You don't need logicThe very logic of any "Aryan" invasion or migration for that matter is nonsense. For that to happen, there must have been people identifying themselves as Aryan. Of the 5 lunar tribes of the Rig veda, only a sub- tribe i.e. the Bharatas of the Puru tribe called themselves aryan. Later it did spread to the ancient Iranians but that was it. The solar tribes like the Ikshvakus were not even seen as people of the Rig veda, let alone as Aryan, kind of ironic when we have just celebrated a temple dedicated to the most famous of the Ikshvaku tribe.
Biggest problem is the horse argument.
Who brought horses to India.
Very based article.Origin of the Light Sivalensis type Horse from India by P. Priyadarshi
Linguistic, archaeological and DNA Evidence favouring origin of some breeds of the Domestic Horse “Equus caballus” from India “Equus sivalensis is the oldest true horse known, it has more highly sp…aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com
There is no horse problem.Biggest problem is the horse argument.
Who brought horses to India.
This makes sense.ashwamedha sacrifice does not make sense for a horse-plenty culture. Indeed, thats why there is no history ever of mongols, turks, shakas etc. ever doing horse sacrifice- why would sacrificing something that every tom,dick and harry has ( a horse in the steppes) be a status symbol of power ?
No, the horse sacrifice makes sense only to a horse-poor culture. For then it shows that one is so powerful that they can sacrifice something that is incredibly rare and expensive.
Cultures that are poor in a particular resource, tend to value it highly.
in ashwa medha yagna which translates to "horse sacrifice" in english is not a bali(sacrifice), isn't it?There is no horse problem.
The problem is the racist whites assuming that Aryans were a nomadic, horse-based culture, when there is absolutely no proof of that and plenty of proof of the opposite : cows are mentioned far more often in the rig veda than the horse and ashwamedha sacrifice does not make sense for a horse-plenty culture. Indeed, thats why there is no history ever of mongols, turks, shakas etc. ever doing horse sacrifice- why would sacrificing something that every tom,dick and harry has ( a horse in the steppes) be a status symbol of power ?
No, the horse sacrifice makes sense only to a horse-poor culture. For then it shows that one is so powerful that they can sacrifice something that is incredibly rare and expensive.
Cultures that are poor in a particular resource, tend to value it highly. This is why the greek and roman writings have several mention of ' omg elephants !! hathi hathi hathi!!! did you see the hathi of hannibal ? no ? what about the 300 hathis of seleucus?' and Indian authors mention matter of factly that there were several hundred or several thousand elephants present in xyz battle.
Because elephants are commonplace to us, to the greco-roman world, where they must be imported into, it was a stunning statement of power and wealth.
Assuming Mahabharat war happened prior to what is termed as early phase of IVC or SSVC i.e. 5300-4600 years ago; an argument can be made that a large population of horses and elephants reduced significantly since they were mainly used in the war, to the extent of becoming extinct. One of the consequences could be the rarity of horse or similar and elephant related seals from the ones found so far.Biggest problem is the horse argument.
Who brought horses to India.
In the shruti texts, its a bali. Now how many kings actually performed the bali, i do not know.in ashwa medha yagna which translates to "horse sacrifice" in english is not a bali(sacrifice), isn't it?
The assumption that people follow language migration is flawed. British people did not come to india with english.The Aryan Invasion theory postulated for the expansion of Indo-Aryan group of languages through the Indian subcontinent has been more or less abandoned by its proponents, in favor of a more sedate theory of gradual migration of Indo-Aryan speakers.......
However we must remember that most of arguments and inferences presented for the Aryan migration theory(AMT) follow the same contours as the older Aryan invasion theory(AIT),except for the fact that the later concurs that textual and archaeological evidence for the previously proposed invasion theory is glaringly lacking.
However many Indologists have also rejected the idea that the early Indo-Aryan culture and society represented in the Samhitas and other Vedic literature could have evolved in its extant form outside the Indian subcontinent and brought here to India by various migrating groups.This group,increasing in number,postulates a indigenous origin to the early Vedic culture and authors.
However one of the biggest obstacles for the indigenous theorists is answering the question that is the genesis of the the great Aryan debate that has dominated the discourse of scholars ,scientists and archaeologists of Eurasia for well over 200 years.How did the number of languages of Asia and Europe,in their antiquity, came to share remarkable similar philology and grammatical structure that today is scientifically represented as the Indo-European group of Language families........
There is no doubt that ancient languages such as Sanskrit,Latin, Greek and Avesta Iranian had a common origin, which explains their shared philology,but does the common origin of the languages suggests that its speakers too had a common origin and perhaps common ancestral homeland,if yes where was it.
The migrationists(earlier the invasionist)propose that the Indo-Aryan speakers migrated out of the northern central Asian steppes.While the Indigenists do not yet propose a migration from India,but its obvious that if the Indigenous Aryan theory is to proven true then it must be based on the premise that Aryan language speakers moved out of Indian to other lands that speak the Indo-European languages.........
The Migration/invasion theory had long run,for well over 100 years,and for non academic layman an established fact and the indigenous theory is only few decades old,but they must be granted the benefit of doubt for the sheer amount of study and material they have been able to present for the case.
P.S:i had started a similar thread sometime back in the debate section
We already have chariot evidence from Sanauli.Rig veda speaks of chariots. Is there no archaeological evidence?
Pardon my ignorance. Where is sanauli. Time? Nature of evidence?We already have chariot evidence from Sanauli.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
N | lets talk about, Aryan invasion/Migrantion | History & Culture | 1 | |
Aryan Invasion Theory. Do you approve? | Subcontinent & Central Asia | 2 | ||
Indo-Aryans vs Iranians | History & Culture | 5 | ||
P | European Misappropriation of Sanskrit led to the Aryan Race Theory | History & Culture | 2 |