panduranghari
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 1,786
- Likes
- 1,245
Back to your post. @pmaitra
You ask
From http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/religion-culture/1403-aryan-invasion-theory-38.html#post672506
From the Greek historian Herodotus, who was describing notable events occurring
during his lifetime and the times before ~2,500 years ago, we learn that the Indians were
more numerous than any other nation that he was acquainted with and paid tribute exceeding
that of every other people, 360 talents of gold-dust, to the Persian king Darius. From his
accounts we also learn, that in his day, the tribes of Indians were numerous and did not all
speak the same language; some were nomads others not (Herodotus 1942: 259-264).
It is noteworthy how little have things changed in the last 2,500 years, since Herodotus.
Even now, the population of the Indian sub-continent, including Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh,
Sri Lanka and India proper, is the largest on the planet and totals nearly 1.5 billion humans,
representing ~23% of the world's population. This is higher than the population of China
or any other nation. Many languages are still spoken in India; Hindi speakers being the
largest population
Always remember the game should be played on equal footing. Especially in the West, all sort of history has been "reconstructed" based on archaeology, philology, linguistics, and a host of other analytic specialties. Some history writing has been based on a few dubious hints. So attested history is not the only type of history. "Reconstructed" history is also given the honor of being history.
From Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract
Among the documents found by Hugo Winckler there are treaties between Subbiluliuma, king of the Hittites, and Mattiuaza, king of Mitani (Northern Mesopotamia), of the time about 1400 B.C. In these treaties deities of both these nations are invoked.
Hugo Winckler found the following :—x
ilani mi-it-ra-aÅ¡-Å¡i-il ilÄni uru-w-na-aÅ¡-Å¡i-el
.....................(variant), a-ru-na-aš-ši-il
ilu......... in-dar ilÄni na-Å¡a-a[t-ti-ia-a]n-na
(variant) in-da-ra na-Å¡[a]-at-ti-ia-an-na,
The affixes aÅ¡Å¡il and anna are not yet clear; they probably belong to the Hittite idiom. The word ilu is the Babylonian for " god ", and ilÄni is the plural. Here, then, we have Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and the Nasatyas or AÅ› vins. The plural ilani before Mitra and Varuna indicates, according to Professor Eduard Meyer's plausible explanation, that both formed an aggregate, a pair; for in the usual dvandva - compound Mitra - Varunau both words are in the dual, which is represented by the plural ilÄni, since the Babylonian language has no dual.
These five gods not only occur in the Rgveda, but they are grouped together here precisely as we find them grouped in the Veda. In my opinion this fact establishes the Vedic character and origin of these Mitani gods beyond reasonable doubt. It appears, therefore, quite clearly that in the fourteenth century B.C. and earlier the rulers of Northern Mesopotamia worshipped Vedic gods. The tribes who brought the worship of these gods, probably from Eastern Iran, must have adopted this worship in their original home about the sixteenth century. At that time, then, the Vedic civilization was already in its full perfection. This fact makes the late date of the Veda usually adopted impossible, and is distinctly in favour of my theory.
But there is one difficulty which must be discussed. There is doubt as to the nationality of the kings of Mitani who worshipped the Vedic gods. According to Winckler (p. 37) the dynasty of those kings was as follows:—
..............Sa-us-sa-tar
...............Artatama
...............Sutarna I
Tushratta.................Artatama II
Mattivaza.................Sutarna II (Suttatarra)
These names are certainly not Sanskrit, but look like Iranian names ; and similarly the names of two later kings of Kommagene, who probably descended from the same stock, Kundaspi (854 B.C.) and Kustaspi (743 B.C.).
In two articles Professor Eduard Meyer fully recognizes the Iranic character of these names, and at the same time he is of opinion that the Vedic gods were native gods of the tribe from which the rulers of Mitani descended. He supposes, therefore, that that tribe was a member of the still undivided Aryan branch of the Indo-Germanic family, and that their gods were Aryan gods. For Mitra is not only an Indian, but also an Iranian god. Indra, the Vedic god, is also mentioned in the Avesta, but only as a demon; and so is a Naonhaithya (= Nasatya). And Varuna is thought by Professor Meyer to be identical with Ahuramazda. Furthermore, the form Nasatya of the inscription, instead of the Zend form Naonhaithya, would, in his opinion, prove that the inscription belongs to a time when, in the undivided Aryan language, s had not yet been changed into h, as in the Iranian languages. According to Eduard Meyer the Aryan period, which is theoretically constructed by comparative philology, is now, for the first time, verified by documentary evidence.
