Page 1 of 13 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 130

Thread: What Do You Think of the Aryan Invasion Theory?

  1. #1
    You are not wrong, who deem / That my days have been a dream Johannes de León's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 15th, 2012 @ 12:03 PM
    Ethnicity
    Iberian
    Subrace
    Atlanto-Baskid
    Location
    Terra Firma
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Posts
    1,477
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Aryan invasion theory

    The Aryan invasion theory is a historical theory first put forth by German Indologist Friedrich Max Müller and others in the mid 19th century to explain certain aspects of history in the Indian subcontinent. The theory itself has a complex history - initial acceptance, subsequent modifications, and currently new challenges in terms of counter theories. However, no single conclusive theory now prevails, rather combinations of theories are generally accepted.



    Overview

    According to the theory, a Caucasian race of nomadic warriors known as the Aryans, originating in the Caucasus mountains in Central Asia, invaded Northern India and Iran, somewhere between 1800 and 1500 BC. The Invaders entered the Indian sub-continent from the mountain passes of the Hindu Kush mountains possibly on horseback, bringing with them the domesticated horse into the sub-continent. The theory further proposes that this race displaced or assimilated the indigenous Dravidian people and their Indus Valley Culture, and that the bulk of the indigenous people moved to the Southern reaches of the subcontinent or became the lower castes of post-Vedic society. The Aryans brought with them their own Vedic religion, which was codified in the Vedas around the 1500 to 1200 BC. Upon arrival in India, the Aryans abandoned their nomadic lifestyle and intermixed with the Dravidians remaining in the north of India. The victory of the Aryans over the native civilization was quick and complete, resulting in the complete domination of Aryan culture and language over the northern part of the subcontinent and considerable influence on parts of the south.

    The theory was first proposed in the nineteenth century on linguistic grounds. Given that Europe had Indo-European speaking people, it was proposed that (possibly) light skinned people invaded the subcontinent and subdued the aboriginal people and then mixed with them. The theory fit existing preconceptions, given the contemporary history of European colonization. Initially, the aboriginal occupants of India were assumed to be primitive and the achievements of ancient India were credited to the descendants of the Aryan invaders. However, during the 1920s, the Indus Valley civilization was discovered, which was obviously extremely advanced for its time with planned cities, a standardized system of weights and bricks, etc, and it was realized that if the Aryans had invaded, then, irrespective of their later achievements, they had in fact overthrown a civilization considerably more advanced than they themselves were.

    The association of Aryans with a race also has been slowly dropped. Max Müller clarified late in his career that by Aryan, he only meant a group of languages and not a race. Romila Thapar also maintains that Aryan never meant race in the Rig Veda and that the Proto-Indo European speaking people were already a mixed bunch and not any "pure" Caucasian race.


    Questioning the theory


    Accepted generally when it was first propounded, this theory has since been questioned on two fundamental grounds: firstly whether the Aryans came through invasions or incursions/ migrations, and secondly, whether the Aryans came from outside the Indian subcontinent at all. The issues raised by these lines of questioning are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.


    Theory of migration rather than invasion


    The first responses to the Aryan invasion theory accept the basic premise that the Aryans came from outside India but speculate and differ on the nature of their ingress. The proponents of this camp are of the opinion that there is very little archaeological evidence for an invasion. For the invasion theory to be viable, the Aryans would have had to discover mountain passes among the treacherous Hindu-Kush mountains, most of which are snow free only three months a year. The Aryan invaders, being a nomadic people would be far smaller in number to the Indus Valley civilization, which was spread over an area greater than 1.8 million square kilometers with an estimated population greater than the combined populations of all the other river civilizations at that time except ancient China. They would then have to quickly and completely rout an advanced civilization living in fortified cities over a large geographic area and impose their culture, language, cosmology and religion on the local population without leaving any physical traces of themselves.

    In addition, there are practically no archaeological signs of an invasion, nor oral or written legends of an invasion. It seems much more likely that Aryan migrants found mountain passes and entered the sub-continent during the snow free months and settled within or close to the Indus Valley civilization. Multiple waves of migration are possible, causing a mingling of the immigrant and local populations. There may have been significant exchange and assimilation of culture and language on both sides. The immigrants may have travelled back and forth to their original lands taking language and culture to other Indo-European peoples, especially Ancient Persia. Human skeletal remains excavated from sites of the Indus Valley civilization show a mixed ethnic composition similar to the present, showing support for migration rather than an invasion. Thus the idea of "invasion by barbarian Aryan hordes" has been replaced by "immigration and acculturation by a small group of linguistically Indo-European people".

    Currently, there is a general acceptance of this theory of migration or gradual incursion.


    Theory that the Indo-European languages originated in India


    However, in recent times a different viewpoint has been proposed: that no such migration or invasion occurred, and that the Indus Valley civilization was the civilization described in the Vedas and the Aryans originated in India.

    More recent scholarship claims that on the basis of archeology, linguistics, and study of available literature from that period, the Aryan culture was in fact an indigenous culture which had enjoyed continuous development in the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years. Recent discoveries of what appear to be Vedic elements in the Harappa and Mohenjodaro, as well as newly excavated cities in Gujarat and off the coastlines of Eastern and Western India seem to give the lie, according to some historians, to the Aryan Migration Theory. It supposes that in fact the great Vedic Saraswati River is the dry river bed that has been identified in North-Western India and that the white Aryan race is in fact nothing more than indigenous Indian tribes considered 'noble' for adherence to Vedic principles, not for their racial characteristics or lineage. This theory of the Aryan culture being indigenous establishes Vedic Indian culture to have come into being as early as 5000 BC, slowly developing over time till around the time of the dissolution of the Harappa and Mohenjodaro cultures, whose disappearance is now linked to the drying of the Saraswati River.

    Researchers remain divided on this topic with the majority sticking to the old concepts.


    Evidence relating to the theory


    Over two thousand Indus Valley sites have been unearthed but only five percent of them have been excavated. The investigation of the Aryan question involves:

    1. Archaeology of a large area and a long period of time.
    2. Archaeogenetic evidence from the existing population
    3. Linguistics involving Indo-European branches, Vedic Sanskrit, Dravidian
    4. Hermeneutics involving Indian and other scripture (Vedas, Puranas, Avesta)
    5. Geography of the areas involved.
    It is hard to be an expert in all the above disciplines over such a large area and over such a long time period, so observations or claims made by any person may show accuracy and thoroughness in one area but faulty analysis or oversight in another.

    The opponents of continuity primarily focus on showing that the Rig-Vedic culture is pastoral, external to the Indian sub-continent and that a chronological gap exists between the Indus Valley and the Rig Vedic cultures.

    Proponents of continuity focus on stressing that the Rig-Vedic culture is native to the sub-continent, urban in nature, makes constant references to bodies of water (Central Asian nomads would not have been exposed to seas) and a chronological peer of the Harappan culture, and that perhaps they are the same culture.

    The individual arguments may focus on linguistics, use of metals, domestication of horses or differences in described geography, but the basic focus is to identify the Rig-Vedic culture with or against the Indus Valley civilization.


    Archaeology


    Only five percent of the known Indus Valley sites have been excavated, so one could expect a constant stream of archaeological evidence to be unearthed in the future. Unlike hermeneutic evidence, there are very few issues with archaeological evidence, primarily due to the reliability of Carbon-14 and Thermo-luminescence dating.

    The discovery of the Harappa and Mohenjo-daro sites changed the theory from an invasion of implicitly advanced Aryan people on an aboriginal population to an invasion of nomadic barbarians on an advanced urban civilization. Recent DNA evidence showing a change in the ethnic makeup of the people in the subcontinent once between 6000BC and 4500 BC and then again between 800 and 200BC caused Romila Thapar to state that the Aryans were already a mixed bunch when they arrived in India.

