Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[panduranghari]

Subhash Kak showing all evidence and support for the Out of India theory -The Cycle of Time

 

[pmaitra]

Crossposting:

Read EH Carr - "What is History" and you will understand why Romilla Thapar and others wrote what they wrote.

They wrote history with the present shape of political dispensation in view... Thy wrote history as Nehruvians desired.. They wrote history to influence the present and they were totally subjective in that.

They were reinventing the wheel to fit somewhere.

Same old accusation, that certain historians wrote history as instructed by Nehruvians - a veiled inference of the mythical "Marxist Historian." More codswallop, in my esteemed opinion. Can we get a bit objective here? If there was no Aryan Migration or Invasion, how come India is so diverse? If this diversity is due to ANI and ASI, hailing from two different migrant groups from Africa, why isn't such diversity seen in Europe, Anatolia, Iraq and Iran, the last two of which would have fallen in the line of migration?

 

[pmaitra]

Subhash Kak showing all evidence and support for the Out of India theory -The Cycle of Time

This is a poorly written article. Let me point out the flimsy pretexts this article is based on:

Scholars soon pointed out many problems with this theory. First, the earliest Indian literature has no memory of any such entry from outside and its focus is squarely the region of the seven rivers,

• Indian literature is quite explicit in their mention of Saka, Yavan, Pahlavas, as much as Indra leading his army.
• One must remember that Indra is a post (like a military general), and different people held that post at different times.

Fifth, The Vedic literature nowhere mentions riding in battle and the horse was rare in Vedic times and the word ``ashva'' for horse was often used figuratively for speed.

• Ashwamedha yagya was a common ritual in which the central character was a horse.
• Ashwakayana is referred to as the land of horse riders, from which the cognitive Afghan is believed to have been derived.
• Ashwa was not use figuratively, as alleged by this self styled historian. There is no proof explaining that it was used figuratively. Another made up story.

Sixth, there was no plausible process explaining how incursions by nomads could have overwhelmed the original languages in one of the most densely populated regions of the ancient world.

• Was India densely populated during the later stages of IVC? Where is the proof of that? Also, no one knows what language IVC used, and whether it was different in different regions. Their pictographic scipt remains unresolved.
• Moreover, present Indian languages are similar to, not same as fraternal descendants of the Proto-Indo-European family. This indicates a possible mixing of languages, not overwhelming as alleged by this self styled historian.

It reinforced the racial attitudes popular in the nineteenth century so that the highly regarded Vedas could be assigned to a time before the Aryans in India mixed with the indigenous races.

• There is a god called Mithra who exists in Rig Veda as well as Zoroastrian texts.
• There are references to other gods that have disappeared in the later Vedas. Quite possibly, Rig Veda and it's contents are not exclusivy out of the Indian subcontinent, but more likely out of the Central Asian hinterland, whence the Aryans seems to have arrived.

It has been found that the Sapta Sindhu region -- precisely the same region which is the heartland of the Vedic texts-- is associated with a cultural tradition that has been traced back to at least 8000 BC without any break.

• How does one explain this alleged "heartland" of Vedic texts, when, as explained earlier, Mithra existed among Zoroastrians, and as far as England? Where exactly then is this heartland? Any explanations?

B.B. Lal of the Archaeological Survey of India discovered fire altars in his excavations at the third-millennium site of Kalibangan. It appears now that fire altars were in use at other Harappan sites as well. Fire altars are an essential part of the Vedic ritual.

• Fire worshipping is not unique to India.
• Fire altars can be found in many places, including, as far as the American continent. This proves absolutely nothing.

Remains of the horse have been discovered in the Harappan ruins. A clay model of a horse was found in Mohenjo Daro. New findings from Ukraine show evidence of horse riding as early as 4000 BC. The notion that the Aryans burst into history as horse riding nomads sometime after 2000 BC stands totally rejected.

• What evidence has been presented to establish the rejection of the Aryans migrating or invading into India on horses, whether at 2000 BC or 4000 BC? Nothing. The author simply makes a claim that something is "rejected."

 

[civfanatic]

Why is it that hardly anyone supports Out-of-India Theory except Indian 'historians' of a certain political persuasion?

 

[Das ka das]

Why is it that hardly anyone supports Out-of-India Theory except Indian 'historians' of a certain political persuasion?

Nicholas Kazanas is certainly not Indian. Neither are Elst, Fuerstein, or Frawley. Also AIT has had the better part of 150 years to get ingrained in people's heads like some infallible dogma.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

History would be so boring without biased professionals!!

 

[pmaitra]

Nicholas Kazanas is certainly not Indian. Neither are Elst, Fuerstein, or Frawley. Also AIT has had the better part of 150 years to get ingrained in people's heads like some infallible dogma.

AIT/AMT is not infallible. It could be completely wrong. The problem with detractors of AIT/AMT is that their alternative theories do not offer enough explanation as to the genetic diversity in India and the genetic similarity between Indians and Europeans, where such explanations are offered by AIT/AMT. This is not dogma. This is objectivity.