With reference to the antiquity of Vedic culture, let us now consider this theory that in the fifteenth century B.C. the Aryan branch of the Indo-Germanic family was as yet undivided. It is obvious that if this theory be true the Indians cannot have been settled in the Punjab in the fifteenth century B.C. as an independent people, as Eduard Meyer contended a year before Winckler's discoveries had been made known.1 But it would be unfair to take him now at his word; however, the question which requires an answer is this : what length of time would be needed for the development implied in Meyer's hypothesis with regard to the Aryan character of the Mitani gods. This development would pass through four stages — (1) the differentiation of the undivided Aryan branch into two different peoples, Indian and Iranian, and of the one Aryan language into two distinct languages, the Sanskrit and the Iranian; (2) the conquest and settlement of at least a part of Western India by the Indians ; (3) the development of Vedic culture; and (4) the rise and perfection of Vedic poetry, of which the Rgveda would be the later and riper portion then extant. Now all these are slowly progressing racial changes and historical and social movements of great moment. And the time required for them cannot be estimated with anything like exactness even within the limits of one or two centuries. But this much may be said, that the process of development must have been a rapid one if completed within 500 years. With this in mind, if we assume that the fifteenth century B.C. be the starting-point for the differentiation of the Aryan branch into the Indians and the Iranians, we should be obliged to place the Rgveda as it now stands a considerable time after 1000 B.C. I venture to think that few scholars who, without prejudice, consider the great religious, social, and historical changes which happened between the Rgveda and the rise of Buddhism, will be prepared to accept so late a date for the Rgveda. Therefore, since Eduard Meyer's theory leads to consequences inconsistent with the facts of Indian history, must we not reject his theory of the Aryan origin of the Mitani gods ? And must we not insist that it is highly improbable that the undivided Aryans should have worshipped six1 gods just as they appear in the Rgveda, while the Iranians retained only Mithra as a god and entirely changed the character of the remaining ones ?
You ask
- 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.
From http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/religion-culture/1403-aryan-invasion-theory-38.html#post672506
From the Greek historian Herodotus, who was describing notable events occurring
during his lifetime and the times before ~2,500 years ago, we learn that the Indians were
more numerous than any other nation that he was acquainted with and paid tribute exceeding
that of every other people, 360 talents of gold-dust, to the Persian king Darius. From his
accounts we also learn, that in his day, the tribes of Indians were numerous and did not all
speak the same language; some were nomads others not (Herodotus 1942: 259-264).
It is noteworthy how little have things changed in the last 2,500 years, since Herodotus.
Even now, the population of the Indian sub-continent, including Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh,
Sri Lanka and India proper, is the largest on the planet and totals nearly 1.5 billion humans,
representing ~23% of the world's population. This is higher than the population of China
or any other nation. Many languages are still spoken in India; Hindi speakers being the
largest population
I dare say- the absence of any memory of migration recorded orally, verbally or in writings is the best defence against AIT. Birth of Mithra was celebrated as Mithras in ancient Iran which became christmas in Europe.
Always remember the game should be played on equal footing. Especially in the West, all sort of history has been "reconstructed" based on archaeology, philology, linguistics, and a host of other analytic specialties. Some history writing has been based on a few dubious hints. So attested history is not the only type of history. "Reconstructed" history is also given the honor of being history.
From Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract
Among the documents found by Hugo Winckler there are treaties between Subbiluliuma, king of the Hittites, and Mattiuaza, king of Mitani (Northern Mesopotamia), of the time about 1400 B.C. In these treaties deities of both these nations are invoked.
Hugo Winckler found the following :—x
ilani mi-it-ra-aÅ¡-Å¡i-il ilÄni uru-w-na-aÅ¡-Å¡i-el
.....................(variant), a-ru-na-aš-ši-il
ilu......... in-dar ilÄni na-Å¡a-a[t-ti-ia-a]n-na
(variant) in-da-ra na-Å¡[a]-at-ti-ia-an-na,
The affixes aÅ¡Å¡il and anna are not yet clear; they probably belong to the Hittite idiom. The word ilu is the Babylonian for " god ", and ilÄni is the plural. Here, then, we have Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and the Nasatyas or AÅ› vins. The plural ilani before Mitra and Varuna indicates, according to Professor Eduard Meyer's plausible explanation, that both formed an aggregate, a pair; for in the usual dvandva - compound Mitra - Varunau both words are in the dual, which is represented by the plural ilÄni, since the Babylonian language has no dual.