    Among the archeological signs claimed to support the theory of an invasion are the many unburied corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-daro. Some interpret these as victims of a conquest of the city, while others suggest that they were victims of an epidemic, left unburied as a result of the breakdown of city sanitation.

    An important piece of archaeological evidence mentioned in support of the invasion theory was the absence of horses in the Indus Valley civilization, while the Vedas make frequent mention of the horse. (The earliest domestication of the horse and the first use of horses in South Asia is a topic of great dispute.) However, terra-cotta figurines and faunal remains of the horse were excavated from the sites at Lothal, Surkotda and Kalibangan.

    Similar weight has been placed on differences in the types of metals used in either civilization; the importance of the bull to the Indus Valley civilization as evidenced by imagery in seals and pottery in contrast to the Vedic cow-worship; the importance of the tiger in the Indus Valley civilization and its absence in the Vedic texts; the absence of the six spoked Aryan wheel and the heavy consumption of fish by the Indus Valley dwellers in contrast to the virtual absence of fish in the Vedas.

    Proponents of a continuous civilisation point out that the bull is mentioned numerous times in the vedas (next only to the horse), for example verses comparing Soma to the bull [Rig Veda 1:32, 9:92] and Exploits of Indra [Rig Veda 1:33, 7:24, 10:86]. The sacred place of the cow is not Vedic; it originated in later Hinduism during the time of Krishna the cowherd. There are no verses in the Vedas that speak about the need to refrain from cow-slaughter. Verses mentioning fish do exist in the Rig Veda (7:18, 10:68) and the tiger is mentioned in the Yajur Veda (4:4, 5:3, 6:2, 7:7). Terra-cotta figurines excavated show chariots with spokes painted (at KaliBangan) or shown in relief (at Banawali).

    Recently, the excavation of Dholavira in the Gujarath province of India is claimed by the same camp to show a city that is consistent with Vedic principles of city planning: arameshthina, madhyamesthina and avameshtina or upper, middle and lower cities [1] (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/week_indus.html).


    Archaeogenetics


    The recent advances in Archaeogenetics have some interesting results for the Aryan invasion theory but are still in early stages. Genetic study shows that Indian population as a whole has little similarity to other areas of supposed Indo-European settlement indicating there was no mass settlement. Indian maternal DNA is generally similar right across the country indicating that the mass of population has been in place there for a long period. [2] (http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Cordaux_et_al_2003.pdf) However, a 2001 examination of male Y-DNA by Indian and American scientists indicated that higher castes are genetically closer to West Eurasians than are individuals from lower castes, whose genetic profiles are similar to other Asians. These results seemed to indicate that at some point male West Eurasians provided a significant genetic input into the higher castes, a result which supporters of the arrival of Indo-European outsiders would have predicted as they suppose the caste system was an attempt by these predominately male arrivals to keep themselves separate from the native population. [3] (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Indo-European.shtml)

    More recent results from a 2003 study undermine the earlier findings by demonstrating that “Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene.” It also found that the Haplogroup R1a gene previously associated with Indo-Europeans is also found in significant amounts in certain tribal populations, and may have even originated in India. These results obviously support the case against the Aryan theory. [4] (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdf)

    Another 2004 paper uses similar data to support the conclusions of the 2001 study.[5] (http://www.gnxp.com/IndependentOriginsOfIndianCaster.pdf)

    As the sample sizes used in these studies are relatively small there is still much work to be done. In general it needs to be considered that the genetic evidence could be tied to later transfers of population and does not necessarily tie to linguistic change. All in all though this is an area where new research can certainly help shed light on the question of human migration in India.


    Linguistics


    The linguistic facts of the situation are little disputed; however, their historical interpretation is contentious. Most linguists interpret them as implying an Aryan migration into India; the linguistic arguments provide no data that would determine whether this migration was peaceful or invasive, and different linguists have argued for either or for a combination of both on extra-linguistic grounds. However, some historians contest this interpretation, and advocate an Indian origin for the speakers of Proto-Indo-European.

    The languages of north India mostly belong to a single family, the Indo-Aryan subgroup (related to Sanskrit) of the Indo-European family of languages. The languages of south India belong to a different linguistic family, the Dravidian languages, including Tamil, a very distinct language in its own right (with literature and tradition from at least 300 BC, disjoint from the Vedic), which has not been proven to be linked with any other language family. While Dravidian languages are primarily confined to the south of India, there is a striking exception: the Brahui, which is spoken in the Indus Valley area, indicating that Dravidian languages were formerly much more widespread and were supplanted by the incoming Indo-European languages such as Sanskrit. The Elamite language, an extinct language of southeastern Iran, has also often been linked to Dravidian (in a proposed Elamo-Dravidian or Zagrosian family); if this turns out to be true, it would even more strongly imply a more northerly former distribution of the Dravidian languages.

    Linguists have several rules of thumb they use to gauge the place of origin of a family. One is that the area of highest linguistic diversity of a language family is usually fairly close to the area of its origin; thus, for example, while most speakers of Germanic languages live in the United States, the highest diversity of Germanic languages is found in northern Europe. By this criterion, India seems to be an exceedingly unlikely candidate for the origin of the Indo-European languages - it has only one Indo-European subfamily, Indo-Aryan, not counting recent introductions of European languages - and eastern Europe appears much more promising; conversely, the highest diversity in Dravidian is found among its northern branches. Another is that the earliest members of the family to diverge are usually found near the place of origin; the earliest member of Indo-European to diverge appears to have been the Anatolian languages, as Hittite grammar's many peculiarities (including an animate/inanimate gender system which appears to predate the three-gender system reconstructed for the rest of Indo-European) show. The second major divide is often considered to be the centum/satem divide (a sound shift affecting palatals); both types are found in Europe, but only satem languages appear to be found in India (with the possible exception of Bangani; see below.) For reasons such as these, most linguists believe Indo-European to have originated somewhere around the Black Sea; a favorite candidate is the Kurgan culture.

    The presence of retroflex consonants (including L) in Vedic Sanskrit is generally taken by linguists to indicate the influence of a non-Indo-European speaking substratum population, since these sounds are found throughout Dravidian and Munda and are reconstructed for proto-Dravidian and proto-Munda, but are not reconstructable for proto-Indo-European - nor even proto-Indo-Iranian - and are extremely rare among other Indo-European languages (having phonetically emerged in Swedish and Norwegian only in recent centuries, as a result of combinations with r.) This argument is strengthened by the presence of words with Dravidian and Munda etymologies in Sanskrit, argued to be borrowings from a previous Dravidian and Munda population, or substratum; some of these etymologies have been challenged, though most have not.

    While all of this clearly suggests an Indo-European migration into India, critics of the Aryan invasion theory note that this does not automatically imply a migration at 1500 BC from the North-West. Any migration could have occurred much earlier and may not have resulted in any conflict; see Colin Renfrew. They also argue that the "substratum" influences from Dravidian and Munda could equally well be adstratum influences through mutual contact without conquest.

    The presence of words describing a temperate climate in Proto-Indo-European - such as a root for "snow" - has also been taken as evidence against the theory of Indian origin for Indo-European; however, this argument is weak, since the Himalayan foothills have a temperate climate.