 

[blank_quest]

Yes of course History is Biased ! I am reading about "Missionaries" -though privately funded- and How they used "poor/dogmatic/etc etc" Hindus to get "converted to Christianity" and not a word about "forced conversion to Islam" Is this "balanced" ?

 

[Das ka das]

AIT/AMT is not infallible. It could be completely wrong. The problem with detractors of AIT/AMT is that their alternative theories do not offer enough explanation as to the genetic diversity in India and the genetic similarity between Indians and Europeans, where such explanations are offered by AIT/AMT. This is not dogma. This is objectivity.

Even former proponents of the AIT think it was some elite displacement no large scale immigration. Look at the recent views of Romila Thapar.
@civfanatic, @panduranghari, @blank_quest

 

[pmaitra]

Even former proponents of the AIT think it was some elite displacement no large scale immigration. Look at the recent views of Romila Thapar.
@civfanatic, @panduranghari, @blank_quest

Absolutely, and we always revise our positions regarding what we have known hitherto, and modify our understanding of history. I used to be a firm believer in AIT, but I have since revised my position to AIT/AMT, and that is because people have presented valid arguments. There is nothing wrong in revising your stance, but I totally object to people (like the author of the article cited by @panduranghari) who make claims without offering any good explanations and summarily pass their judgments.

 

[blank_quest]

AIT/AMT is not infallible. It could be completely wrong. The problem with detractors of AIT/AMT is that their alternative theories do not offer enough explanation as to the genetic diversity in India and the genetic similarity between Indians and Europeans, where such explanations are offered by AIT/AMT. This is not dogma. This is objectivity.

What about Genetic Diversity of Countries which fall on Trade Routes ? As India was mainly covered under forest but still had high volumes of International trades, that "might" (not necessarily) have been a possible reason for diversity but only at the trading Hotspots! Why is that diversity occurring throughout India ? Was India invaded through all sides or Migrated through all sides ? Am talking of 3500 yb .. was Ship developed by that time? Is it possible to have varied stocks of people on all side ?

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

AIT/AMT is not infallible. It could be completely wrong. The problem with detractors of AIT/AMT is that their alternative theories do not offer enough explanation as to the genetic diversity in India and the genetic similarity between Indians and Europeans, where such explanations are offered by AIT/AMT. This is not dogma. This is objectivity.

Is there really too much genetic diversity in India because I remember from the Nature article that I posted on this matter, the authors said India's genetic diversity is small as compared to other regions?

 

[pmaitra]

What about Genetic Diversity of Countries which fall on Trade Routes ? As India was mainly covered under forest but still had high volumes of International trades, that "might" (not necessarily) have been a possible reason for diversity but only at the trading Hotspots! Why is that diversity occurring throughout India ? Was India invaded through all sides or Migrated through all sides ? Am talking of 3500 yb .. was Ship developed by that time? Is it possible to have varied stocks of people on all side ?

Valid point.

Petra and al-Hijr were also on a trade route, but if you study the populations there (e.g. Jordan), will you see the kind of genetic diversity you see in India? The Silk Route crossed the Pamirs, but if you look at the people of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, or Kyrgyzstan, will you see the kind of genetic diversity that you see in India?

India could have seen migration from all sides, but you can guess how likely it was that migration happened over the seas or over land.

Regarding ships, well, I do not know whether they existed then or not, but I would say people knew how to make boats and sail. They even made a movie called Kon Tiki based on such possibilities. Thor Heyerdahl proved this was possible. We know for sure it was possible for people to sail; we are just not sure whether people actually sailed.

 

[pmaitra]

Is there really too much genetic diversity in India because I remember from the Nature article that I posted on this matter, the authors said India's genetic diversity is small as compared to other regions?

We cannot tell for sure, because, statistical tools are not sufficient to classify the genetic code, which itself is poorly understood. Take for example chimps and gorillas. The former is placed closer to humans than the latter. Why so? Well, simply because we do not quite have a complete understanding of our genes.

I will give another example. Historians always "fill in the gaps" between existing circumstantial evidences, to make history. They also created a "missing link" to show how humans evolved. Of course, that missing link did not have any evidence, but all the evidences preceding and following it were legit, and the explanation made complete sense. Similarly, there is no proof that Aryans actually invaded India, but if we accept that either the Aryans invaded or migrated, then it explains a lot of the existing demographic and linguistic phenomena in India, Central Asia, and Europe.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Valid point.

Petra and al-Hijr were also on a trade route, but if you study the populations there (e.g. Jordan), will you see the kind of genetic diversity you see in India? The Silk Route crossed the Pamirs, but if you look at the people of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, or Kyrgyzstan, will you see the kind of genetic diversity that you see in India?

India could have seen migration from all sides, but you can guess how likely it was that migration happened over the seas or over land.

Regarding ships, well, I do not know whether they existed then or not, but I would say people knew how to make boats and sail. They even made a movie called Kon Tiki based on such possibilities. Thor Heyerdahl proved this was possible. We know for sure it was possible for people to sail; we are just not sure whether people actually sailed.

