sure how much you have got the latest updates on Sindhu-Sarasvathi civilization. Many scientific proofs disprove the aryan invasion theory. As for as the sounth indian river names are concerned, this has to be take not of. There definitely exists a devide bewteen ancient north and south indians. Thats not mean so called aryans came from outside.
Please cehck the following videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pueVNbuZ2A4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8NpaG0cAGo&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgXq1dHLS0o&feature=related
Guru might have used some strong words aginst Britishers who used Aryan invasion theory to devide people. Please find yourself the scientific proves in the above videos.
-
True Vishy. As for the south Indian river names they are mentioned in Ramayana as Rama moves towards Lanka and during his forest stay. Much of south India was in those days a dense forest called Dandakaranya. The places of South India are mentioned throughout Ramayana and Mahabharatha.
-
-
Harry says:
Thanks, Gurudev, that clears that up. Alexander seems often to have been called Iskander in Asia so there are some close phonemes here. I only chanced upon your site because of your explanation of the Einstein equation. A more limid bit of science education would be hard to find. I shall read and reread it ’til I can explain it by heart at parties and thus get all my hanging-on-til-dawn guests to leave….
-
Yes Harry, Alexander was referred to as Iskander (a localization of his name), and Greeks were called by the name Yavans (horsemen) in Asia. It was here in India that his army finally rebeled with the thoughts of having to invade further across Ganges after the tough war with Porus in which Alexander nearly lost his life. On the other side of the Ganges there was the mighty army of the Magadha kingdom waiting to fight Alexander, but Alexander never crossed the river due to the refusal by his army to move further into India, and instead the greeks turned back from what is the current Punjab region.
True, field equations are one of the most fascinating mathematical formulations yet the least written ones in terms of layman’s language. So that was an attempt made by me to talk about these equations in non-mathematical language (or may I say in simplest mathematical terms).
-
-
If my memory serves me well, the city of Kandahar was originally called Alexandria after the Macedonian conquerer who founded it.
In an earlier message on this topic it was said that in the Mahabaratha (or perhaps the Ramayana) this city was known as Gandhur, which to me sounds remarkably like both Kandahar and Alexandria. Since Alexander lived around 600BC does this also date the Vedic text as coming from that period?
Since I’m English you’ll no doubt have dark doubts about my motives in raising this question, but please explain how a city mentioned in a supposedly 4000 year old document can contain a name given 1400 years later.-
No such dark doubts harry. Question is logical
1. Mahabharata is the one which identifies this region as Gandhara kingdom in those days, ruled by Shakuni (which is dated to around 3500 BCE). Now tell me what sounds more like Kandhahar- Alexandria or Gandhar?
Well, the truth is the name Kandhahar existed for this region even before Alexander conquered this place. It was part of the Achaemenid Empire before Alexander’s invasion. After Alexander conquered it, just for a brief period it was renamed to Alexandria – and Alexander did this for almost every place which he conquered ie to name conquered places after his name – the traces of Alexander vanished from all those places just as quickly as Alexander himself, and so did it in Kandhahar.2. The word “kand” or “qand” in the local languages (Persian and Pashto) means “sweet”. And the ancient word in Mahabharata- “Gandh” (which Gandhar is derived from) also means the same – a sweet nice smell.
As for dating of the vedic texts is concerned, in India we have hundreds of places which have the same name as the one they had during the ancient vedic ages. Does this then date the vedic texts to current date?
-
-
prasad nair says:
I have done much study over the criminological aspects of british groups through their entire history. We will not believe what are actually trying to do, ” I mean trying to do – not done, and what all done is part of that.” Some of us will be aware of their secret groups’ propaganda. In britain and other allied contries They have numerous secret terrorist groups having the root in britain. Some of them are like following: Ku Klux Klan, Illuminati, Freemasons, etc. they are functioning for wealth, power, and supremacy of british monarch. Making of the history of India, making of dictionaries of Indian languages, educational system which excludes all the indian scientific and cultural knowledge (refer http://www.iish.org for scientific knowledge), even the explosion of atom bombs in Japan (at that time Subhash Chandra Bose’s army movement was being done with the help of Japanese army) all are related to the activities of secret groups. So justifying or trying to find out the truth about aryan invasion is a joke for the british. They are exploiting our nobility and wisdom. The most important thing is, before 1880’s nobody was knowing about the aryan invasion, because that was the point where they found that might will not help for conquering India, therefore they initiated psychological crime as big as this.
-
The entire world war II and hitler’s ideology was based on this flop aryan invasion theory which talked about supreme aryan blood resulting in massacre of millions of innocents by hitler’s army.
-
-
Raja says:
Nice one.
Yeah, I grew up knowing that I’m Aryan and the ‘South Indians’ aren’t! I grew up knowing that Hindi language is more similar to, say, German than it is to Tamil!
We were fed with this crap by the British and other Europeans, and we have been living happily. In our history books, we mention opinions of European ’scholars’ to substantiate the claim of ‘Aryan Invasion’, but don’t include the opinions of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo etc (all the three had countered AIT with solid logic during 1920s and 1930s).
I have read “The Secret of the Veda” by Sri Aurobindo where the AIT has really been destroyed. But we prefered to follow what our white masters had taught us! A linguistic study suggests that Tamil is the parent of Sanskrt. While Sanskrt could expand, both in letters and in words – because of cultural exchanges with Persia and beyond, Tamil remained stagnant.-
Very true Raja. Infact most of the vedic culture was revived in India after the rise of Buddhism by the great men from the south like Sri Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya etc. Wonder where did this dravid-aryan divide come from which didnt exist in those days. The source clearly points to the arrival of British and the era of Maxmullar and Co.
-
-
N R Kannan says:
The alphabets of Indian language indicates a thing in common among them. Except the letter “ZH” in Tamil and Malayalam, the rest of the letters are all in the same order in all the languages. The division of consonants is based on the organ involved in making the sounds represented by the letters in the particular group, eg. “ka” group, etc.