    The argument from the centum/satem divide has been challenged: in the eighties, Claus-Peter Zoller announced the discovery of apparent traces of a centum language in the Bangani language of the western Himalayas. However, George van Driem and Suhnu Sharma later went there to do further fieldwork[6] (http://www.iias.nl/host/himalaya/abstracts/sgo.html), and claim that it is in fact a satem language, and that Zoller's data were flawed. Zoller does not accept this[7] (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pehook/bangani.zoller.html)[8] (http://www.sai.uni-heidelberg.de/abt/MIND/zoller/Bangani.html), and claims that their data was flawed. The question is unlikely to be resolved without further fieldwork.

    Indo-Europeanists note that the names of several temperate-climate flora and fauna - for instance the salmon and the beech tree - seem to be reconstructible for proto-Indo-European; critics note that the meaning of these words varies from branch to branch, and consider the exact referent of the terms to be as yet unestablished. Proponents of the claim that Indo-European originated in India note that Sanskrit names of purely Indian animals have IE etymologies: mayUra for peacock”; vyAghra for tiger; mahiSa for buffalo; pRshatI for spotted deer; iBha and hasthi for elephant. Critics note that these names appear to be derived rather than basic words - for instance, hasthi comes from the Sanskrit word for "hand" - and that they cannot be reconstructed for proto-Indo-European (unsurprisingly, since one would expect such words to have been lost by people traveling to regions without peacocks and elephants.)


    Hermeneutics


    A major hurdle with the hermenutics of the Vedic age is the complexity of the scripture and the Vedic language itself. At the least, a passing knowledge of Vedic Sanskrit is required and scholars who rely solely on translations inherit mistranslations and any prejudices that may be present in the translator's commentaries. Fortunately, the Rig Veda is easy to understand with some knowledge of classical Sanskrit.

    A major argument offered against identifying the Indus Valley civilization with a continuous, indigenous Vedic civilization is that the society described in the Vedas is primarily a pastoral one, whereas the Indus Valley civilization was heavily urbanized, and that few of the elements of such an urban civilization (e.g., temple structures, sewage systems) are described in the Vedas. However, proponents of continuity note that the Rig Veda does contain some phrases referring to elements of an urban civilization: city's lord [Rig Veda 1:173], shrine [Rig Veda 9:113], ship with a hundred oars [Rig Veda 1:116] and iron forts [10:101]. Frequent references to the ocean and large tracts of water are also suggested as indicating the idea of continuity, since the most obvious route for IE-speakers to have entered India by would have been through the sea-less inland areas of Afghanistan; although the steppes of Russia (often proposed as an origin for Indo-European) border on two seas, and Central Asia contains two seas, proponents of continuity argue that the people would have forgotten such ideas on their route. They also note that a primarily pastoral society does not exclude the existence of urbanisation, especially since the Vedic books appear to have been composed over a long period of gradual change, rather than being a snapshot of society at one particular moment.

    Proponents of continuity state that evidence in the Vedas points to a considerably earlier dating of the text. As an example, they argue that the positions of stars described in the Vedas occurred in 3500 to 4000 BC and point out that there is no account in the text of an invasion, of a great migration, or of an ancestral homeland in Central Asia.

    There is, as well, considerable description of a river Saraswati. Recent geological evidence (taken from satellite photographs) has uncovered the existence of a dry riverbed -- the Hakra River -- going through the Punjab area in the Indian subcontinent.

    A few historians believe this river is the Saraswati described in the Vedas. Many of the archaeological Indus Valley sites lie along the remains of this riverbed, suggesting that the Indus Valley civilization may have flourished between these two rivers. Around 1900 BC, however, the Hakra river appears to have dried up (due to earthquakes and the shifting of the path of the tributary Yamuna river, which turned from feeding the Hakra to feeding the Ganges), causing the decline of the Indus Valley civilization.

    Opponents of continuity argue that the identification of the Saraswati with the Hakra would lead to inconsistencies, and that the Saraswati is very probably a particular river in Afghanistan, that is known to have had a similar name. They also point to the linguistic and religious similarities between the Vedas and early Iranian sacred literature such as the Avesta, as well as the earlier Mitannian kings of Syria. The languages and the names of gods are very similar and both involve the ritual drinking of Soma. Proponents of continuity retort that it could have been Indian people that moved from India to Iran and interacted with, or founded, the Zoroastrians.

    The issue might be settled definitively by the deciphering of the many seals found at Indus Valley sites, which are written with an unknown script. If the language of these seals turned out to be Dravidian or Munda (or any other non-IE language group), this would confirm the theory that an indigenous culture was supplanted by an outside one. If it were Indo-Aryan it would support the alternative claim. What the script says would also be of great significance, shedding new light on the Indus Valley culture and possibly on ancient movements within the Indian subcontinent. However, the Indus Valley script remains undeciphered; several decipherments have been proposed - the best-known being Parpola's which interprets it as Dravidian, although some others interpret it as an early form of Sanskrit - but none has been widely accepted among scholars, and the sparseness of the corpus makes it difficult to test such claims. Some even suggest that it may not have been a form of writing after all[9] (http://www.safarmer.com/indusnotes.pdf).


    Influence of politics

    Like much of history, this question is immensely politically charged with ulterior motives being ascribed to proponents of both camps.

    Supporters of the migration theory are faced with several accusations. The most major one is that the British Raj and European Indologists from the 19th century to the present day forwarded an Aryan Invasion (and now Migration) in support of Euro-centric notions of white supremacy. Current assertions that the highly advanced proto-Hindu Vedic culture could not have had its roots in India are seen as attempts to bolster European ideas of dominance. Also, there are many South Indians who have adopted the 'Dravidian' identity as a matter of ethnic pride. Many opponents of the Aryan-Vedic continuity in India, like Romila Thapar, are seen as Leftist/ Marxist.

    The proponents of a continuous, ancient, and sophisticated Vedic civilization are seen by some as Hindu nationalists who wish to dispense with the foreign origins of the Aryan for the sake of national pride. Another motivation is seen as arising from the need to negate the Indian caste system; the hypothesis that it may originally have been a means of social engineering by the Aryans to establish and maintain a superior position compared to the Dravidians in Indian society may be a source of discomfort.

    The dominance in post-independence India of socialist accounts of history in Indian universities is a fact. And so is the recent emergence of Hindutva as a significant force in Indian politics. Until legitimate and widely corroborated archeological evidence for either side of the argument emerges, ulterior motive rather than genuine scholarship will be seen as underpinning their respective theories.
    .

  2. #2
    Senior Member CountBloodSpawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, June 18th, 2006 @ 01:29 AM
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    northeast
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    dark sith lord
    Politics
    National-Socialism
    Religion
    Odinism
    Posts
    233
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Aryan invasion theory

    I'm afraid that I'm gonna have to question with some of this article...for of all in the overview it said that after the Aryans were said to conquer northern india and construct a caste system that they racial mixed with the indiginious people...but how could they do so when the Vedic caste system strictly forbid them from doing so...something else must have happened to cause the cultural change and racial mixing...an uprising of a new hindu tradition...coming from the Dravidian south maybe...also I have to disagree with the statement that there was no evidence found of an invasion...I've read the Rig Veda and have skimmed across quotations about shotting arrows into their enemies and praising Indra on the battlefield...you can also tell by studing many things such as ancient languages like Sanskirt and comparing that to the european languages that the Aryans and other groups of indo-europeans are of the same orgin

  3. #3
    Senior Member Imperator X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 4th, 2009 @ 02:47 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Subrace
    Nordid/Atlantid.
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Massachusetts Massachusetts
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single, looking
    Occupation
    Looking
    Politics
    Constitutionalist
    Religion
    Hindu - Shakta
    Posts
    794
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Aryan Invasion Debate.

