Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[Kay]

Glad to have chanced upon this absolute gem of a thread. This is really a wake-up call to my worldview. But frankly, now I have more questions than answers.
Contrary to the narrative that Aryans brought civilization to India, I used to think that Aryans were a bunch of barbarians from Siberia who knew about iron, warfare and chariots. The native Indians (Indus Valley civilization) on the other hand had planned towns, script, writing, cattle, agriculture and every other tenets of a civilization. They did not know warfare as they had no need of it and were a peaceful society. Aryans learned everything from them and started the Rig Vedic civilization.
But now that this narrative is questioned, what is the alternative?
Who were really the Indus Valley People? Were they ANI? If that is the case, were there warfare between them and anybody else? Why is their script so different from Sanskrit and not been deciphered yet?
Were they the Aryans themselves? In that case, was the Aryan-Dravidian clash that between them (ANI) and the Dravidians (ASI)? Did they migrate south because of drying up of the Saraswati river?

https://bharatabharati.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/out-of-africa-migration1.png
As per the map, clearly the Dravidians are still older than the Indus Valley people / Aryans.
Should we use the terms Aryans / Dravidians anymore in the light of these findings?

 

[Kay]

Just adding to my questions - if there was only one migration in North India 12, 500 years ago, were there ever two civilizations - Indus Valley and Rig Vedic in North India - or only one?

 

[sgarg]

Just adding to my questions - if there was only one migration in North India 12, 500 years ago, were there ever two civilizations - Indus Valley and Rig Vedic in North India - or only one?

There was no large scale migration into India before 3000BC. The migration started only after Vedic culture declined. Vedic kings were quite powerful.

The watershed event in India's history is the Mahabharat war. The Vedic culture started declining in its aftermath. This is the fact.

The reason for inbound migration is already told in my previous messages - India was rich and stable, while the middle-east saw frequent warfare. So people migrated which were "fairer" and had "caucasian features". This does not mean these immigrants brought their culture. Vedic culture was far superior to the culture of the immigrants and these immigrants adopted the culture of Bharat - this continued until the dawn of religions in the Western sphere.

The "Aryan invasion theory" is patently false and there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Gene pool changes due to many reasons. War is not the only reason.

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

Just adding to my questions - if there was only one migration in North India 12, 500 years ago, were there ever two civilizations - Indus Valley and Rig Vedic in North India - or only one?

Indus valley civilization is the archaeological and Rigveda is the textual proof of the same Rigvedic civilization in the Sapta Sindhu. British colonialists just made them into two civilization to make them fit in their Aryan-Dravidian propaganda.


Archaeologist B.B. Lal talks about his book 'The Saraswati Flows On' : Books - India Today

Archaeologist B.B. Lal's latest research is out to capsize some dearly held views on the Indus Valley Civilisation and, consequently, the arrival of what are thought to be the warmongering Aryans. Did you think these guys came from outside the subcontinent, from a convenient fatherland called Central Asia?

Lal's voice is unable to contain the seditious thrill of demystification. "Not possible," he says slowly. "Saraswati, the river revered by the Aryans, is repeatedly mentioned in the Rig Veda as 'overflowing'. Recent discoveries show that Saraswati dried up in 2000 B.C., the age of the Indus Valley." He stops there? letting the explosive inferences of what he has said hang in the air like unearthed dust.

Lal's obsession in The Saraswati Flows On (Aryan Books) is basically to counter arguments of ancient Indian historian R.S. Sharma (also NCERT's history author) and his ideological advocates who basically said that the emigrant Aryans entered the Khyber in 1500 B.C., about 300 years after the dissipation of the Indus Valley.

He also refutes the charge of archaeological jingoism, perceived to be the logical corollary of the indigenous origin theory. "The climate of the time would suggest that I'm saffronising history. That is a great tragedy. I only ask everyone to look at the facts. And I do hope R.S. Sharma gives a rejoinder." Conspicuous in Lal's south Delhi apartment is the POP version of Mohenjodaro's "bearded priest", symbolic of a life of subterranean disclosure.

Lal, now 80, was drawn to archaeology after studying Sanskrit at Allahabad University. In 1943 he became a trainee under Mortimer Wheeler in the outpost of Taxila, and remembers how he was audacious enough to point out some errors in Wheeler's dating strategy.