I remember from "Guns, germs and steel", that the guy basically says that people moved to Australia probably 40,000 years ago. Maybe using some small boats. Although I'm not sure.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

We cannot tell for sure, because, statistical tools are not sufficient to classify the genetic code, which itself is poorly understood. Take for example chimps and gorillas. The former is placed closer to humans than the latter. Why so? Well, simply because we do not quite have a complete understanding of our genes.

I will give another example. Historians always "fill in the gaps" between existing circumstantial evidences, to make history. They also created a "missing link" to show how humans evolved. Of course, that missing link did not have any evidence, but all the evidences preceding and following it were legit, and the explanation made complete sense. Similarly, there is no proof that Aryans actually invaded India, but if we accept that either the Aryans invaded or migrated, then it explains a lot of the existing demographic and linguistic phenomena in India, Central Asia, and Europe.

By the way, human genome project is complete. It can only be problem of collecting data now, but I am sure their are enough tools and computing power.

 

[panduranghari]

This is a poorly written article. Let me point out the flimsy pretexts this article is based on:

• Indian literature is quite explicit in their mention of Saka, Yavan, Pahlavas, as much as Indra leading his army.
• One must remember that Indra is a post (like a military general), and different people held that post at different times.

• Ashwamedha yagya was a common ritual in which the central character was a horse.
• Ashwakayana is referred to as the land of horse riders, from which the cognitive Afghan is believed to have been derived.
• Ashwa was not use figuratively, as alleged by this self styled historian. There is no proof explaining that it was used figuratively. Another made up story.

• Was India densely populated during the later stages of IVC? Where is the proof of that? Also, no one knows what language IVC used, and whether it was different in different regions. Their pictographic scipt remains unresolved.
• Moreover, present Indian languages are similar to, not same as fraternal descendants of the Proto-Indo-European family. This indicates a possible mixing of languages, not overwhelming as alleged by this self styled historian.

• There is a god called Mithra who exists in Rig Veda as well as Zoroastrian texts.
• There are references to other gods that have disappeared in the later Vedas. Quite possibly, Rig Veda and it's contents are not exclusivy out of the Indian subcontinent, but more likely out of the Central Asian hinterland, whence the Aryans seems to have arrived.

• How does one explain this alleged "heartland" of Vedic texts, when, as explained earlier, Mithra existed among Zoroastrians, and as far as England? Where exactly then is this heartland? Any explanations?

• Fire worshipping is not unique to India.
• Fire altars can be found in many places, including, as far as the American continent. This proves absolutely nothing.

• What evidence has been presented to establish the rejection of the Aryans migrating or invading into India on horses, whether at 2000 BC or 4000 BC? Nothing. The author simply makes a claim that something is "rejected."

Sorry need to catch up on sleep. My 30 day old boy keeps me up a lot.

Will add more later, however a couple of points on ashwamedh. The word 'Ashwamedha is wrongly interpreted as
'Horse Sacrifice'. The connotation of the word 'ashwa is 'ashnute
vyaapnoteeti ashwah'. [One who expands; or one who radiates].

The word 'medhaa ' is NOT sacrifice. The connotation is 'maatrashaH edhati anayaa iti medhaa" - [That by which one can determine exactly is Medhaa].

The famous 'Ashwamedhaa sukta' (Rik. 1-164), which is widely misinterpreted
as 'Horse Sacrifice' neither mentions a horse nor describes a sacrifice.
It is a sukta, wherein Dheerghatamaa Maharshi explains the science of
Cosmos. Unfortunately most of the Commentators are not exposed to
Science; and hence go astray. All this from book 'The Science of Hinduism'.



Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

Sorry need to catch up on sleep. My 30 day old boy keeps me up a lot.

Will add more later, however a couple of points on ashwamedh. The word 'Ashwamedha is wrongly interpreted as
'Horse Sacrifice'. The connotation of the word 'ashwa is 'ashnute
vyaapnoteeti ashwah'. [One who expands; or one who radiates].

The word 'medhaa ' is NOT sacrifice. The connotation is 'maatrashaH edhati anayaa iti medhaa" - [That by which one can determine exactly is Medhaa].

The famous 'Ashwamedhaa sukta' (Rik. 1-164), which is widely misinterpreted
as 'Horse Sacrifice' neither mentions a horse nor describes a sacrifice.
It is a sukta, wherein Dheerghatamaa Maharshi explains the science of
Cosmos. Unfortunately most of the Commentators are not exposed to
Science; and hence go astray. All this from book 'The Science of Hinduism'.



Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

Your reference to Rig Veda, while valid, is in a different context. The Ashwamedha yagya, i.e. horse sacrifice, is described not in the Rig Veda, but Yajur Veda, books 22–25.

 

[pmaitra]

@panduranghari, I forgot to tell you, congratulations. You must be a very happy person.

 

[panduranghari]

@panduranghari, I forgot to tell you, congratulations. You must be a very happy person.

Thanks mate.