    I am a supporter of the Aryan Invasion theory, I am becoming sick of Hindu Nationalist Forums and Literature trying to prove Aryan Invasion wrong and minimalizing the obvious racial and cultural differences between Aryans and Dravidians. I think Hindus should be united and put differences aside for the common good and unite against the common enemy, Xianity and Islam, but at the same time, I tire of seeing these attempts at what I see as misinformation and denial of facts. I see the Indigenous Origin theory as a false theory that has reared its ugly head in synchronicity with the proliferation of liberal anti-racialist ideology.

    Below is an article from the Wikipedia which presents both arguments, for and against the Aryan Invasion Theory. Members are free to argue their view on this matter, citing evidence for their respective view.

    The highly controversial Aryan invasion theory is a historical theory first put forth by the GermanIndologistFriedrich Max Müller and others in the mid nineteenth century in India. It was invented in the context of European colonial expansion in the mid 19th century. It is the predecessor of contemporary views of an Indo-Aryan migration in the context of the expansion of the Indo-Iranians.
    Müller and his contemporaries based their views on the European concept of race, which held that there were a series of inferior races who were all intended to be subservient to the European Master race. They justified their theory by using the reconstructed language of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and the accounts in the Rigveda, while they did not have available much of the archaeological evidence on which more detailed contemporary views are based.
    Contents

    [hide]

    //
    [edit]

    In favor of the Theory

    As expressed, for example, by Charles Morris in his 1888 book "The Aryan Race," this theory holds that a Caucasian race of nomadic warriors known as the Aryans, originating in the Caucasus mountains in Southeastern Europe, invaded Northern India and Iran, somewhere between 1800 and 1500 BC. The invaders entered the Indian subcontinent from the mountain passes of the Hindu Kush, possibly on horseback, bringing with them the domesticated horse. The theory further proposes that this race displaced or assimilated the indigenous pre-Aryan peoples and that the bulk of these indigenous people moved to the southern reaches of the subcontinent or became the lower castes of post-Vedic society. The Aryans would have brought with them their own Vedic religion, which was codified in the Vedas around 1500 to 1200 BC. Upon arrival in India, the Aryans abandoned their nomadic lifestyle and mingled with the native peoples remaining in the north of India. The victory of the Aryans over the native civilization was quick and complete, resulting in the dominance of Aryan culture and language over the northern part of the subcontinent and considerable influence on parts of the south. The initial theory was built primarily on linguistic grounds, since there is no mention of an actual invasion or migration into India in the Vedic texts, and the Vedic texts do not refer to a homeland of the Hindus outside of India, in contrast to the Avesta, which mentions an exterior homeland Airyanem Vaejah of the ancient Zoroastrians.
    The theory itself has a complex history — initial acceptance, subsequent modifications, and currently new challenges in terms of counter theories. No single conclusive theory now prevails. Rather, combinations of theories are generally accepted.
    The theory was first proposed on linguistic grounds, following the discovery that Sanskrit was related to the principal languages of Europe (the Indo-European language group). It was assumed that Northern India, in which languages derived from Sanskrit were spoken, must have been occupied by migrants speaking Indo-European languages. The dominant languages in Southern India, known as "Dravidian", were assumed to have been spoken by autochthonous pre-Aryan peoples, who had been displaced southward. Hence the Aryans were said to have supplanted the Dravidians in the north of the subcontinent.
    Initially Max Müller assumed that the migrants would have been farmers, but later writers envisioned an invasion by nomadic warriors. Vedic literature however does not mention the Aryans to be nomads. It was proposed, on the basis of passages in the Rig-Veda and assumptions about surviving racial hierarchies (see Dasa), that these invaders were light-skinned people who had subdued darker aboriginal people and then mixed with them. The theory fit some existing ideas that justified contemporary European colonization. Initially, the aboriginal 'Dravidian' occupants of India were assumed to have been primitive, and the achievements of ancient India were credited to the descendants of the Aryan invaders. In the 1920s, however, the Indus Valley Civilization was discovered. It was obviously advanced for its time, with planned cities, a standardized system of weights and bricks, etc, and it was understood that if the Aryans had invaded, then, regardless of their later achievements, they had in fact overthrown or at least supplanted a civilization more advanced than their own.
    Accepted generally when it was first propounded, this theory has since been questioned on two fundamental grounds: firstly, whether the Aryans came through bloody invasions or through peaceful migration, and secondly, whether the Aryans came from outside the Indian subcontinent at all.
    [edit]

    Against the Theory

    There are others, however, who take a completely different view, and do not accept that there was any specific Aryan migration from the west to India. These people tend to see a reverse migration from Western India to Central Asia, and from there into Europe. They claim either that the Proto-Indo-European language originated in India, or that Sanskrit was the actual proto Indo-European language and that it was the source of all later Indo-European languages.
    In its extreme version, this view proposes that no such Aryan migration or invasion occurred; that the Indus Valley civilization was the civilization described in the Vedas; and that the Aryans originated in India. A few racist organizations claim "brahmin" groups concocted this story. But Hindu texts do not mention any type of invasion. Some advocates of this position propose that the proto-Indo-European language actually originated in India, from which its earliest speakers spread westwards. Others believe that the Indo-European languages originated outside India, but that they spread into India before the development of the Indus Valley Civilisation. On this view, the Indo-Aryan sub-branch of the IE languages evolved within India, along with the beliefs that became Vedic culture.
    Proponents of linguistic and cultural continuity claim that Vedic elements were discovered in the Harappa and Mohenjodaro sites, as well as in Gujarat and off the coastlines of Eastern and Western India, the counter-theory proposes that the great Vedic Saraswati River is the dry river bed that has been identified in Northwestern India and that the 'Aryan race' is nothing more than those Indian tribes considered 'noble' for adherence to Vedic principles, not for their racial characteristics or lineage. This theory of the Aryan culture being indigenous sometimes proposes Vedic Indian culture coming into being as early as 5000 BC, and slowly developing till around the time of the dissolution of the Harappa and Mohenjodaro cultures, whose disappearance is linked to the drying of the Saraswati River. This bears significance because the Rig Veda talks mainly of River Saraswati. While many historians have tried linking this River to a river in Afghanistan, the supporters of the Indigenous Origin theory have tried showing that Saraswati actually flowed in North Western India. The problem is that Saraswati is a dead river. The folk tales, as well as later vedic literature, describe a drying 'Saraswati'. People still talk of places where the river was supposed to have flowed. The supporters of Indigenous origin theory also claim that the satellite pictures of an ancient river bed that had dried in North Western India actually belonged to the River Saraswati. The historians who believe in the aryan migration theory cannot also prove that Saraswati was some other river outside India. This is a big problem for them, as then the whole theory would need to be completely reformulated. They thus continue to believe that Saraswati was a river flowing outside Indian subcontinent.
    [edit]