These five gods not only occur in the Rgveda, but they are grouped together here precisely as we find them grouped in the Veda. In my opinion this fact establishes the Vedic character and origin of these Mitani gods beyond reasonable doubt. It appears, therefore, quite clearly that in the fourteenth century B.C. and earlier the rulers of Northern Mesopotamia worshipped Vedic gods. The tribes who brought the worship of these gods, probably from Eastern Iran, must have adopted this worship in their original home about the sixteenth century. At that time, then, the Vedic civilization was already in its full perfection. This fact makes the late date of the Veda usually adopted impossible, and is distinctly in favour of my theory.
But there is one difficulty which must be discussed. There is doubt as to the nationality of the kings of Mitani who worshipped the Vedic gods. According to Winckler (p. 37) the dynasty of those kings was as follows:—
..............Sa-us-sa-tar
...............Artatama
...............Sutarna I
Tushratta.................Artatama II
Mattivaza.................Sutarna II (Suttatarra)
These names are certainly not Sanskrit, but look like Iranian names ; and similarly the names of two later kings of Kommagene, who probably descended from the same stock, Kundaspi (854 B.C.) and Kustaspi (743 B.C.).
In two articles Professor Eduard Meyer fully recognizes the Iranic character of these names, and at the same time he is of opinion that the Vedic gods were native gods of the tribe from which the rulers of Mitani descended. He supposes, therefore, that that tribe was a member of the still undivided Aryan branch of the Indo-Germanic family, and that their gods were Aryan gods. For Mitra is not only an Indian, but also an Iranian god. Indra, the Vedic god, is also mentioned in the Avesta, but only as a demon; and so is a Naonhaithya (= Nasatya). And Varuna is thought by Professor Meyer to be identical with Ahuramazda. Furthermore, the form Nasatya of the inscription, instead of the Zend form Naonhaithya, would, in his opinion, prove that the inscription belongs to a time when, in the undivided Aryan language, s had not yet been changed into h, as in the Iranian languages. According to Eduard Meyer the Aryan period, which is theoretically constructed by comparative philology, is now, for the first time, verified by documentary evidence.
With reference to the antiquity of Vedic culture, let us now consider this theory that in the fifteenth century B.C. the Aryan branch of the Indo-Germanic family was as yet undivided. It is obvious that if this theory be true the Indians cannot have been settled in the Punjab in the fifteenth century B.C. as an independent people, as Eduard Meyer contended a year before Winckler's discoveries had been made known.1 But it would be unfair to take him now at his word; however, the question which requires an answer is this : what length of time would be needed for the development implied in Meyer's hypothesis with regard to the Aryan character of the Mitani gods. This development would pass through four stages — (1) the differentiation of the undivided Aryan branch into two different peoples, Indian and Iranian, and of the one Aryan language into two distinct languages, the Sanskrit and the Iranian; (2) the conquest and settlement of at least a part of Western India by the Indians ; (3) the development of Vedic culture; and (4) the rise and perfection of Vedic poetry, of which the Rgveda would be the later and riper portion then extant. Now all these are slowly progressing racial changes and historical and social movements of great moment. And the time required for them cannot be estimated with anything like exactness even within the limits of one or two centuries. But this much may be said, that the process of development must have been a rapid one if completed within 500 years. With this in mind, if we assume that the fifteenth century B.C. be the starting-point for the differentiation of the Aryan branch into the Indians and the Iranians, we should be obliged to place the Rgveda as it now stands a considerable time after 1000 B.C. I venture to think that few scholars who, without prejudice, consider the great religious, social, and historical changes which happened between the Rgveda and the rise of Buddhism, will be prepared to accept so late a date for the Rgveda. Therefore, since Eduard Meyer's theory leads to consequences inconsistent with the facts of Indian history, must we not reject his theory of the Aryan origin of the Mitani gods ? And must we not insist that it is highly improbable that the undivided Aryans should have worshipped six1 gods just as they appear in the Rgveda, while the Iranians retained only Mithra as a god and entirely changed the character of the remaining ones ?
Please read above.
- 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.
AIT has been rejected by all but Harvards Michael Witzel. AMT is attempt to find more acceptance. However Shrikant Talageris Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence: Shrikant G. Talageri: 9788177420852: Amazon.com: Books puts a nail into the coffin of AMT too. Please read Michael Kazanas too.
Last edited by a moderator:
. a common sense?????
. few bottom-line truths about these Western 'Invasion' theories in others nations 