In case of Tamil alphabets, it is only truncated, but grouping as such is retained. -
ursri says:
Wonder indians easily believe colonial educational system. As the system boasts of works based on sceintific evidence. OR believe only on evidence.
But why indians are not questioning the sceitific grounds of evidence itself?
So whom to be blamed? System Creator or We Indians the Follower?-
Its a systematic brainwash thats in place everywhere. Just like how they teach in Paksitan today saying that India was a part of Pakistan before 1947
-
-
Foreverythingnew says:
Dear Mr Gurudev,
So glad to read this one. I see things changing at one end and dead end of ignorance at another. I live in the united states and work in a software company. apparently, i have colleagues who are still stuck with this aryan, north Indian have fairer skin and south Indians are not. I feel like jumping out of the building. Feels soooooo disgusting to acall them even Indians. Since they are in bulk and I ended up with bunch of sumstanders people, i end up staying wquite. DO you have suggestion for te>-
Thanks for your comments. Well the ignorance on the part of those Indians is because of the brainwashing colonial education which they have gone through
The textbooks still talk about aryan invasion theory, 1500 BCE etc which first needs to be corrected. We still are following the Mckauley’s educational model which was introduced in India by the British to make the Indians then feel that everything west is superior and scientific and everything Indian is inferior/unscientific and illogical. The most important thing pending ever since Independence is the reform of textbooks in India.
-
-
Sreeram, this explaination might be bit technical rather boring.. but info to ponder.
Most indian languages have 8 Vibhakthi and pratyayas’
eg. Phalam(a fruit-singual) Phale(2 frts-dual) Phalani(fruits-flural) – SanskritPandu(singular) Pandlu(plural) – Telugu
haNNU(singular) haNNUgaLU(plural) – Kannada
In Sanskrit it is possible to trace back why suffix, am, le, aani for word phalm to be used… that is for every word formation must follow sutras…
My point is it, Sanskrit is already refinedCan any one throw some light on Telugu, Kannada grammer rules and and also grammer to their dialect versions?
This might help us derivation/relations among languages….
-
ramnarayan says:
Am with Gurudev on AIT. Telugu cannot stand by itself without sanskrit words. Telugu and some southern indian languages might have their own words which sprung local to the region.
-
Correct Ramnarayan. I have never been able to comprehend how the so called dravidian languages exist without sanskrit influence be it in terms of language or culture or literary works or history, because we dont see anything outside the bounds of the ancient vedic culture in these languages and every work in these languages or every piece of history/culture in these societies can be mapped with the vedic culture.
-
-
catweasel says:
do you realise that this argument support gurudev’s theory.
first of, the the group to which most indians trace their ancestry were likely to have a fairer complexion whether they were from armenia or from mesopotamia. if u wanna argue otherwise..u can even go on and say that u dont agree that mongoloids at that time were fair skinned.
once enterign india – this happens so that genteic cannot be used to identify race properly. theres like a million molecular leisons occuring per cell/per day mosly because of what we eat and the climate. you claims about algeria being close to the equator is nullified by your own previous post- obviously those recent arabs are not sunbathing nude out doors at 40+ degrees- even if they do the DNA also has the tendency to repair itself and it takes more than one millenia to incur high percentages of dark skin within the population. however south india is closer in temperature to sub-saharan africa, which is at a different range of temperature from northern africa. and south indians have been working the fields for alteast 3000 years which gives most ofthose farmers a darks skin.
ur lingistic theories about sanskrit and tamil coming from different substratums are also failing. some recent works show that they are closer to each other than to other europeanlanguages-which may or may not have come out of sanskrit. obviously this is not in the interest of the west or some internal scum or the western academia and hence these works dont gain that much popularity. -
[...] The Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory [...]
-
Santhosh says:
Hi,
I just wanted to add something.
Recently, i read in a news article that some organisation has conducted genes collection and they found that some people of tamil nadu near madurai have gene pattern of african race. One person called virumandi had an exact gene pattern of Nelson mandela. It was published in some tamil magazines also. Cant recall it now. But if thats the case, then how can we explain that all indians belong to ancient india and no migration happened. -
Malayalam is descendants of Grantha came to existence after Tamil. Malayalam has 70-80% Sanskrit words and has no inferior feeling that it is descendant of Sanskrit though it has inherited Tamil. But the claim still exists Tamil has not inherited Sanskrit.
Not heard from Telugu/Kannada speakers or grt authors that their language did not inherit Sanskrit.I wonder it is not too far Sankethis of South Central Karnataka claim in near future that their language is aboriginal if such trend continues. Sankethi is a coded language – mixture of Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Hindi , Malayalam to name few. Sometimes words of inherited language means totally different in a given context.
-
Pulsar says:
I used the word “”Mainstream”" in the sense that it is accepted by many historians, especially linguists. Of course, even the Aryan Migration Theory has many holes in it. For an excellent overview of the Aryan Migration Theory and its rival, the Indigenous Aryan Theory, please refer to the book – “”The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate”" written by Edwin Bryant. This is one of the few books which concentrates more on the light rather than the heat associated with the Aryan debate.
-
I do agree that nationalism and history should not be confused. Sanskrit being the mother of all languages or not, has nothing to do with nationalism. India has always been a land of diversity and will continue to be so.
Having said that, even the aryan migration theory is NOT the mainstream theory for there is no formidable evidence to support it.
-
1. Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam are NOT descended from Sanskrit. Telugu, for example, is highly influenced by Sanskrit, but is nevertheless NOT the linguistic daughter of Sanskrit.
2. The Southern Languages are Dravidian Languages. The word Dravidian is being used here in a purely “”linguistic”" (not racial) sense.
3. Aryan Invasion Theory may not be true, but the Aryan (largely peaceful) Migration Theory is still the mainstream theory among historians.
4. Don’t confuse nationalism and history. Someone who says the (generally accepted) truth that Sanskrit is not the mother of all Indian languages isn’t necessarily being anti-national.
-
Hi,
I must admit, you have helped me greatly dear brother to enlighten a few idiots oops Indians about hopw they are wasting India by filth and ignorance of their culture.