    Political and religious issues

    In India, the discussion of Indo-Aryan migration is charged politically and religiously.
    Supporters of an Indo-Aryan invasion are faced with several accusations. The major one is that the British Raj and European Indologists from the 19th century to the present day promoted the Aryan Invasion hypothesis in support of Eurocentric notions of white supremacy. Assertions that the highly advanced proto-Hindu Vedic culture could not have had its roots in India are seen as attempts to bolster European ideas of dominance.
    After Indian independence, Socialist and Marxist accounts of history proliferated in Indian universities. Opponents of the invasion theory contend that Marxists promoted the theory because its model of invasion and subordination corresponded to Marxist concepts of class struggle and ideology. Some modern opponents of the Aryan-Vedic continuity in India, like Romila Thapar, are Marxist.
    In contrast, the proponents of a continuous, ancient, and sophisticated Vedic civilization are seen by some as Hindu nationalists who wish to dispense with the foreign origins of the Aryan for the sake of national pride or religious dogma. Another motivation may arise from the desire to eradicate the problem associated with the Indian caste system; the hypothesis that it may originally have been a means of social engineering by the Aryans to establish and maintain a superior position compared to the Dravidians in Indian society may be a source of discomfort.
    Shrikant G. Talageri (1993: 47) thinks that the question whether the Aryans came from outside of India is not very relevant to Hinduism itself, which has all of its holy places in India. He noted that "Even if it is assumed that a group of people, called "Aryans", invaded, or immigrated into, India,... they have left no trace, if ever there was any, of any link, much less the consciousness of any link, much less any loyalties associated with such a link, to any place outside India."
    Until legitimate and widely corroborated archeological evidence for either side of the argument emerges, ulterior motive rather than genuine scholarship will be seen as underpinning their respective theories.
    Some Hindu thinkers like Sri Aurobindo have reacted against the theory on spiritual rather than historical grounds, claiming it to be 'materialistic'. Sri Aurobindo interprets the descriptions of war in the Rig Veda often as descriptions of spiritual warfare or as nature-poetry. Some Hindus have emphasized the fact that there is not an explicit mention of an Aryan invasion in the Hindu texts. Aurobindo thus writes: "But the indications in the Veda on which this theory of a recent Aryan invasion is built, are very scanty in quantity and uncertain in their significance. There is no actual mention of any such invasion..."(Sri Aurobindo. The Secret of the Veda. Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry. 1971: 23-4) Also Vivekananda (CW Vol. 3) remarked: "As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends."
    [edit]

    Racial interpretations of the Vedic Aryans

    Some early European Indologists have interpreted the Vedic texts in a racial sense. Isaac Taylor (The Origins of the Aryans. 1892: 226-227) noted that "German scholars have contended that the physical type of the primitive Aryans was that of the North Germans - a tall, fair, blue-eyed dolichocephalic race", while French writers have maintained that they were brachycephalic Gauls. This situation led Max Muller to proclaim: "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 Müller. 1887: 120. Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas.)
    Arya has also been interpreted by some as a term refering to only blond-haired and blue-eyed people. But apart from a few gods associated with the sun, there is in Sanskrit literature according to Michael Witzel only one golden-haired (hiranyakeshin) person , i.e. Hiranyakeshin, the author of the Hiranyakeshin-Shrauta-Sutra. (J. Bronkhorst and M.M. Deshpande. Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia. 1999: 390) While it is possible that this person was golden-haired, the author's name could also refer to one of the epithets of the solar deity Vishnu. These descriptions could also be poetic allegories: solar deities and gods associated with the sun were often described as golden-haired. On the other hand, there are references in Sanskrit literature where the hair of Brahmins is assumed to be black. For example, Atharva Veda 6:137. 2-3 contains a charm for making "strong black hairlocks" grow and in Baudhayana’s Dharma-Sutra 1:2, (also cited in Shabara’s Bhasya on Jaimini 1:33) we read the verse “Let him kindle the sacrificial fire while his hair is still black”.
    Some verses of the Rig Veda have been interpreted racially. The tribes hostile to the Indo-Aryans in some Rigvedic wars are described as dark-skinned, e.g. RV 9.73.5:
    O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men, Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates. Other scholars like Hans Hock (1999) or Hermann Grassmann (Wörterbuch zum Rig Veda: 1872) think that this instance may refer to darkness, the "dark world" of the Dasas or to the nightly darkness over the surface of the earth.
    Hans Hock (1999b) studied all the occurrences that were interpreted racially in Geldner's translation of the Rig Veda and concludes that they were either mistranslated or open to other interpretations. He writes that the racial interpretation of the Indian texts "must be considered dubious." (p.154) Hock also notes that "early Sanskrit literature offers no conclusive evidence for preoccupation with skin color. More than that, some of the greatest Epic heroes and heroines such as Krishna, Draupadi, Arjuna, Nakula and (...) Damayanti are characterized as dark-skinned. Similarly, the famous cave-paintings of Ajanta depict a vast range of skin colors. But in none of these contexts do we find that darker skin color disqualifies a person from being considered good, beautiful, or heroic." (p.154-155) Hans Hock also notes that the world of the Aryas is often described with the words "light, white, broad and wide", while the world of the enemies of the Aryas is often described with the words "darkness or fog". And in many of these instances, he notes, a "racial" interpretation can be safely ruled out.
    According to another examination by Trautmann (1997) the racial evidence of the Indian texts is soft and based upon an amount of overreading. He concludes: "That the racial theory of Indian civilization still lingers is a miracle of faith. Is it not time we did away with it?" (p.213-215)
    The earliest still existing commentary on the Rig Veda is the one by Sayana (14th century). According to Romila Thapar (1999, The Aryan question revisited), "There isn't a single racial connotation in any of Sayana's commentaries."
    For a discussion of this topic, see also Dasa.
    SVMDEVSSVMCAESARSVMCAELVMETINFERNVM

  4. #4
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 18th, 2006 @ 05:19 AM
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    galaxy
    Gender
    Politics
    really don't know :p
    Religion
    flirpsk
    Posts
    203
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Aryan Invasion Debate.

    Well, alot of Indians do support the Aryan invasion theory, usually those of high castes.

  5. #5
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 18th, 2006 @ 05:19 AM
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    galaxy
    Gender
    Politics
    really don't know :p
    Religion
    flirpsk
    Posts
    203
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Aryan invasion theory

    I agree...and also the E19 genetic marker among high casted Indians is an evidence.

  6. #6
    Member Galaico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 5th, 2012 @ 03:44 PM
    Ethnicity
    Iberian
    Subrace
    Atlanto-Med + Baskid
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Politics
    Atlanticism
    Posts
    937
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    My Theory about the Aryan Invasions

    According to the traditional and historical belief, the Aryans were a nomadic people, proceeding from the Southern Russia steppes, which invaded Europe (displeasing the Paleolithic Europeans) and the Indian subcontinent towards 2,600 B.C. They were the responsible of the expansion of the Indo-European languages and culture.

    The truth is that the Aryan people have always been studied from a linguistic and cultural point of view. Something which, at first seems to be logical enough since the Aryan term is linguistic and cultural, not a racial term. Even this, it is surprising that there has not been realized any genetic serious analysis to determine the history of this people, since language and culture can lie, but genes do not.

    The native peoples of Europe can be divided in three. The first ones came 45,000 years ago proceeding from the North-West Asia and were related with each other; these are the Paleo-Europeans of Eastern Europe (parents of the R1a haplotype) and the Paleo-Europeans of Western Europe (parents of the R1b haplotype). Approximately 20,000 years ago people coming from the Middle East, who brought the I haplotype, settled in the Balkans and later in Central and Northern Europe, this were the Balkano-Nordic people.

    The Aryans, unlike what it is commonly beleived, were not foreign to these "Old Europeans”, it’s the other way around, the Aryans arosed from the Oriental Paleo-Europeans (R1a), it is not known exactly when, but it’s probable that it was coinciding with the arrival of the Neolithic peoples.

    Now lets go with my theory:

    Around the years 6,000 B.C. and 4,000 B.C., Aryan (R1a) small migratory movements movements inside Europe began, occupying the Central and Northern Europe and absorbing the Balkano-Nordics. The migration did not come further, and did not affect in anything Western Europe, who was remaining practically Western Paleo-European pure (R1b pure with something of Neolithic influence).