He later excavated many ancient sites, including Kalibangan, and became the director of the ASI in 1968. Now he's also trying to prove the historical basis of the Mahabharata, saying that many of the names of places in the epic still exist and that the PGW pottery found there is of the same period as the epic. Sharma?

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

--duplicate--

 

[Kay]

@sgarg
Do you think the Indus Valley Civilization is the same as the one we know as the Rig Vedic one?
Also, about the historical evidence on Mahabharata war, there is some scant and disputed evidence on Hastinapur and Dwarka. But still the Mahabharata is considered as a work of fiction.
After reading this thread, it is clear AIT is dead, AMT is questionable to the point of repudiation. But the alternate history is little known.

 

[Kay]

@Sambha ka Boss
"The climate of the time" shouldn't matter. Whatever is true should come out.
But other questions remain - like the indecipherable script of Indus Valley and the questions I asked above. Also, the society and culture in Indus Valley that is known is different from the Rig Vedic society that we know of.
There is enough doubt that Mahabharata is a work of fiction, but a work of fiction may be built on certain underlying facts. Lets wait for historians to come up with the accurate picture instead of jumping to conclusions and become victims of confirmation bias.
The fact that many people would want Mahabharata and Ramayana to be historical facts as well as a lot of incredible claims regarding ancient India only make people more skeptical.

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

@Sambha ka Boss
"The climate of the time" shouldn't matter. Whatever is true should come out.
But other questions remain - like the indecipherable script of Indus Valley and the questions I asked above. Also, the society and culture in Indus Valley that is known is different from the Rig Vedic society that we know of.
There is enough doubt that Mahabharata is a work of fiction, but a work of fiction may be built on certain underlying facts. Lets wait for historians to come up with the accurate picture instead of jumping to conclusions and become victims of confirmation bias.
The fact that many people would want Mahabharata and Ramayana to be historical facts as well as a lot of incredible claims regarding ancient India only make people more skeptical.

IMO both epics are based on true events. Even the Greek epic poem Iliad is like that but historians now know that Trojan war actually happened and they uncovered the ancient city of Troy in Turkey.

Well Hinduism as a religion has evolved for thousands of years, so don't think what we follow today would identical to one followed by Indus Valley people or Mauryan period. Moreover, last phase of Indus Valley civilization actually shares a good amount of resemblance with modern Hinduism. The use of Vermillion(Sindur) can be traced to IVC(Naushero toys of ladies), they have found alters, Shiva linga, origin of Yoga in Pashupati seal, Chess, full armed bangles still worn by women in Rajasthan, Sindh and Gujarat and Banjaras elsewhere in India. Great bath resembles custom of bathing on ghats. Some indus valley toys actually resemblances Mauryan period architecture in Gandhara. As for writing system, its highly likely they have switched from Hieroglyph Indus script to Brahmi script in some point of the history, there is nothing to be surprised about it as there are similar examples in other parts of the world also.

 

[sgarg]

@sgarg
Do you think the Indus Valley Civilization is the same as the one we know as the Rig Vedic one?
Also, about the historical evidence on Mahabharata war, there is some scant and disputed evidence on Hastinapur and Dwarka. But still the Mahabharata is considered as a work of fiction.
After reading this thread, it is clear AIT is dead, AMT is questionable to the point of repudiation. But the alternate history is little known.

Mahabharat is "itihas" or a book of history. It is neither a book of religion (which is Veda) nor of law (which is Manusmriti).

Mahabharat war, as the name suggests, happened in Bharat - a nation which contained 18 "janapad" or states, each ruled by a "Mandlik raja".

"Sindhu-desh" (Harappa and Mohenjodaro towns) was part of Bharat, a Vedic nation.

"The entire north India (basins of Indus river, Ganga/Yamuna system, and Saraswati river) formed the nation of Bharat which started from Gandhar in north-west and Sindhudesh in south-west to Vanga in east and Ujjain in the south.

 

[sgarg]

There is no "rigvedic" society. There is a "vedic" society. "Rig-veda" is one book and part of "veda".
Vedic society means the public and kings followed Vedas. Vedic tenets and Sanskrit language were used throughout Bharat.