-
Shreeram says:
I strongly object to the fact that kannada and telugu were derived form sanskrit.. .they were influenced and NOT DERIVED from sanskrit…. for example in sanskrit words conveying the same meaning have different genders whereas in kannada it is not that case…. another point if south indian languages were derived from sanskrit how come so many original words are there in these 3 languages and how come so much change in the script… can anybody explain?
-
Sure Srinivas, I agree with you, what you said is the most appropriate way of referring to the geographical directions and we will use only that henceforth
-
Srinivas says:
REQUEST TO ALL:
Usage of geographical direction in noun form, eg.”"north India”", “”south India”" may kindly be avoided. Normally this usage is when the direction is part of the name itself, eg: North Korea, South Africa, etc.
It is apt to use adjectival form like “”Southern India”", etc.
Thanks for your understanding and easing the pain in my heart!
-
Come on Abhilash
This is the same argument some people in north east India are using to demand for a separate nation. India has for centuries allowed refugees from all over the world to come and settle here, and obviously their genome doesnt match with that of indegenious Indians. So?
Zoroastrians came to India and settled here from Iran. Can you test their genes and say that Indians migrated from Iran to India?
To support the aryan invasion theory, the kind of genetic testing required is not take genes from random people and come to a conclusion.
First they will have to take the genetic samples across north India mainly from those who directly descend from the vedic age like the temple priests and other communities and test them. Then there needs to be another sampling done to see whether south Indians whom AIT considers native to India, have different genetic makeups than others.
And even then, what is the possibility of migration being the other way round too?But as I said earlier in one of my posts, the whole confusion is because of equating modern India and ancient India in terms of geographical boundaries. Ancient Indian geography was spread out well beyond modern India. If you realize that part, its no surprise at all finding the common genes in say for ex Uzbekistan and India, because in the vedic period modern uzbekistan was called Taksha khand and same vedic people lived there too!!
2000 years down the lane from now, how about doing a genetic research in pakistan and India and then concluding that pakistanese are actually Indians who invaded/migrated from India?
Today we know its not true because, before partition it was one nation, so you are bound to find genetic similarities.
In a similar way ancient India was this entire part of asia and today we are testing in one part and other part and trying to conclude about migration! This would only lead to an out of India theory for else how can you conclude about the direction, and moreover sanskrit is at the root, about the roots of european languages in sanskrit? No sanskrit text talks about its root locations in europe. So?A practical answer is that the ancient vedic civilization was spread out in this entire region for the entire geography is clearly mentioned in the ancient texts. One can sit and easily map the entire geography mentioned in the ancient texts and check for oneself. This eliminates the need for both aryan invasion and out of India migration.
My pity about this aryan invasion theory is that what started as an invasion/migration from europe based on biblical history funded by missionary and colonial views, has now moved into asia and has entered the map of ancient Indian geography, and still is not giving up!
We cannot consider anything from central asia as migration. Migration has to come somewhere from europe for the regions of asia are clearly described in ancient texts as part of the vedic culture in those days. Its not migration, today its only separation.
Any person can go through the article above and the entire chain of comments here, and read the links given and then think and conclude for himself/herself
-
Abhilash Menon says:
Gurudev,
In my previous post, I was pointing to the Geographic project by the National Geographic Society. This is a human genome study and they have some conclusions of human migrations from central Europe to India.
I was not referring to the study by Stephen Oppenheimer which concludes that all non African people have their roots from people who migrated to India from Africa. But this migration took place around 65,000 years ago and was done by not modern humans but by homo heidelbergensis.
The Geographic project deduces from the distribution of the genetic marker, haplogroup R1A1 (M17) that some sort of a migration indeed did take place from central Europe (Russia/Ukraine – microsatellite diversity of the marker is greatest in in these parts suggesting its origin there) to India, albeit starting from much earlier than 1500BC (from around 10,000 BC). Interestingly if we move the date of the migration backwards to say 9000 BC 5000 BC, this can accommodate the Saraswati river paradox very well.
Alternatively, high frequency of R1A1 has been found in several south Indian tribes which do not support the migration theory. In fact Stephen Oppenheimer has also undermined the theory of M17 as a marker of an Aryan migration to India.
Even though the National Geographic Society has done some elaborate study on the genome distibutions, I think there is still lack of a specific comparative study of R1a1 haplogroup diversity in cental Asian and Indian polulations. So till then supporters of both sides would be arguing in vain.
PS: I am building a time machine to go to the past and see what exactly happened (I think nothing else would be convincing enough). I will tell you as soon as I find out once and for all.
-
Shiva
I think you are confusing the genetic studies related to the evolutionary migration of humans, with aryan migration theory. Both are two completely two different things. Thats what even Abhilash said and even I said.
See Abhilash’s comment
“”here you are talking about migrations around 65000 years ago. No Aryans or Dravidians (for that matter, maybe not modern man) were born then”"
which is perfect! The genetic patterns indicate that humans migrated from Africa to India 65000 years back, and then from India to the rest of the world, so the entire non-african humans found today have their roots back in India. In other words its the reverse direction of aryan invasion, i.e non-african world came out from India, but again this is NOT to say that aryans actually went from India to rest of the world because this migration took place about 60000 years back, when as Abhilash said probably “”No Aryans or Dravidians were born then”", which is what even I meant when I said “”A human migration that took place before the vedic ages, out of India”"Now which genetic studies are you talking about which say that “”idea of tribes migrating from Central Asia into the Indian subcontinent”"? As far as my knowledge goes there is no such genetic study. Will be great if you can point it out. In fact when you look at the vedic texts and the civilizations unearthed elsewhere in the region, it clearly suggests that there is no evidence of any massive migration, but by the time the vedic civilization came into existence it existed all over the region, and today since it’s culture is confined to India we are tending to think in terms of migration from these other parts to India!