    In the year 3,000 B.C. the effects of the Neolithic Revolution and of sedentarism had provoked a considerable increase in the European population, specially in the West of the continent where the Neolithic advances had had more effect. Then, what happened? The Western Paleo-Europeans (R1b) began to move Eastward. Unlike what we believed the invasion was not from East to West, it was the other way around, the Aryan zones of Central and Eastern Europe mixed up with the Balkano-Nordic populations, were invaded by the Western Paleo-Europeans, and these when entered in touch with the Aryan culture and language, adopted them, giving place to the proto-Aryans from which Celts, Germanics, Slavs, and many others descend.

    The previous paragraph would explain several things quite illogical till now. The Western Paleo-Europeans are practically pure in the haplotype R1b (the current influence of the haplotype I, on 15 % of the population came from the Germanic invasions in the beginning of the Middle Ages, not from Prehistoric migrations) and practically lack the Aryan haplotype R1a, something which would not be possible if really there had been an Aryan invasion of West Europe.
    The theory of the Western invasion, would explain why the R1b haplotype is the most extended in Europe and is shared in big (at least significant) quantities through the whole continent. The adoption of the Aryan culture by Western Paleo-Europeans instead of an Aryan invasion would also explain several things: the fact that the Celts, being a practically pure R1b population had an Aryan (R1a) language and culture, the fact that there were Western Paleo-European residual original linguistic “isles”, like the Basque, the Iberian, the Pict, the Ligurian, the Etruscan, etc., thing that did not happen when the Aryans invaded the Balkano-Nordics. For the skeptics, it is not so strange that the invaders adopt the culture of the defeated ones; e.g.: the Visigoths in Spain, the Normans in Normandy, the Bulgarians (Altaic people adopting the Slavonic culture) in the current Bulgaria, the Lombards and Ostrogoths in Italy, etc.

    After these explanations, lets continue:

    The invasion of the Western people, provoked a displacement of many Central and East Europeans towards out of Europe. The European invasion of the Indian subcontinent began.

    The “Aryan” invasion of India does not have a single European origin. If we really believed the official history of the Aryan invasions, and we believed that they were coming from the steppes of the south of Russia, a zone, of haplotype R1a, all the Indian subcontinent males of Aryan origin would only share the haplotype R1a, and the truth is not like that, since the three European R1a, R1b, and I haplotypes are shared in big quantities.

    Supposing, that the Aryan invasion was departing from a single European place, where the three haplotypes mentioned where shared in high quantities, the logical thing would be that the distribution of these three haplotypes was similar in the whole Indus-Iranian zone, so the logical thing would be, that there was more or less the same number of R1b (for example) in all the populations of Aryan origin, but that’s not what really happens. Let's see some examples:

    R1a R1b I
    Hazara Pakistanis: - 60% 4%
    Parsi Pakistanis: 7% 25% 2%
    Kashmir Pakistanis: 60% 25% -
    Burusho Pakistanis: 25% 25% 7%
    Kalash Pakistanis: 17% 10% 37%
    Utar Pradesh Chamars: 45% 10% 45%
    Ossetians: 2% 45% 10%
    Iranis: 22% 3% 20%

    These results confirm the different geographical origin, of the Aryan invaders, though all Europeans, some were coming from Western Paleo-European pure zones, others from Eastern Paleo-European pure zones, others from Balkano-Nordic pure zones, and others from mixed zones.

    In conclusion, the Aryan invasion either of Europe and of India-Persia didn’t exist in racial terms. It existed a cultural Aryan invasion of both places, a racial European invasion of the India, and a racial Western Paleo-European invasion of Central Europe and in less extent of Eastern Europe.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 28th, 2018 @ 06:23 AM
    Ethnicity
    Katarinensische
    Subrace
    Dinarid
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    1,243
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    What Do You Think of the Aryan Invasion Theory?


  8. #8
    Senior Member Deling's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, April 17th, 2009 @ 12:56 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Hyperborean
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Scandinavia, Europa
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    "Plebej by choice"
    Politics
    Conservative Revolution
    Religion
    Orthodoxy
    Posts
    410
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Death of the Aryan Invasion Theory

    http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_051212.htm

    British linguist Max-Muller has invented the Aryan invasion theory that ancient Aryans invade India at about 1500BC, driven out the Dravidians from their land, have imported the Hindu civilization along with Sanskrit language from the steppes of central Asia. The theory was the justification for the British occupation of India, as Winston Churchill remarked. Although there was no archeological evidence to support this theory, it has become the most important doctrine on the ancient Indian history. Although it was opposed by prominent historians like Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar and archeologists like Rakhaldas Banerjee and S.P.Gupta, the pro-British historians of India so far have disregarded all arguments against this theory.

    However, some recent archeological discoveries in India, Russia and Japan have pushed back the antiquity of the Aryans to at least 6000BC and proved beyond doubt that the ancient Aryans were not nomadic tribes from central Asia but had very advanced urban civilizations. Russian archeologists and linguists also proved that the Aryans have migrated not from the Russian steppes but came to Russia via Armenia and Georgia. There are increasing evidence that India was the original home of the Aryans.

    Advanced civilization of the Aryans in Chelyabinsk, Russia

    President Putin has recently visited one of the most mysterious places on planet Earth - the ruins of the ancient town of Arkaim, which is situated on the outskirts of the city of Chelyabinsk. Pravda reported (on 16 July 2005) about the starling discovery of ruins of a very advanced civilization of Indo-Aryan origin, which was at least 4000 years old in Arkaim.

    The Arkaim valley in the south of Ural was supposed to be flooded in 1987; local authorities were going to create a water reservoir there to irrigate droughty fields. However, scientists found strange circles in the center of the valley: the authorities gave archaeologists time to explore the area. Scientists were shocked to find out that Arkaim was the same age as Egypt and Babylon. Archaeological excavations showed that the people, who inhabited Arkaim, represented the ancient Indo-Aryan civilizations. Arkaim had not only a city, but also a temple and an astronomic observatory.

    Prof. Gennady Zdanovich, the chairman of the archaeological expedition said, "We achieved what seemed to be absolutely unreal. How did people of such ancient civilization manage to accomplish incredible technological progress, which still seems to be unachievable nowadays?”

    A group of Russian researchers, headed by Prof. Vadim Chernobrovy, has recently returned from the mysterious region. He said, “A flight above Arkaim on board a helicopter gives you an incredible impression. The huge concentric circles on the valley are clearly visible. The town and its outskirts are all enclosed in the circles. We still do not know what point the gigantic circles have, whether they were made for defensive, scientific, educational, or ritual purposes. Some researchers say that the circles were actually used as the runway for an ancient spaceport."

    Researchers discovered that the ancient town was equipped with the storm sewage system, which helped Arkaim`s residents avoid floods. The people were protected against fires as well: timbered floorings and houses themselves were imbued with fireproof substance. It was a rather strong compound, the remnants of which can still be found in the ruins of the town.

    Each house was outfitted with "all modern conveniences”, as they would say nowadays. There was a well, an oven, and dome-like food storage in every house. The well was branching out into two underground trenches: one of them was directed to the oven and the other one ended in the food storage. The trenches were used to supply chilly air to the oven and to the food storage. The cool air from the trenches was also creating a very powerful traction force in the Aryan oven, which made it possible to smelt bronze there.

    The central square in Arkaim was the only object of square shape in the town. Judging upon traces of bonfires that were placed in a specific order on the square, the place was used as a site for certain rituals. Arkaim was built according to a previously projected plan as a single complicated complex, which also had an acute orientation on astronomic objects.