 

[sgarg]

The script difference is accounted for by existence of trading towns in certain areas. I believe that certain coastal towns were foreign trading communities.
Ancient Bharat traded with ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia through Arabian sea.
It was only in the the post-Vedic period when political power declined; Bharat's people became isolated and uneducated.

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

Mahabharat is "itihas" or a book of history. It is neither a book of religion (which is Veda) nor of law (which is Manusmriti).

Mahabharat war, as the name suggests, happened in Bharat - a nation which contained 18 "janapad" or states, each ruled by a "Mandlik raja".

"Sindhu-desh" (Harappa and Mohenjodaro towns) was part of Bharat, a Vedic nation.

"The entire north India (basins of Indus river, Ganga/Yamuna system, and Saraswati river) formed the nation of Bharat which started from Gandhar in north-west and Sindhudesh in south-west to Vanga in east and Ujjain in the south.

16 Mahajanapadas actually came from Buddhist sources around 600BC. Moreover, Mahabharata also mentions Chola, Chera, Kerala, Andhra, Konkana etc. fighting in Mahabharata war.

 

[sgarg]

its highly likely they have switched from Hieroglyph Indus script to Brahmi script in some point of the history

The Hieroglyph proves only one thing - "trade". This is indication of existence of a foreign trading community. You see their "nameplates" and "seals".
The Brahmi script is a post-vedic script. Scripts can change under the whims of kings.

 

[Kay]

There is no "rigvedic" society. There is a "vedic" society. "Rig-veda" is one book and part of "veda".
Vedic society means the public and kings followed Vedas. Vedic tenets and Sanskrit language were used throughout Bharat.

I was referring to it in the sense that Vedic culture was divided into two epochs - Rig Vedic and later Vedic.

 

[Kay]

16 Mahajanapadas is accepted part of regular Indian History.
But Iron age India has consists of the three cultures - Black and red ware culture, Painted Grey Ware culture and Northern Black Polished Ware culture - and their carbon datings are much later Indus Valley - which is a Bronze age culture. So, even if the AIT is dead, it would be difficult to classify Indus Valley Civilization as Vedic Age Civilization.
@Sambha ka Boss
Archaeologists did find the ancient city of Troy and remains of Mycenaean civilization. But that does not mean Iliad and odyssey are true. They can well be fictions from that era.

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

@Kay @sgarg all major early civilizations of the world first used hieroglyph script then switch to alphabets. The best example would be the Egyptians.

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

--duplicate--

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

16 Mahajanapadas is accepted part of regular Indian History.
But Iron age India has consists of the three cultures - Black and red ware culture, Painted Grey Ware culture and Northern Black Polished Ware culture - and their carbon datings are much later Indus Valley - which is a Bronze age culture. So, even if the AIT is dead, it would be difficult to classify Indus Valley Civilization as Vedic Age Civilization.
@Sambha ka Boss
Archaeologists did find the ancient city of Troy and remains of Mycenaean civilization. But that does not mean Iliad and odyssey are true. They can well be fictions from that era.

The main reason is that Hinduism as a foreign invader's religion is still quite enticing to lot many people. Actually, Indus valley civilization existed as far as 1000BC at many places based on pottery design. Moreover, in Sindh the boat design still resembles the one used during Indus valley civilization. Switching from one pottery to another pottery style doesn't mean that new people came to that area. Only the culture changes during Indus valley civilization/Sapta sindhu to Indo-Gangetic culture, no new race came to India.

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

There is no "rigvedic" society. There is a "vedic" society. "Rig-veda" is one book and part of "veda".
Vedic society means the public and kings followed Vedas. Vedic tenets and Sanskrit language were used throughout Bharat.

Rigvedic refers to Sapta Sindhu phase of Vedic culture where Saraswati is the most revered river instead of Ganges. When Saraswati dried in 2000BC and the Ganges river became most revered for the rest of the period and Saraswati was preserved in the mythology and one of the three rivers of triveni Sangam.

 

[sgarg]

I was referring to it in the sense that Vedic culture was divided into two epochs - Rig Vedic and later Vedic.

Veda is divided into four parts just like a book can be divided into four parts. That does not mean the book was written by four authors or at different times.

There is no rig-vedic and later vedic. There is a problem with translation by ignorant fools.

A lot of commie historian who do not understand a single word of Veda comment on it.