In other words its actually the shrinking down of vedic civilization in terms of geography which If you look at the continuous twists made in aryan invastion theory its clear for any person that somehow people desperately WANT TO PROVE that North Indians are NOT native Indians and that they migrated from somewhere else to India. First they called it migration, then they called it invasion, then again now migration. First they started with europe, then nowhere in europe, then near asia, then to central asia, now at ancient India (tashkent was the kingdom of Bharatha’s son in Ramayana), so what does it all mean? They are already inside ancient India.
The geography of modern India and ancient India are not same, Ancient India existed well beyond the boundaries modern India. What we are talking about in this migration theory is actually different parts of ancient Indian civilzation that existed all over this region of asia. Where is the invasion/migration here?
You said “”modifying a theory to suit facts is the right thing to do!!”". Being selective while modifying the theory to ensure that the root statement remains unaltered, is it scientific? Why are those hard facts which are against the root statement left out while modifying the theory? because in that case the theory cant be modified, it has to be totally scrapped out. Selective modification is no science, Its nonsense.
In fact, one of the most important fact is that original proponents of AIT were not historians or archaeologists but had missionary and political axe to grind.
How many questions in the link below does the modified AIT answer?
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/aryan_invasion_theory.htm
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.htmlThe same Max Muller who started off with calling vedas “”childish”", started off with a missionary funded vision, as he got deeper and deeper into sanskrit and the vedas finally in the last days of his life clearly acknowledged the supremacy of the vedas, superiority of sanskrit, and brushed aside the use of the word “”aryan”" to mean a “”race”".
See what he said in his last days
“”I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar”"- Max MullerAnd now we have people who still talk about the aryan race when its original proponent Muller himself has termed it complete nonsense!
Coming back to Sanskrit,
“”Sanskrit is to the Science of language what Mathematics is to Astronomy”" – Max Muller, after he learnt real Sanskrit.
“”Sanskrit is the mother of all languages”" – Francois Gautier, correspondent of Le Figaro,Frances largest circulated newspaperWhat is the scientific basis for Proto-Indo-European language when there is not a single scrap of evidence supporting it? If the european languages did not have similarities with sanskrit, do you think they would have ever come up with this “”hypothesis”"? Why not consider the possibility of an existing language sanskrit being the
mother of all european languages instead of trying to come up with a new hypothetical language? Isnt this an attempt to distance european languages from Sanskrit? When a theory is put up there should be some rationale reason behind it, which both aryan invasion theory and PIE lack.Its not mere similar sounding words that make sanskrit root of these languages. There is lot more linguistic reseach into it.
Professor Dean Brown of the American Sanskrit Institute says that Sanskrit is the root of all Indo-European languages. See one of his interviews at
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4ush_thinking-allowed-sanskrit-tradition
Note that nowhere does prof Dean Brown mention PIE even though the interviewer mentions about it in the beginning. Also note that Prof Dean Brown clearly says “”Greek is a vedic subculture”"There is no PIE. Sanskrit itself is the Proto-Indo-European language. The confusion is because of the wrong assumption that Sanskrit is CONFINED to India/asia, and european ancestry lies outside this.
William McDougall beautifully summarized the blunder committed by these self proclaimed historians saying, it is their “”false assumption that linguistic groups are racial groups”"
Obviously suppose people today all over the world are using Visual Basic, it doesnt mean that they all descended from Bill Gates!
Let me give a simple example, Sanskrit is classified by some under Indo-Iranian branch, and Lithuanian language under Baltic branch, now what explanation does one has to offer about the vedic Indian concepts like “”Ashwins”" present in Lithuanian? If lithuanian and sanskrit were not linked, then from where on earth did the cultural concepts related to sanskrit enter into the lithunian language? Unfortunately, some of the scientific minded people do not apply here what you said “”Modifying a theory to suit the facts or evidence”" What do you mean when you say
“”Of course there is compelling evidence against the Aryan *Invasion* theory and that could be used to argue
that the invasion theory is wrong. However, stretching that to say that because the invasion theory is wrong, the theory that Aryan were an indigenous race/ethnic group is correct, is also equally wrong. It is again only a theory.”"If people didnt come from outside, then they have to belong here indigenously right? What is the third option if not?
Doesnt your statement sound like, “”even if aryan invasion theory is wrong, I dont want to accept that these people are indegenious to India”"?
Or are you referring to the latest “”version”" of AIT which switches back to “”migration”" instead of “”invasion”". First migration, then invasion, then again back to migration Finally let me quote Will Durant
“”India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe’s languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy”" -
Shiva says:
The thing that is very much debatable or “”wrong”" in the Aryan Invasion Theory is the invasion part. One could very well argue that is an European supremacist view and that is what researchers before you who take the view that “”AIT is wrong”" have done.
I do know and agree that there the invasion theory has been heavily politicised by the Europeans, especially the British to support their colonialisation efforts. Even in India ‘historians’ like Romila Thapar support the invasion theory.
What is *plausible*, however, is the idea of tribes migrating from Central Asia into the Indian subcontinent, rather the northern parts of the Indian subcontinent. This is substantiated by the genetic studies as Abhilash has pointed out. That cannot be ignored. The migration theory would answer your question of why there’s no mention of modern day Europe anywhere in the Vedic literature (the western-most regions described are modern day Afghanistan and parts of Uzbekistan). In fact Max Mueller himself has this view:
I cannot bring myself to say more than non liquet. But if an answer must be given as to the place where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation, whether in large swarms of millions, or in a few scattered tents and huts, I should still say, as I said forty years ago, Somewhere in Asia, and no more. [Max Mueller, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas, 1888]. This is incidentally the same source from which you have quoted Max Mueller in your first post.
Some examples of where you have speculated:
1. “”Proto-Indo-European Language is a hypothetical one created just to free european languages from their roots in sanskrit. Till date nobody knows who spoke it, any words in it, which place was it spoken, any texts in this language etc”"Sure, the Proto-Indo-European family of languages is in some sense hypothetical, but this hypotheis has been made based on similarities in languages like modern day Iranian, Sanskrit, German, Greek and other European languages. It is pure speculation to say that this was “”created to free European langauges from their roots in Sanskrit”".