    Prof.Grigoryev of the Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Chelyabinsk, Russia, said recently, “ There are no features of “Steppe cultures” in cultures of India and Iran. There are no Finno-Ugric borrowings in languages of Avesta and Rig Veda." According to him (1996, 1998), Ancient Aryans came originally from Iran to Russia via Syria, Anatolia, Armenia and formed the vast cities in Sintashta-Petrovka area near Chelyabinsk. Earlier linguistic experts Prof.Gamkrelidze and Prof.Ivanov (1984) confirmed that explanation.

    How far is Iran from Sindh-Saraswati valley? We also know from the Purana, that Aryans were divided into two groups, Sur of India and Asura of Iran. Russian archeologists are not aware of the submarine ruins of Dwarka and Cambay yet. If they would know, it would be possible to prove what Rakhaldas Banerjee; Ramesh Chadra Mazumdar said all along that India was the origin of the ancient Aryans, who had migrated to Russia via Armenia. The discovery made by the Russian archeologists of the temple of Mithra under the basement of the world’s oldest official Christian church in Yerevan, Armenia shows that link.

    Archeological Details of Arkaim in Chelyabinsk:

    The site is known by the Russian archeologists for at least 70 years as Sintasha-Petrovka cultural area of ancient Aryans, but it was ignored by the Anglo-American historians. Sintashta-Petrovka cultural area runs along the eastern Urals of the Eurasian steppe for about 400 km south of Chelabyansk and to the east for about 200 km. There are 23sites recognized as belonging to this group.

    The Sintashta burials, and those found at other Arkiam sites, vary greatly in detail. These burials provide archaeological evidence of the burial rituals set down in the Rig Veda and Avesta and, thus, these are called Indo-Iranian.

    The sites have been called “towns” and, most of them have been discovered through aerial photography; they are laid out in round, square, or oval shapes. While only two of these “towns”, Arkaim and Sintashta, have been excavated largely, they are characterized as being fortified, having connecting houses, and having extensive evidence for metallurgy.

    The excavator of Sintashta, Gening (1979), has shown that the burials from Sintashta do, how-ever, provide archaeological evidence for numerous aspects of the burial rituals set down in texts of Rig Veda and Avesta. The Avesta, was composed by Zorathustra, who attempted to erase the earlier practice of worship of God Mithra.

    The dating of the Avesta is problematic, since there are disputes about the time of Zorathustra. According to Xanthus of Lydia, it was 6480BC; according to Aristotle it was 6350BC ( in Heredotus). According to Ferdowsi’s Shahnamah, it was 6600BC; according to the Roman historian Plutarch it was 6000BC.

    Suppose we accept it was 6000BC, and given the fact the Rig Veda was older than Avesta, as Zorathustra has tried to erase out worships of Vedic gods in favour of only one God Asura Mazda, Aryans were in India before 6000BC.

    Sintashta Culture, in which Arkaim is a part, was formed in Chelyabinsk in about 2000BC, according to the radiocarbon tests (Trifonov 1997). This culture was spread over a vast geo-graphic region from the Dnieper River in Ukraine to eastern Kazakhstan. The investigation of the metal ores was undertaken using spectral analysis. The results indicated that the ores recovered from Sintashta settlements did not contain arsenic while in contrast, slag retrieved from the same sites contained high levels of the element. However, metal structures of the Caucasus and Anatolia are similar to the metal structure of the Sintashta Culture, and the tradition of alloying during the ore smelting stage was well established in the Caucasus region.

    All the features of the Syro-Anatolian cultures have parallels with the archaeological cultures of this region, the most remarkable of which are the Sintashta fortified settlements that are identical to Anatolian settlements. In addition, there are many analogies with the Sintashta Culture in the ceramics, and stone and metal artifacts of the Syro-Anatolian cultures.

    This is the basis of the conclusion suggested by the Russian archeologists and linguistics (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1984; Grigoryev, 1996, 1998) that the Aryans migrated from Iran to Armenia and then to Russia; Aryans never came down from Russia to India. According to them, Aryans most possibly had started migrating from Iran in 8000BC. They had reached Balkan Peninsula and Anatolia in about 6000BC and had reached Russian steppes in Chelyabinsk in about 4000BC. By that time, they had very advanced urban civilization, not at all nomadic in any way. The Indo-Europeanization of the Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine lasted for a long time, from the Neolithic to the beginning of the Iron Age. In the Middle Bronze Age Indo-Aryans came to Bulgaria, former Yugoslavia, and Greece. Russian archeologists were not aware of the Sindhu-Saraswati civilization or Dwarka. I have drawn the attention of Prof.Grigoryev to these ruins, perhaps in future he and his team will prove the migration of the Aryans had started from India, not from Iran.

    Relationship with Krishna’s Dwarka:

    The discoveries at Gulf of Cambay by the National Institute of Ocean Technology established, using carbon-14 date of 7,500 years for the wood samples excavated from under the sea, the existence of a civilization dating to that period.

    Krishna’s Dwarka existed some 4,000 years ago. There was a rise in the sea level about 30 metres in 7,500 years, approximately at the rate of 10 metres in 3,500-3,800 years. Eroded debris and pottery provided evidence of a port town destroyed by sea about 3,500 years ago.

    The marine archaeologists in India have found enough proof to assert that Mahabharata is not a myth, but history. The discovery of submerged buildings of the legendary city of Dwarka indicates that Indians were masters in town planning and maritime activity, 4,000 years ago. The rise in the sea level in Dwarka is a scientific truth. Studies have proved that the sea considerably and suddenly rose to submerge the city.

    Harivamsha describes the submerging of Dwarka saying Krishna instructed Arjuna, who was then visiting Dwarka; to evacuate the residents of the city as the sea was going to engulf the city. “On the seventh day (of Krishna saying this), as the last of the citizens were leaving the city, the sea entered the streets of Dwarka.” [in ‘Search on Krishna´s Dwarka comes to a standstill’, By Vaidehi Nathan; Organiser, 2004, June20]

    Ruins of Dwarka also show a very advanced civilization of at least 4000 years old, which could not be formed by semi-nomadic Aryans coming down from central Asia in 1500BC. The city originally itself could be about 6000 years old. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in his essay ‘Is Krisna a historical figure’ (in ‘Krisna Charita’) has calculated the time of the war described in Mahavarat. According to him, the war took place in about 3700BC.

    Aryan city under the sea near Japan:

    Another nail was struck on the British theory of Aryan invasion in 1500BC by the discovery of ruins of a city, at least 6000 years old, under the sea near Okinawa, Japan. The original people of Japan were Indo-Aryans and the structure of the ruins has close similarities to the ancient architecture of India, Iran, and Egypt.

    A unique structure was once found beneath the sea where Japan`s western most Yonaguni Island lies. In 1997, an investigation team from the University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa discovered the site. Prof. Masaaki Kimura, professor at the University of the Ryukyus, a marine geologist, said that, "We found that the ruins are at least 6000 years old. It could go back another 4000 years when we consider the length of time before they sank into the water. "

    Okinawa was once connected to the Asian continent. Geologic chronology shows that the area in Yonaguni was already underwater 6000 years ago. Prof. Kimura says "During the past 10,000 years, the ocean water level rose about 40 meters. From this fact, it is only natural to think that the ancient civilization is now deep in water. All of a sudden, such an advanced civilization was discovered, so we believe there must be a lost culture before that.” (in his book "Mu Tairiku Wa Ryukyu ni Atta" or The legendary sunken continent was in the Ryukyus" published in 1997)


    Marine geologists think that the lost civilization was once on ground level, but now it has sunk into the ocean. The ocean surface has risen land100 meters in the past 20,000 years.

