Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

warriorextreme

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
1,867
Likes
3,040
Country flag
Aryan Invasion Theory--as crap as the crap itself
Kudos to british who successfully planted this seed in our minds and kudos to those Indians who are helping Breaking of India by being good servants of their masters..

 
Last edited by a moderator:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Replied inline:

I am sorry that you think the premises are unsubstantiated. But the 2 CE [Randomly chosen date perhaps] is based on Shrikant Talageri's work.

You may want to read it here

An important point here

Muller arbitrarily and deliberately assigned the oldest Rig Veda to 1200 B.C. and when questioned by critics he disowned his chronology saying: " Whether the Vedic hymns were composed 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 years B.C., no power on earth will determine." In formulating his chronology, Muller must have been strongly influenced by his Christian belief that the creation of the world had taken place in 4004 B.C. He must have feared that the assignment of any date to the Vedic hymns prior to 4004 B.C. may shake the already fragile faith of Christians in Genesis and critics may brand the creation of world in six days, origin of man in the likeness of God and Noah's Ark as borrowed ideas from the more ancient Vedas. Muller relied wholly on philology, as no archaeological evidence was available then.

It was necessary for Christians to show how natives were backward

Vedas were written in Sanskrit. Do you claim otherwise? [Why don't you read what I wrote?] If you do, I would like you to prove otherwise. [I would like you to read all the Vedas, if not in full, at least in parts.]

You are going round in circles, when you claim vedas were pre sanskrit [You don't read before replying. Please quote exactly what I said.]. The written veda is in sanskrit. The spoken veda is the evolution of sanskrit from speech towards a script. It was written over many centuries.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Replied inline:
Strange. A historian who has written books based on factual, archeological and linguistic evidence with reviews of works of other authors is still considered unsubstantiated. Witzel did the same too. I see you are doing the same. The world according to the gospel was created in 404 BC. I cannot offer any more evidence of the same.

Please elaborate succintly so that there is no doubt in my mind about what you believe about Vedas? I am a bit slow to pick things up. Please forget what I have written or what you had written earlier, just clarify things for me please. I would appreciate it.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
original inhabitants of india were the dravidians . most were relegated to the lower castes after the aryan invasion .

in fact i have just had an interesting thought :p

if aryans are central asian invaders and muslims are actually largely converted form the lower castes . then who has the greater percentage of indian blood---the muslims dont they :rofl:
Are you trolling?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Strange. A historian who has written books based on factual, archeological and linguistic evidence with reviews of works of other authors is still considered unsubstantiated. Witzel did the same too. I see you are doing the same. The world according to the gospel was created in 404 BC. I cannot offer any more evidence of the same.

Please elaborate succintly so that there is no doubt in my mind about what you believe about Vedas? I am a bit slow to pick things up. Please forget what I have written or what you had written earlier, just clarify things for me please. I would appreciate it.
Rig Veda: Pre-Sanskrit or unpolished language.
Rest 3: Sanskrit or polished language.

Please don't take the 'polished' metaphor too far. I am sure you know what I mean.

You said the Vedas were written in Sanskrit, and that is not true. On top of that, there are claims that even more vedas existed, but were lost, and we don't know what language they were written in.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Rig Veda: Pre-Sanskrit or unpolished language.
Rest 3: Sanskrit or polished language.

Please don't take the 'polished' metaphor too far. I am sure you know what I mean.

You said the Vedas were written in Sanskrit, and that is not true. On top of that, there are claims that even more vedas existed, but were lost, and we don't know what language they were written in.
RgVed was the first. Mandala 2-7 oldest, 8-9 next, 1 and 10 newest.

Rgved was transmitted verbally, until the script was perfected and then it was finally written in a script which is close to what Sanskrit is today. So yes the RgVed was written in Sanskrit. This is from "The Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence"
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
RgVed was the first. Mandala 2-7 oldest, 8-9 next, 1 and 10 newest.

Rgved was transmitted verbally, until the script was perfected and then it was finally written in a script which is close to what Sanskrit is today. So yes the RgVed was written in Sanskrit. This is from "The Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence"
I disagree with that statement in blue. It is misinformation and misleading.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Rigveda itself may be pre-Sanskrit knowledge that was received as a set of sound vibrations.
But is sure was encoded in Sanskrit and has been preserved superbly for thousands of years by Indians; because of established methods of oral transition and a language like Sanskrit.
RV may have been universal information and many others may have received it. But nobody else could preserve it.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Rigveda itself may be pre-Sanskrit knowledge that was received as a set of sound vibrations.
But is sure was encoded in Sanskrit and has been preserved superbly for thousands of years by Indians; because of established methods of oral transition and a language like Sanskrit.
RV may have been universal information and many others may have received it. But nobody else could preserve it.
I think the Rig Veda you have read is different from the one I have read. Perhaps I read the original, and you, the translation. If that is true, I would say, you haven't read the Rig Veda, just the translation. Hot sure why you are even arguing on its language.

Besides that, I wasn't debating on the knowledge, or information, contained in the Rig Veda, but the language of the Rig Veda. Let us not go off on a tangent.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Interestingly the AIT sepoys also do not attack the Rig Veda or its deities (because they want to share ownership).
Rather they attack only Sanskrit, the language. Why? Because they want to claim RV to be a memory of their culture written down later in some language (Sanskrit) derived from their language (PIE).
And lastly, why all this herculean effort? Because much to their inconvenience there is no Sanskrit outside India and the first written Rig Veda came out in Sanskrit. Whether you call it ancient Sanskrit, Vedic Sanskrit, "different than todays" Sanskrit.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Interestingly the AIT sepoys also do not attack the Rig Veda or its deities (because they want to share ownership).
Rather they attack only Sanskrit, the language. Why? Because they want to claim RV to be a memory of their culture written down later in some language (Sanskrit) derived from their language (PIE).
And lastly, why all this herculean effort? Because much to their inconvenience there is no Sanskrit outside India and the first written Rig Veda came out in Sanskrit. Whether you call it ancient Sanskrit, Vedic Sanskrit, "different than todays" Sanskrit.
Agreed. Horse hypothesis is increasingly given credence for showing Sanskrut did not originate in India. Horse skeletons were not found in India in numbers, so horse cannot be indegenous. The western fundamentalists conveniently forgot a now extinct equine specie called shivalik horse whose remains have been excavated in Harrapa. Fine if we give credence to this argument, why is sanskrut or proto Sanskrut not found in Central Asia? Why should it work one way and not the other?

Cow, water buffalo were proven to be domesticated at least 6000 years BCE. Elephant is domesticated no where else in the world except India. Surely the great Seers could observe nature very well which perhaps made this possible. This is equally important point because Elephant is a very very intelligent creature. Horses are more dumb than dogs, with all respect to horses. Surely horse could have easily been domesticated. False negatives does not mean true positives.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
Indus Valley Civ Collapsed due to Climate Change

Just FYI. The old "Aryans destroyed Indus Valley civilization" theory has been thoroughly discredited. Saraswati was a real river. Unfortunately this theory is still supported by DMK :tsk:

----


The Vedas, a collection of texts composed over 3,000 years ago in India, speak of a mythical sacred river called the Sarasvati from which the Hindu goddess of science and learning emerged. Hers was a river "surpassing in majesty and might all other waters." But around 4,000 years ago, all was lost when climate change kicked in.

That is the conclusion of a group of geologists, geomorphologists, archaeologists and mathematicians who joined forces to answer a question that has dogged scholars for centuries: what became of the Indus civilization?

This colossal civilization rose about 4,500 years ago, flourished for 600 years and then began a steady and relentless decline. Previous scholars hypothesized that regional strife or a foreign invasion led to its unraveling, while others suggested that environmental factors may have been to blame. The researchers who took part in the new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, had a hunch that the latter theory was correct.

"What we thought was missing was how to link climate to people," said Liviu Giosan, a geologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts and the lead author of the study. "The answer came when we looked at the wide-scale morphology."

Using satellite photos and topographical data, the researchers prepared digital maps of the Indus River landscape. They collected field samples to determine the age of sediments in the region and whether their structure was shaped by rivers or the wind. The information was then overlaid across prior archaeological findings, yielding a compelling new chronology of 10,000 years of human history and landscape changes, and what drove them.

The story goes something like this:

Wild, untamed rivers once slashed through the heart of the Indus plains. They were so unpredictable and dangerous that no city could take root on their banks. As the centuries passed, however, the monsoons became less frequent and the floods less intense, creating stable conditions for agriculture and settlement.

Sprawling across what is now Pakistan, northwestern India and eastern Afghanistan, the Indus civilization encompassed more than 625,000 square miles, rivaling ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in its accomplishments. In its bustling hubs, there was indoor plumbing, gridded streets and a rich intellectual life.

Unlike the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, who used irrigation systems to support crops, the Harappans relied on a gentle, dependable cycle of monsoons that fed local rivers and keyed seasonal floods.

But as later generations would discover, it was what the researchers call a "Goldilocks civilization." After about 2,000 years, the window for agricultural stability closed again.


As time passed, the monsoons continued to weaken until the rivers no longer flooded, and the crops failed. The surplus agriculture was longer there to support traders, artists, craftsmen and scholars . The Harappans' distinct writing system, which still has not been deciphered, fell into disuse.

People began abandoning the cities and moved eastward toward the Ganges basin, where rains were more dependable (though not dependable enough to sustain urban metropolises). The civilization dispersed, fracturing into small villages and towns.

"The cities became peripheral — they didn't abruptly disappear," Dr. Giosan said. "But in the end, those cities were only a place for squatters."

The researchers found the dusty geologic remnants of the long-lost Sarasvati River in the sprawling desert surrounding the modern-day Ghaggar-Hakra valley. Rather than being fed by Himalayan runoff, as many scholars had assumed, the researchers uncovered evidence that her liquid sustenance came only from monsoons. As the climate became more arid, the weak rains could no longer sustain the river, it retreated into myth.

An Ancient Civilization, Upended by Climate Change - NYTimes.com
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Interestingly the AIT sepoys also do not attack the Rig Veda or its deities (because they want to share ownership).
Rather they attack only Sanskrit, the language. Why? Because they want to claim RV to be a memory of their culture written down later in some language (Sanskrit) derived from their language (PIE).
And lastly, why all this herculean effort? Because much to their inconvenience there is no Sanskrit outside India and the first written Rig Veda came out in Sanskrit. Whether you call it ancient Sanskrit, Vedic Sanskrit, "different than todays" Sanskrit.
Calling those who do not agree with your views sepoys does not make you a general. Moreover, what exactly is an 'attack' on Sanskrit? Can you please elaborate?
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Calling those who do not agree with your views sepoys does not make you a general. Moreover, what exactly is an 'attack' on Sanskrit? Can you please elaborate?
Pmaitra,
I am certain it was not a personal attack on yourself. It was a remark on how the Indian scholarly thought still needs a western crutch to stand with. A white man telling us things without proof or if a proof is manufactured just to suit a theory devised is still held at a higher regard than indegenous research which has used all the tools at disposal.

Most of these western scholars have made a living out of teaching Indian civilisation. And now when the theories taught are proven to be not so credible, all the books written are equal to nothing. That seems to be the driving force for the ad hominem attacks on Indian scholars by the western elite who think they know Indian culture though they have never lived it. The is a certain amount of credit I would give them, but writers like Fancois, Dalrymple are a lot better than Witzel, Doniger.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Calling those who do not agree with your views sepoys does not make you a general.
I'm not interested in becoming one either and no I am not calling you a sepoy. I only pointed to similarity of argument.
Didn't know 'AIT sepoy' was such a derogatory term in your eyes. It is not in my eyes actually.
Neither there was any personal comment nor was there the use of "I" and "You" to even vaguely make it look personal. So help me find out whose post made it personal indeed.
I still don't know what was so flaming there.

Moreover, what exactly is an 'attack' on Sanskrit? Can you please elaborate?
Attack on Sanskrit in this context is precisely the assertion that Rigveda is not written in Sanskrit.
If not Sanskrit then in which language and where did that language come from? Please don't quote PIE because it smells cooked up and is yet to be stand on its legs as a genuine language.

What is disappointing is, why the veda itself is left behind and its language is in focus?
That is probably because we don't know whether the Veda is authored by a human, by divine or if it is eternal.
So veda will not answer questions of historicity such as AIT/OIT/ and timelines etc as it is not a historical document.
Hence the language argument comes to fore with laser beam focus in these theories and used in the bigger scheme.
Now we know that Aryans are credited with writing (not necessarily equal to authoring) and preserving Vedas.
One way of taking Aryan origin outside India is to say that Vedas are not written in Sanskrit but some other language and then back peddling from Sanskrit cook a language and claim that Vedas are written in this language and found at such and such place.

For a moment, even if we accept the above, there is nothing to prove that all this happened between 1500 and 1200 BC. It is akin to building hypothesis over a hypoethesis and then saying "Hence proved!!"

Regards,
Virendra
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Why are we still using the term - Aryan.

The term 'Arya' is what is the real deal.

Do you consider aryan a bad word? - Yahoo! Answers


The origin of the term Aryan may be-
1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use.
2. A member of the people who spoke the parent language of the Indo-European languages. No longer in technical use.
3. A member of any people speaking an Indo-European language. No longer in technical use.
4. In Nazism and neo-Nazism, a non-Jewish Caucasian, especially one of Nordic type, supposed to be part of a master race. If you use Occam's Razor, this is the only one definition left.

So non existent race- Aryans -using non existent langauge- Proto Indo European langauge.

What bull?
 

Raj30

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,325
Likes
1,603
Books By Davi Frawley - Myth Aryan Invasion - Aryan As Race Or Language (Page1)
The Aryan invasion theory is based upon the idea that Aryan represents a particular group of people. In the classical view of the Aryan invasion the Aryans are a particular ethnic group, speaking a particular language. However in Vedic literature Aryan is not the name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is a title of honor and respect given to certain groups for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient Persians. For this reason one should call the Vedic people simply the "Vedic people" and not the Aryans. If one takes Aryan in the Vedic sense it would not be like talking of the invasion of good people, as if goodness were a racial or linguistic quality


Rebuttal of Aryan Invasion Theory � Agniveer Fans
The Word Arya a Qualitative Term and Not a Racial Term, Historical Examples

The Vedas are indeed the voice of 'weal and welfare' meant for the psychic and physical efficiency, respectively connoted by 'Arya' and 'Shudra' words. No where in the Vedas do these words refer to any race or caste. "It is by conduct and behaviour that one becomes Arya and not by birth or wealth". This is the consistent view of Indian tradition, right from the Vedas down to the Smritis, Puranas and the great epics. The word Arya was a favourite term with Budha who called his 'Four Noble Truths' as 'Four Arya Saach'. Sri Aurobindo has remarked "The word Arya expresses a particular ethical and social order of well-governed life, courage, gentleness, purity, humanity, compassion, protection of the weak, liberty, observance of social duties, eagerness for knowledge, respect for the wise and the learned and the social accomplishment. There is no word in human speech that has a nobler history." (Arya, Vol.1, 1963)
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
May be the thread needs a new Name- a combination of Aryan Invasion/Migration / Out of India theory
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use.
The Iranians have called themselves 'Aryans' since ancient times and continue to do so today ('Iran' = 'Land of Aryans').

What's stupid is that people nowadays think 'Aryan' equates with blonde, blue-eyed white people. Um, no, ancient Germans were barbarians and had no civilization to speak of. Only two groups of people used this term to reference themselves: ancient Iranians (as 'Aryan') and ancient Indians (as 'Arya'). Later, some Southeast Asians also called themselves 'Aryas' because of Indic influence. The people who NEVER called themselves 'Arya(n)', however, were the ancient Europeans/Nordics. Hitler was very much aware of this lack of a 'glorious past' for the Nordic/Germanic race, which is why he hijacked Indo-Iranian civilization and symbols (swastika, etc.).
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top