2. “”Wikipedia is the last source one should refer as it depicts the general trend in society and not necessarily the expert view.”"
Not quite. The articles in question are peer-reviewed (which is also the way hard scientific articles are judged and respected) and there are a lot of references to articles published in respected (as in peer-reviewed) journals. The list of articles cover all the viewpoints in the subject.
Good articles in Wikipedia are recognized in this manner.
3. “”If we simply read history we find that this theory was created first (based on political and racial prejudices), and the so called evidences fabricated later, the theory itself was changed later as evidences against it came (explained further below), and finally today it lies flat, exposed!”"
Modifying a theory to suit the facts or evidence is really the right thing to do, isn’t it. That is the way science progresses.
5. In several places you have put forth another thesis that because of similarities of words in other languages like with Sanskrit (Man ~ Manushya, Soppanam ~ Swapnam etc), Sanskrit is the “”mother language”" from which all the other languages derived from.
Likely, yes. But what is equally, if not more, likely is that Sanskrit itself could have evolved out of an earlier language or set of languages (as in Proto-Indo European) and later evolved independently. So it cannot be said with certainty that Sanskrit is the mother language. However, within India, it is highly likely given the large similarities of all north-Indian languages with Sanskrit.
Tamil however is a different case. It has loan words from Sanskrit and has also undergone a lot of Sanskritization, but it also has native words equivalents for *all* Sanskritized words like soppanam (kanavu), chandiran (nila) etc. Besides its grammar is different from that of Sanskrit. Scholarly work in this area has established that Tamil is a different language or has evolved out of a language family other than Proto-Indo-European. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language. It is a “”good”" article as I have explained above.
Of course there is compelling evidence against the Aryan *Invasion* theory and that could be used to argue that the invasion theory is wrong. However, stretching that to say that because the invasion theory is wrong, the theory that Aryan were an indigenous race/ethnic group is correct, is also equally wrong. It is again only a theory.
I’m glad to see people like Abhilash, Balakrishna, Sunita, Shree etc here who have taken a more balanced view to discuss the main topic and the offshoots that have sprung up. Guru, I do think you have something to learn from their attitudes. But, as I have said before, you have put a lot of effort in digging up material and I sincerely commend that. I only question how you draw your conclusions, that’s all.
-
Shiva
Where have I “”speculated”" things? Look at the very creation of this Aryan Invasion theory. Macaulay funds it, and Max Muller ‘creates’ it based on his ‘biblical’ beliefs with an added masala of european supremacy!Please look at the numerous facts listed in the entire article and comments above, they are not just literary in nature.
Can somebody show me just one single piece of evidence supporting aryan invasion theory?
I would leave it to the reader to decide whether the facts provided are scientific or not!Frawley’s paradox clearly proves the myth of the invasion theory. On the one had you have lots of archaeological evidence in Indus valley/Harappa with no literature associated with it and is labeled as Dravidian. On the other hand you have ample literature of the so called Aryans in the form of Vedas, Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharatha etc associated with the same geography and history but with absolutely no archeology! Isnt it a paradox? asks noted Indologist David Frawley, who also says that the only answer to this is that both the available archaeology and literature belong to one and the same civilization, the vedic civilization of ancient India!
Please see http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_agrawal.htmlWe have literary, archaeological, linguistic, historic, cultural, geographical evidences, all pointing AGAINST the aryan invasion theory. I am not sure what other ’scientific’ evidence is required
-
Abhilash is spot on.
I’m not discouraging Guru in his efforts, but literature survey is only part of doing research. If you are putting forth a thesis which is “”AIT is false”", in true scientific fashion, it has to be supported by proof. From what I’ve read here, there’s also speculation here. Granted that you need a better forum to argue a thesis than a blog, but speculating only takes you further from the truth.
It is however true that the European mindset is biased towards the idea that civilization spread from around the Middle-East Asian region and spread west- and eastward. So much so that the northern Europeans of long ago like the Vikings, were called barbarians simply because they were farthest from the so-called cradle of civilization.
-
Thank you very much Sri for those nice words
Yes we have to enlighten the youth of India about what India really is.
What you said about channels is very true, even other readers told this to me. But then its a very costly business and requires a lot of investment. So as of now, no plans for it! -
Sri says:
Gurudev,
For a long time i have been in search for truth about our origins and our culture. After reading your articles and your research, you won’t believe how much i am excited…
The best thing we can do is pass on this information to the next generation and spread the truth, you bet i have already started …
People like you should be funded to do further research and present this in a channel that is similar to Discovery or History Channel. See these people they use this medium to promote their theory thats how some times the wrong message is spread across.
I am very proud of your articles and research, keep up the good work.
-
I=Indian says:
Pandian
A very late reply to your comment of whether I blog anywhere. I have finally started blogging. Please visit my blog at http://indianempire.wordpress.com/
-
Question is what is vedic age?
Vedas ever existing and immortal as it is “”Knowledge”"Some one expressed that sound indian rivers are not referred anywhere.. Just wondering… hindu rituals of inviting Water force into Kalash-puja pot with names like Narmada, Sindu, Kaveri, Krishna, Godavari Saraswati, Ganga, Yamuna etc..
My humble request to brothers & sisters – sanatana dharma followers in particular to observe/study own culture before commenting it.
-
Exactly Boss, if you read my comment once again, which is why I said “”A human migration that took place BEFORE the vedic ages, out of India!”".. meaning EVEN THIS WAS LONG BEFORE THE VEDIC AGE
-
Boss, here you are talking about migrations around 65000 years ago. No Aryans or Dravidians (for that matter, maybe not modern man) were born then. I didnt read the link you provided fully, but refer this interesting study which says all non African people have their roots from people who migrated to India from Africa. So Out Of India is true but not in our context
-
vijay says:
Very well said, Abhilash, you spoke like a true researcher.
But as Guru has explained time and again how AIT is a complete hoax to divide the society right at the center, AIT was created which is falling down with each new evidence that we get. Also the linguistic evidence in no way proves that sanskrit took birth from europian or iranian languages. Infact the proponants of AIT have never been able to justify how many of these vedic texts were there long before 1500 BC. This is a systematic effort to rig up Indian history. I am for finding out the truth, but in this case, this theory stands as naked as a xxxxx. Look at when this theory was proposed and by whom, of all Max Muller and the macaulay who is now established as the true annihilator of indian culture. That itself is more than enough to doubt this this junk.
But in general for other theories which have some sane facts to substantiate itself, I am with you, i.e., we need to keep an open mind for everything.
But in this case the theory was created first and then people are desperately trying to cling on to whatever small relationship they find between europeans and indians to propogate this theory. At best I can only laugh at the AIT, but it becomes serious when some dravidian groups try to use this theory for political reasons. Hence this theory is very dangerous and that’s exactly what macaulay wanted.
The two predictions done by two colonists
macaulay – that India’s backbone is its culture so to break its back we need to break its culture and divide the society and inject english as a learning medium so that they forget the junk sacred texts
churchill – India will be ruled in years to come by thugs, crooks and people whose only intention will be to make money.
Sadly both these predictions are true, that’s the Indian truth.
-
Abhilash
Thats what we are doing, keeping an open mind, and hence rejecting fabricated theories
First of all, Europe is totally ruled out of the picture for any migration because till 10000 years back it was too cold to live, full of ice! There was
Next, current genetic evidence suggests that
“”because these events (migrations suggested by genetic evidence) took place during the last Ice Age, Europe was at first too cold for human habitation and was populated only later – not directly from Africa but as an offshoot of the southern migration which trekked back through the lands that are now India and Iran to reach the Near East and Europe.”"In other words, this actually supports Out of India theory! A human migration that took place before the vedic ages, out of India! Well, even that makes sense, doesnt it?
-
Gurudev/Vijay,
I am not adhering to either theory here. Both have their strong points and weak points.
The case of the Saraswati river is a strong argument against the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). But one must also consider the linguistic evidence and more importantly the genetic evidence (the Genographic Project conducted by the National Geographic Society) before completely discarding the AIT.
My point is that we should be keen to get to the truth, even if it doesnt suit our patriotic or other interests. Personally I would hate it if Max Muller is proved right. But, God forbid, if that is the truth, I will sadly accept it rather than try to oppose it. I will not give up my search, whatever the nature of the truth is.
So before completely dumping/accepting a theory, we need all questions answered – 100%. Even if there is .00001% evidence supporting/contradicting the theory, we have to keep an open mind. What say, friends?
-
Abhilash
The contents in the links are full of ‘ifs’,'buts’ , ‘may bes’ and self contradictions.
If we simply read history we find that this theory was created first (based on political and racial prejudices), and the so called evidences fabricated later, the theory itself was changed later as evidences against it came (explained further below), and finally today it lies flat, exposed!We have to see the obvious, which is as follows:
1) None of the vedic texts talk about this migration/invasion
2) None of the vedic texts talk about a “”root”" present outside the subcontinent
3) Date of extinction of Saraswati River and 1500 BCE are completely incompatible.
4) There is no race called “”aryans”" and “”dravidians”" mentioned anywhere in the ancient texts
5) There is no so called “”Dravidian literature”" which is completely outside the so called “”Aryan culture”" and which talks about an invasion by aryans
6) Proto-Indo-European Language is a hypothetical one created just to free european languages from their roots in sanskrit. Till date nobody knows who spoke it, any words in it, which place was it spoken, any texts in this language etc
7) Even the astronomical datings based on vernal equinox mentioned in vedas, date it back to atleast 4000 BCE!
I can simply go on and on and on…..Look the history of the aryan invasion theory itself. First they proposed it saying intelligent aryan europeans invaded India, then once Indus valley was discovered they changed it to a Dravidian-Aryan issue saying nomadic aryan tribes invaded India, then now again as Aryan-Dravidian divide is being ruled out and as more facts come forward they are calling it a migration instead of an invasion! What is all this?
Writing to his wife in 1866 Macaulay says
“”It [the Rigveda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years.”", and then he funds Max Muller who creates this Aryan Invasion Theory!“”Out of India theory”" has become necessary today to explain the roots of sanskrit in european languages. Because the question otherwise would be that “”If aryans did not come to India from Europe then how can one explain the sanskrit roots of european languages, the relationship between man and manu?, how can explain the traces of vedic culture in other civilizations?”".
I dont even think that “”Out of India”" to be true either because again the same questions. No mention of outward migration anywhere in the ancient vedic texts. I assume that Sanskrit and vedic culture were spread all across the globe thousands of years even before the ancient Sumerians. What I mean is when the vedic civilization flourished it was a global phenomenon already.
This quite obviously explains the sanskrit and vedic resemblances across the globe like in russian excavations, the sumerian, egyptian, roman pagan, ancient arab/ancient iranian cultures, etc. Also the detailed description of kingdoms across the globe in these ancient texts supports this view, like the earth being divided into seven parts (called Dvipas), which were further divided into Varshas, further into Khandas etc.
Vedic past of the humans hence seems to be an appropriate term, not an inward or outward invasion limited to modern Indian geography
Finally, some points to ponder about
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/aryan-invasion-history.html
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/aryan_invasion_theory.htm -
Abhilash,
Yes I saw them long ago, and the funniest part was that said by Bryant that rigveda represents nomadic culture which worships fire. Comeon, man, seriously has thsi Bryant guy studied the rigveda. Their view of all Indian Literature is that its just some tribal stuff and they worship fire, water, etc. They cant even comprehend what their true meanings are. No one has ever able to give a specific date to the vedas. That itself shows how shallow these reaserchers work.
They themselves put forth a sentence right at the beginning saying that some scholars are of the view that migration took place from out of India and not into India. The pro-invasion history scholars only take into account the relation between the Indo-European languages but fail to point out that sanskrit has been there in this part of the world much before European langauges were refined. They systematically neglect the evidences of sanskrit as an established language much before the dates that they give for the invasion. They neglect the archeological findings of dwaraka, which is dated much before this invasion. This is what has happened due to the consistent neglect of history by us. Our history has been written by others who dont even know many facets of the true history. How many of them know that Valmiki had written Ramayana much before these dates, hence meaning that Lord Rama existed much before the dates of this illusionary invasion.
All they do is comparison between Indian/Iranian/European cultures and come to the conclusion that civilization started from Europe-Iran-India. Its just common sense that the migration can be the other way round too.
Finally any attempt to argue against the aryan-invasion theory is labelled as hindu fundamentalism or nationalism, which shows how open they are to criticism.
Wikipedia is the last source one should refer as it depicts the general trend in society and not necessarily the expert view.
-
Hi Gurudev & Vijay,
The Aryan invasion theory cannot be siad to be completely baseless. See what Wiki has to say…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory
-
Hahaha, Junk indeed, LOL. Even I happened to glance thru it. The funniest part for me was “”In addition Sanskrit contains many loanwords of Dravidian origin.”" which clearly shows their stupidity
and makes our tamil brothers believe that tamil was the mother of sanskrit which makes me laugh, LOL. Very funny indeed. -
Ramana
A very simple glance at the article in the link provided shows that its not at all worth commenting on it! Because there is not just 1 or 2 things wrong.. Instead the entire article in that link is a total “”junk”" and baseless, completely motivated which is obvious by the kind of language used in it. Written by somebody who doesnt even know what he/she is talking about! If I start commenting on that article point by point, I will be awake this entire night Though I enjoyed the comedy in it, especially the author’s imagination like “”2000 years vedic dark ages”" in the very first para!. Why dark?
anyway, it means vedic age existed between 1500 BC to 500 AD! And what about Saraswati river then? Full time comedy article…The other day somedbody gave me one such link which said that Prophet mohd was mentioned in vedic texts as kalki and so all hindus are muslims!! Now what shall I comment on this, where shall I start!
The last time I had read such junk was some book called “”why am I not a hindu”", total junk. I expected atleast some wise criticism in it. What I found was venom in every line. The time spent on these is simply not worth it, because these people have DECIDED what they want to believe, for it is a matter of their IDEOLOGICAL foundation! Let them live their enlightened lives.
By the way the article in that link doesnt answer even a single question raised in my article about the aryan invasion theory!
The link below should be self explanatory about the hollow nature of the aryan invasion theory.
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/aryan_invasion_theory.htm -
ramana says:
Gurudev,
This is for your referencehttp://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Hist/fall_ind.html
-
Ramana
It is not just MY theory that aryan invasion is wrong I just added some more facts to it here. Every single historian today, you can check out over the internet, has said that it is a complete myth.
Just go through the way in which this theory was created by Max Muller between four walls to see the “”science”" behind this theory. See my post http://hitxp.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/a-presentation-on-the-future-of-past/As I have said in this article given above, the basic confusion is because of we equating the geography of ancient vedic culture with the geography of modern India. The fact is that during the vedic ages the vedic culture was spread all across the globe, this was thousands of years before even the sumerians civilization existed.. Vedic geography mentions places from north pole to south pole from america to austrialia. Hence it is quite natural to find traces of this ancient culture all across the globe. The similarity you found in Iranian hymns is not just limited to Iran, its there in Lithuanian, in ancient Sumerian, in Egyptian, every where….
See http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_051212.htm Its even found in Russia now! What does all this simply means? Its anybody’s guess Then about the proto-Indo-European language, again this is
another FABRICATED theory like the aryan invasion to prove the European supremacy.. They cannot accept that fact that Sanskrit is the root of all Indo-European languages.Earlier this theory of Proto-Indo-European did not exist bcos they had proposed the aryan invasion saying Indian aryans themselves were originally from Europe. Now that the Aryan Invasion theory had collapsed, they were forced to accept that Europeans were of Aryan origin, who came from India because their European languages had Sanskrit in their roots, so they somehow wanted to get rid of it.
So they came up with this concept of Proto-Indo-European saying this was the root of all Indo-European languages and even Sanskrit came from this language, and all european languages came from this language, and that Sanskrit is the root of ONLY Indian (not Indo-European) languages!!
Why all this? Just to somehow prove that Sanskrit has nothing to do with European languages…The beauty of this joke called Proto-Indo-European language is that till today no civilization has been found which was speaking this language, there has not been a single word of this language known, nobody knows how was it, who spoke it, when, where, no literature about it, no other ancient cultures/languages including vedic/sanskrit mention about it…..
So this PIE is just another figment of imagination like Aryan Invasion Theory.Now about the so called “”massive”" burials. Massive? There are only 37 skeletons found in that site of Mohen Jo Daro, is that massive? Brutal injuries??? who said
Prof. G. F. Dales (Former head of department of South Asian Archaeology and Anthropology, Berkeley University, USA) in his The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daro, Expedition Vol VI,3: 1964 states the following about this evidence:
“” What of these skeletal remains that have taken on such undeserved importance? Nine years of extensive excavations at Mohenjo-daro (1922-31) – a city of three miles in circuit – yielded the total of some 37 skeletons, or parts thereof, that can be attributed with some certainty to the period of the Indus civilizations. Some of these were found in contorted positions and groupings that suggest anything but orderly burials. Many are either disarticulated or incomplete. They were all found in the area of the Lower Town – probably the residential district. Not a single body was found within the area of the fortified citadel where one could reasonably expect the final defence of this thriving capital city to have been made.”"
He further questions:
“”Where are the burned fortresses, the arrow heads, weapons, pieces of armour, the smashed chariots and bodies of in the invaders and defenders? Despite the extensive excavations at the largest Harappan sites, there is not a single bit of evidence that can be brought forth as unconditional proof of an armed conquest and the destruction on the supposed scale of the Aryan invasion.”"You can read even more information on this here
http://www.tamilnation.org/heritage/aryan_dravidian/agrawal.htmHope this answers
-
Gurudev,
I have problem accepting your theory as final one or real one, not because I know history well, in fact I do know very little but because the process involving any claim by peer review. The claims that you are mentioning must go through rigorous and independent peer/publishing process. As you know these processes are in place. If they are not published in reputable journals including Indian and International journals the claims are just claims with out validity.These are simple things I know with my limited knowledge
That are not in favor of anything other than Aryan Invasion.1) The massive burials and brutal injuries on the skulls suggest an invasion by foreign power
2) Language link ..Proto-Indo-European, Loubird mentioned in her post
3) Anomaly of Iridium ( radio active Material) ,ruling out any other kind of reason of disappearance of Indus culture
4) A strong Indo-Iranian connection.
- I happened to hear Iranian hyms recently and I am surprised to hear how closely sound to south Indian hyms and slokas.
The new revolt against Aryan invasion , is it politically charged one or does it have reputable Indian historians supporting for it?
Interested to know more about it.. -
DARYL GRANT
Its my pleasure to share with rest of the world whatever bit I know which I find worth sharing -
DARYL GRANT-FOSNESS says:
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THIS INDIAN HISTROY AND THE TRUTH ABOUT IT. I HAVE BEEN STUDING TEXTS ABOUT RELIGION FOR MANY YEARS TO FIND THE TRUTH AND THE CLOSER I GET TO IT (TRUTH) THE MORE AWAKEN I BECOME. AGAIN THANK YOU..
-
vijay says:
Shree,
have you ever heard of the word tanning. I was a bit brownish red when in bangalore, but since I have come to the west my friends say I have become firer, thats because I stay indoors mmost of the time, there is little sun here and it chill. The reason there is diversity in skin colour in India is bacause people tend to marry within their caste. Now how did upper caste people become fairer in the first place? the reason is simple, they wer staying indoors most of the time and didnt not do much of the manual work. The people who do manual work out under scorching sun tend to turn darker. Maybe now that the caste system is slowly vanishing and the work done by people is not dictated by their castes, who knows, maybe in 500 years many darker skinned Indians may turn fairer. Please think about it.
-
Shree
It is interesting to note that you have not put across any points that substantiate the aryan invasion theory The theory about four races and melanin linked to equator is NOT MY THEORY, its the current set of scientific theories which every student of these subjects studies. Sunlight is more intense around the equators and hence evolution gave people here more melanin to protect the skin, the other minor distortions around equator that you mentioned are due to human migrations, just because a person from siberia relocated to central africa doesnt change his or his children’s skin colour immediately right? Evolution and adaptation is a slow process…
Can you show me Indians who look like Europeans
Of course, modern India also contains people from other parts of the word like the descendants of muslim invaders, greek invaders, tibetian refugees, people of african origin, from afghanistan etc.. but how is that in any way related to the aryan invasion theory?If south Indians are not the vedic people, then why do ancient south Indian texts also have the same ramayana, mahabharatha, vedic commentaries etc? Where did shankaracharya, ramanujacharya, madhvacharya etc come from? North or South India?
In fact, the truth is that in the vedic texts and related historical scriptures you find no mention of any other culture.. and yet we also know that sanskrit is the root of all indo -european languages.. so it makes more sense to think that what we call as modern world today has its roots in ancient India, in other words ancient Indians are the ancestors of modern europeans! I can provide a big list of similarities between greek stories and ancient Indian texts.
Of course saraswati river, ganga and yamuma met at prayag during the vedic age. Saraswati river entered this place in a subterranean channel, satellite imagery and geological excavations have proved that this river is not a myth and did indeed exist. It only makes sense because why on earth will the people of the vedic age mention two real rivers (ganga and yamuna) and another imaginary river?
Please see http://hitxp.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/saraswati-darshan-the-revelation-of-sarasvati-river/You wasted your time on this article because you saw real substance in it, and since you did not want to believe it, you were trying to see if there is any possible flaw which you can highlight to prove it wrong
-
Shree says:
I wonder how NO-ONE disagreed with you as this is a very debatable topic. I am not sure if you will sensor this comment because I would like to say I did not agree with you. Not because I am agreeing or disagreeing with the theory, but because I am surprise how novice and baseless your own arguments are. Extremely flippant and speculative.
Where do I begin? “”wrong theory long back”"… long back when? In reference to Hitler… “”mindlessly”"… on one hand you claim it is “”mindless”" killing and on the other, you comment on his very thoughtfully calculated move. So this is the wrong use of the word “”mindless”". What is the source of the “”definition”" of the Aryan Theory? Did you make up the definition according your own interpretation, or are you refering to any scholarly source?
There are so many stupid claims, that I am sure if it worth commenting. I will browse of the middle section. Your rhetorical question “”why do the vedic texts talk about locations in South India?”" Well, why don’t these texts ever take the pain of mentioning the South Indian rivers? They weren’t “”great rivers”"? Why this prejudice? They were one nation, one race, one people?
So, the Saraswati that flows through modern Punjab met the Ganga and Yamuna in Prayag? Is there any evidence showing this?
There four major races (like a myriad other claims) is not supported with any scholarship. You just make a claim.
Here’s the funniest part that left me ROTFL (Rolling On The Floor Laughing). As you go nearer the equator, people become darker. Yes, the whole of Africa (except Egypt) is lined around the equator. Algeria and West Bengal and Kashmir are on the same altitude. South Africa is further away from the equator than Delhi. Indonesia is also on the equator.
Well, if I think for a moment that your wierd melanin theory is right, then the whole of India should be black. What made some of us so fair?
Your SMARTEST comment in the entire piece came at the very end Aryan Invastion Theory – THE END
That was really intelligently articulated with an intended pun. I have no idea why I just wasted so much time in commenting on this …. -
Gurudev,
Do you believe there is any chance of Vedas being patented by westerners. i.e., after some 500 years, say, they may claim all this vedic knowledge was given down by them to Indians. May be Inidians might even believe them at that time (2500 AD).
Leave a Reply