    Undersea ruins near Yonaguni Island stand 25 meters tall and 100 meters long. This megalithic structure was artificially formed. There are a number of these types of ruins off the coast of Okinawa. However, this one in Yonaguni is the largest, and the only authenticated one. The structure of the buildings are not Mongolian in character but related to the ruins of India, Middle East and Egypt.

    The ancient people of Japan were not Mongolian, but Indo-Aryans; Mongolians began to migrate to Japan about 2000 years ago. The decendants of the ancient Indo-Aryans of Japan, Aino people, are still there in the northern island of Hokkaido; they have distinct Indo-Aryan physical features. Details of this lost civilizations and photos of the undersea buildings are in the website [http://www.pref.okinawa.jp/summit/tokusyu/ruins1.htm]
    I have mentioned this discovery to Dr. Shila Tripati of the Marine Archaeology Centre, National Institute of Oceanography in Goa. Dr.Tripati has contacted Prof.Kimura already and we hope in future their joint efforts will show the link between Cambay, Dwarka and Okinawa’s undersea ruins of very advanced civilizations of the Indo-Aryans.

    Joker in the pack: Prof.D.N.Jha of Delhi University:

    Given these overwhelming evidences of archeological findings in India, Russia, Japan it is surprising still the Anglo-American historians and their Indian agents are insisting that Aryans came from the central Asia in only 1500BC to India.

    Prof. D.N. Jha recently wrote a book and several articles to prove that ancient semi-Nomadic Aryans, who according to him invaded India about 1500BC, used to eat beef. (in his book, The Myth of the Holy Cow, Verso, 2002). To prove his points he has committed fraud and misinterpretations.

    He has quoted from Rig Veda, (VIII.43.11) as " Agni ...is one whose food is the ox and the barren cow".

    This is a wrong quotation. The exact quotation should be " Let us serve Agni with our hymns, disposer, fed on ox and cow, who bears the soma on his back" (in Griffith’s translation of Rig Veda).

    It does not mean ancient Aryans used to eat ox and cow, but Agni can dispose of any wealth, ox and cow used to be the symbol of wealth.

    He also has quoted from Rig Veda( X.79.6) as " Cow was cut up with a sword or an axe".

    This quotation is totally wrong. The exact quotation should be, " Agni, hast thou committed sin or treason among the Gods? In ignorance I ask thee, playing, not playing, he gold-hued and toothless hath cut his food up as the knife a victim"(in Griffith’s translation of Rig Veda).

    It does not say anything about cutting cows or ox. Using these false quotations he has tried to prove Aryans used to eat beef. How can he reconcile to all these evidences from Chelyabinsk, Okinawa, Dwarka, and Cambay that Indo-Aryans have developed very advanced civilizations at least 7000 years ago and according to the Russian archeologists, they have migrated not from Russian steppes to India but from India to Russia via Syria, Anatolia, Armenia?

    Given the very advanced technology the ancient Aryans have used in Chelyabinsk, it cannot be said that this civilization was born only 4000 years ago, but only the ruins are 4000 years old. It is probable the ancient Aryans have migrated eastwards to Japan, as there are every evidences that the Aino people, descendants of the ancient Indo-Aryans in Japan, came originally from eastern Siberia. The ruins of submarine city near Okinawa were probably developed by the same Indo-Aryans nearly 10,000 years ago.

    Where does that leave the theory propagated by Max-Muller, and assorted British historians and their Indian agents like Romila Thaper, D.N.Jha, and Irfan Habib? Recently the Indian History Congress, dominated by the historians of India with slave mentality, has proposed that there should not be any archeological excavations in any of the ancient religious sites in India. Slaves are afraid of the truth.

    Prof. Dipak Basu

    References:

    Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra, Krisna Charita, first published 1886
    Gamkrelidze T.V and Ivanov, V.V, Indoevropejskil Yazak I Indo-evropejci, Tbilisi & Mouton de Gruyter-Berlin, 1984 (in Russian)
    Gening, V. F, The Cemetery at Sintashta and the EarlyIndo-Iranian Peoples. Journal of Indo-European Studies 7, 1-30, 1979.
    Griffith,Raplh, The Rig Veda ( translation from Sanskrit), Motilal Banarsidass, 1992
    Grigoryev, S.A., The Sintashta Culture and Some Questions of Indo-European Origins, Proceedings of the Chelyabinsk Scientific Center, Vol 2, pp 82-85, 1998
    Grigoryev, S.A, ‘Sintashta I Ariyaskiye Migracii’ in Novoye v Arkkheologii Yuzhnogo Urala, Chelyabinsk State University, 1996 (in Russian)
    Herodotus, Books I and II. Harvard University Press (1990 reprint).
    Jha, D.N, The Myth of the Holy Cow, Verso, 2002
    Kimura, M, "Mu Tairiku wa Ryukyu ni Atta"( The legendary sunken continent was in the Ryukyus), Ryukyus University Press, 1997 ( in Japanese)
    Nathan Vaidehi, ‘Search on Krishna´s Dwarka comes to a standstill’, 20 June, Organiser, 2004
    Pravda, ‘Ancient Aryan civilization achieved incredible technological progress 40 centuries ago’, 16 July 2005
    Trifonov, V. A. 1997. K absolyutnoy khronologii evro-aziatskikhkulturnykh kontaktov v epokhu bronzy. Radiouglerod I Arkheologiya 2, 94–7 (in Russian)

  9. #9
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 11th, 2016 @ 01:27 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    CM-Atlantidish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Location
    Mamvcivm
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    British
    Posts
    3,586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Re: Death of the Aryan Invasion Theory

    Hindocentric drivel.

  10. #10
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Monday, November 17th, 2008 @ 04:46 AM
    Ethnicity
    North Pontid/Iranid
    Subrace
    pontic steppe specimen
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    grad student
    Politics
    Nature rules, we participate.
    Religion
    Nature is universal, not equal
    Posts
    127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Death of the Aryan Invasion Theory

    Im a little confused, dont know what to believe, I thought indo-aryan and Indo-european culture began somewhere from the balkans to northeast of Anatolia by the black and caspian seas, then expanded in almost every direction once mastery of the horse was accomplished. It wouldnt surprise me to find an earlier proto or infancy stage of the culture that would birth the indo-family somewhere near the older fertile belt of the neolithic human family, say just north of mesopotamia or east into Iran and the western boundries of India.

    But i KNOW for a fact that the Ainu are not Indo-european or Indo-aryan in any respect, culturally or genetically, there similarity in appearance to Europids is due to thier retaining of older UP traits from humans that did not yet fully differentiate between caucasoid and Mongoloid yet. To give the appearance of a strongly UP influenced Lapp or even east baltid in many cases, to say Indo-aryan culture flourished in Japan prior to the invasion of "mongolians" is rubbish and insults Asian culture to its core, The tocharians as far as I know were the eastern most extension of the IE or IA peoples, and that was in the western frontier of todays china, some 2,000 miles west of Japan.
    Last edited by Bioblitzkrieg; Tuesday, December 5th, 2006 at 04:34 AM.

Page 1 of 13 12345611 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: Sunday, June 27th, 2010, 02:09 AM
  2. Death of the Aryan Invasion Theory?
    By Laedifox in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Friday, March 23rd, 2007, 01:56 PM
  3. The Aryan Invasion Theory
    By Agrippa in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: Sunday, September 3rd, 2006, 08:37 AM
  4. New Light on the Aryans: DNA Studies Confirm "Aryan Theory" of History
    By Ahnenerbe in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 08:32 AM
  5. Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate [Koenraad Elst]
    By Ahnenerbe in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, March 4th, 2005, 08:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •