Aryan Invasion Theory

cannonfodder

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
970
Likes
2,072
Country flag
reading the thread confused me even more.

please do explain.

request others to answer and give opinion's too. If you dont want to get into debates just ignore oothers answers but do answer my question if possible.
My version Aryan invasion theory counter point:
Some foreigners want to legitimize their colonial rule. Surprisingly, there is huge intersection in hindu and greek mythology, language words etc. So some Europeans had invaded and created this civilization and then its just another phase to civilize this dirty tribal people. Hey you forgot we were already here few thousand years ago and now we are back again. But it should also fit into our paradigm of earth was made in 5000
bc theory, so lets shift the dates here and there and make it acceptable to bible.

After archaeology survey, there are no visible archaeological evidence of armed struggle on sites and major premises of theory were disproved. So now lets flip it from "invasion to migration" theory. So an more advanced and settled culture confronted with white Aryan (Europeans) who were nomads, left their entire settlements and settled in south india(dravid land). look for counter arguments "what about the horses?", "what about the chariots?" "what about xxx gene" not there in india.

From my understanding, You cannot settle this 100% , believe what you want to believe in after you read enough on it.

Some concrete data points:
1. There is at least one entire chariot found here supposedly around 4000years old in UP.
2. Dholera sites are older than indus valley sites found in greater india. Lot more may be unearthed and researched in this direction.
3. Counter indologist having out of india theory have no serious funding and backing like western Indologist who support "Aryan xxx theory" also used to create atrocity literature aka Upper caste (Aryan) subjugating lower caste (Dravidian) today. Desi Indologist don't have the financial muscle and have not done enough research to prove out of india theory but from what i know no one takes invasion theory seriously apart from woke people. Reason: left academic control, colonial hangover, not cool, also other priorties like pappi pet ka sawal. My suggestion is that give more time to likes of Talegiri, Nilesh Oak, other Indologist and archaeologist from indian point of view.
There is no difference in Aryan invasion theory and Ancient alien theory in my opinion. What at about the ajanta caves, how were people those able to carve that --- Answer: Aryans or Aliens because indigenous people cannot do that because you cannot explain "xxx" thing here and there (sarcasm here). :devil:

Latest theory going around (enthusiast circles ) from North America/global scale and relevant here:
This/current is one of pinnacle points of human civilization i.e. There were more superior civilizations (not technological advanced as we know it) that have got extinct and is not linear progressive curve but cyclical progress in human story. E.g. read about "Gobekli tepe", some artifacts recovered there would have been dated of much younger age if recovered individually. This site is somewhere around end of ice age site (cant remember). Also can read about "younger dryas"/ "sphinx age" theory.

Two theories that proposed for climate change and reset at end of ice age also human progress reset:
1. Comet impact like jurassic age end but fragmented pieces and lesser impact
2. Solar induced dark age - Sun flares causing massive changes in earth climate. Keyword is "SIDA" for google.

Serious research papers are being written to prove/disprove these theories with geological data findings.
Lastly we highly under-estimate our ancestors, they were not perfect but you should see presentation of mathematical/astro physical calculations done by our ancestors in video below and i wonder why our people cannot possible go out with such huge knowledge base. It is known fact that indian "written" manuscripts were like 1000x times (even with major universities burnt down in couple of centuries) than greek manuscripts, so who can teach whom more?

 

AUSTERLITZ

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
320
Likes
993
Country flag
Many misconceptions.
Aryan migration happened proven by DNA evidence.There is no evidence whatsoever of invasion.Skirmishes over land might have happened with forest dwelling tribes and aryans clearing forests to build cities-like arjun burning khandav forest to clear land for indraprastha where takshak nagas lived.
What we call vedic civilization is not 'aryan' per se.It is a synthesis of the aryan with the survivors of the indus valley civilization.
Another misconception is caste was created to discriminate against natives.Wrong.Caste was already a part of aryan society when they entered india.Infact Iranian society used to have 3 castes as well.The colours in the falg of iran - green,white and red symbolize the 3 castes (peasants,priests and warriors).Its factually incorrect to say shudras were created by aryans .The peasant caste is common to both vedic and iranian aryans.The iranians lack the vaishya caste.
Another proof is that the most prestigious of the kshatriya bloodlines -the suryavansha or ikshvaku clan is actually a non-aryan dravida bloodline as attested in vedas.The aryans intermarried into this clan and it was prestigious.This is the same clan as ram and bharat chakravartin -the first emperor.If there was a racist problem there would be no way this bloodline would be so exalted.The father of ikshavaku is described as the sagely king of dravida kingdom in atharvaveda.Chakravartin like prahlad are other examples.
 

Lancer

Bana
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
1,409
Likes
5,635
Country flag
Many misconceptions.
Aryan migration happened proven by DNA evidence.There is no evidence whatsoever of invasion.Skirmishes over land might have happened with forest dwelling tribes and aryans clearing forests to build cities-like arjun burning khandav forest to clear land for indraprastha where takshak nagas lived.
What we call vedic civilization is not 'aryan' per se.It is a synthesis of the aryan with the survivors of the indus valley civilization.
Another misconception is caste was created to discriminate against natives.Wrong.Caste was already a part of aryan society when they entered india.Infact Iranian society used to have 3 castes as well.The colours in the falg of iran - green,white and red symbolize the 3 castes (peasants,priests and warriors).Its factually incorrect to say shudras were created by aryans .The peasant caste is common to both vedic and iranian aryans.The iranians lack the vaishya caste.
Another proof is that the most prestigious of the kshatriya bloodlines -the suryavansha or ikshvaku clan is actually a non-aryan dravida bloodline as attested in vedas.The aryans intermarried into this clan and it was prestigious.This is the same clan as ram and bharat chakravartin -the first emperor.If there was a racist problem there would be no way this bloodline would be so exalted.The father of ikshavaku is described as the sagely king of dravida kingdom in atharvaveda.Chakravartin like prahlad are other examples.
Very sober/mature evaluation of the topic. Racial Superiority Theories like the Nazis are obviously bogus, and the Westerners definitely played fast & loose w/ the Aryan "Invasion" Theory - but the solution isn't to "over-correct" and tip toe around facts by pretending that there wasn't ever any migration or genetic diversity (later followed by plentiful mixing, due to which we're all largely the same people NOW).
 

cannonfodder

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
970
Likes
2,072
Country flag
^^ Proven by DNA evidence, we are also all africans: African migration theory. :devil: Why is it not applicable to white Europeans.

Like which country or region didn't have human migration or races mixing, i dont know.


Very sober/mature evaluation of the topic. Racial Superiority Theories like the Nazis are obviously bogus, the and Westerners definitely played fast & lose w/ the Aryan "Invasion" Theory - but the solution isn't to "over-correct" and tip toe around facts by pretending that there wasn't ever any migration or genetic diversity (later followed by plentiful mixing, due to which we're all largely the same people NOW).
 

Lancer

Bana
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
1,409
Likes
5,635
Country flag
^^ Proven by DNA evidence, we are also all africans: African migration theory. :devil: Why is it not applicable to white Europeans.

Like which country or region didn't have human migration or races mixing, i dont know.
Apples to Oranges, it's one thing if you can't digest facts/find them inconvenient, but that's an incredibly wonky argument.

Either way, I avoid discussing topics like this with most Indians, because they're way too touchy about them.
 

cannonfodder

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
970
Likes
2,072
Country flag
This is not touchy argument. Why this migration only applicable to India's context that happened thousand of years ago. This migration and mixing of human species would have happened all over earth countless times over thousand of years among humans. According to one of the joe rogan podcasts, it is said that everything can be traced to an population of village. So why aryans coming to india an significant thing to be given so much importance.

Do any other country has this xxx migration theory or looking to prove people living there came from xxx race?

Apples to Oranges, it's one thing if you can't digest facts/find them inconvenient, but that's an incredibly wonky argument.

Either way, I avoid discussing topics like this with most Indians, because they're way too touchy about them.
 

Lancer

Bana
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
1,409
Likes
5,635
Country flag
This is not touchy argument. Why this migration only applicable to India's context that happened thousand of years ago. This migration and mixing of human species would have happened all over earth countless times over thousand of years among humans. According to one of the joe rogan podcasts, it is said that everything can be traced to an population of village. So why aryans coming to india an significant thing to be given so much importance.

Do any other country has this xxx migration theory or looking to prove people living there came from xxx race?
Everyone is curious about, and likes to dig into their origins. Nothing wrong with it.

As I said, just because you're not comfortable with it, doesn't change the facts. Deny it or ignore it if you want, that's irrelevant to the rest of us.
 

Indrajit

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
2,003
Likes
4,836
Country flag
Many misconceptions.
Aryan migration happened proven by DNA evidence.There is no evidence whatsoever of invasion.Skirmishes over land might have happened with forest dwelling tribes and aryans clearing forests to build cities-like arjun burning khandav forest to clear land for indraprastha where takshak nagas lived.
What we call vedic civilization is not 'aryan' per se.It is a synthesis of the aryan with the survivors of the indus valley civilization.
Another misconception is caste was created to discriminate against natives.Wrong.Caste was already a part of aryan society when they entered india.Infact Iranian society used to have 3 castes as well.The colours in the falg of iran - green,white and red symbolize the 3 castes (peasants,priests and warriors).Its factually incorrect to say shudras were created by aryans .The peasant caste is common to both vedic and iranian aryans.The iranians lack the vaishya caste.
Another proof is that the most prestigious of the kshatriya bloodlines -the suryavansha or ikshvaku clan is actually a non-aryan dravida bloodline as attested in vedas.The aryans intermarried into this clan and it was prestigious.This is the same clan as ram and bharat chakravartin -the first emperor.If there was a racist problem there would be no way this bloodline would be so exalted.The father of ikshavaku is described as the sagely king of dravida kingdom in atharvaveda.Chakravartin like prahlad are other examples.
DNA evidence is not as clear as imagined. There is still plenty of unanswered questions and I would be very cautious jumping in one way or the other. There is almost zero archeological evidence for any invasion or even migration. Have people come from elsewhere? Sure but that has been the case of even recorded near history, especially in the North. We simply don’t yet know enough though it’s very possible that some migration happened.

Ikshvaku were suryavanshis, not chandravanshis like the 5 tribes of the Rig Veda but that hardly means they were Dravidians which was a specific Sanskrit word only used to define the land where present day Tamil Nadu exists. Unless every non Chandravanshi is going to be called Dravidian, that doesn’t hold water. Moreover the word Aryan is specific to one chandravanshi tribe, the Purus and even more specifically to a sub tribe, the Bharatas who were essentially the people of the Rig Veda. There is no evidence that the Ikshvaku spoke a “non-aryan” language. Actually there is little evidence for any substantial Dravidian presence in the north of India. There are almost no non Sanskrit place and river names anywhere in North India which would indicate the presence of any other substantial civilisation, say Dravidian. Such a thing - the absence of place and river names, exist almost nowhere else where any other people lived before since these things are stubborn and tend to continue regardless of change of people.

I agree with you on the racism bit, to some extent since Rama became such an important God in Hinduism. Apart from being from a non Rig Vedic tribe, Rama was also dark in colour, hence the hue of blue used. Just as Krishna, whose name itself means black. Hardly evidence of some crazed purity seeking “Aryans”.

Having said that some tribes were very conscious of their Aryanness, in a manner of speaking. The Buddha was a good example. His Sakya clan were particularly conscious, one that would unfortunately lead to their total destruction. Prasenajit, the king of Kosala was an admirer of the Buddha and as such wanted a relation to his clam by marriage. The Sakyas couldn’t say no to the king but they didn’t consider his clan to be of the same status as theirs and so palmed off a servant girl as the princess. Virudhaka was the son. The story goes that when he was about 14, he visited his mothers clan and though he was treated with respect due, he sensed there was something wrong which was further confirmed when after he had left, one of his retinue came back for something and found the Sakyas busy washing and purifying the places where the crown prince had sat. Virudhaka’s response when he heard of it was chilling , he vowed to wash the place with their blood when he was king. He made good on his word and the Sakyas, the Buddha’s clan was extinguished.
 

Indrajit

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
2,003
Likes
4,836
Country flag
Another misconception is caste was created to discriminate against natives.Wrong.Caste was already a part of aryan society when they entered india.Infact Iranian society used to have 3 castes as well.The colours in the falg of iran - green,white and red symbolize the 3 castes (peasants,priests and warriors).Its factually incorrect to say shudras were created by aryans .The peasant caste is common to both vedic and iranian aryans.The iranians lack the vaishya caste.
Couple of bones to pick here. Apart from the idea of “Aryans” entering here, this business of caste is wrongly interpreted. There is no evidence of caste in the Rig veda except for the infamous mention in the last/10th mandala widely accepted as an later interpolation. Hardly ubiquitous.

The Iranian bit is overplayed since it is the classic AIT/AMT talking point suggesting that the Iranians and ancient Indians were aryan tribes who came in together with the Iranians stopping off at what’s present day Iran. Zero evidence for that. Many like to cite similarity of language to parts of the Rig Veda (in Avestan). Nobody who cites that likes to argue why that is the case in the late Rig Vedic period of the 8th mandala, not in the earlier ones which should be where the similarity exists if there was an early separation. They like to point of that the Helmand was also called the Haraxvathi and that Sarasvati is derived from that, even if the Rig Vedic geography defies that and that linguistically it is absolutely accepted that S changed to H and not the other way around ( another example would be Ahura/Asura). There is no attested Iranian presence in Iran before the 9th century BCE . Ancient Iranian texts were unfamiliar with western Iranian geography though they counted among their homelands the Sapta Sindhu (Hapta-Hindu). Quoting anything about the Iranians is pointless because just like them calling themselves aryan, we have no idea where that came from.
 

Roshan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Messages
674
Likes
1,635
Country flag
DNA evidence is not as clear as imagined. There is still plenty of unanswered questions and I would be very cautious jumping in one way or the other. There is almost zero archeological evidence for any invasion or even migration. Have people come from elsewhere? Sure but that has been the case of even recorded near history, especially in the North. We simply don’t yet know enough though it’s very possible that some migration happened.

Ikshvaku were suryavanshis, not chandravanshis like the 5 tribes of the Rig Veda but that hardly means they were Dravidians which was a specific Sanskrit word only used to define the land where present day Tamil Nadu exists. Unless every non Chandravanshi is going to be called Dravidian, that doesn’t hold water. Moreover the word Aryan is specific to one chandravanshi tribe, the Purus and even more specifically to a sub tribe, the Bharatas who were essentially the people of the Rig Veda. There is no evidence that the Ikshvaku spoke a “non-aryan” language. Actually there is little evidence for any substantial Dravidian presence in the north of India. There are almost no non Sanskrit place and river names anywhere in North India which would indicate the presence of any other substantial civilisation, say Dravidian. Such a thing - the absence of place and river names, exist almost nowhere else where any other people lived before since these things are stubborn and tend to continue regardless of change of people.

I agree with you on the racism bit, to some extent since Rama became such an important God in Hinduism. Apart from being from a non Rig Vedic tribe, Rama was also dark in colour, hence the hue of blue used. Just as Krishna, whose name itself means black. Hardly evidence of some crazed purity seeking “Aryans”.

Having said that some tribes were very conscious of their Aryanness, in a manner of speaking. The Buddha was a good example. His Sakya clan were particularly conscious, one that would unfortunately lead to their total destruction. Prasenajit, the king of Kosala was an admirer of the Buddha and as such wanted a relation to his clam by marriage. The Sakyas couldn’t say no to the king but they didn’t consider his clan to be of the same status as theirs and so palmed off a servant girl as the princess. Virudhaka was the son. The story goes that when he was about 14, he visited his mothers clan and though he was treated with respect due, he sensed there was something wrong which was further confirmed when after he had left, one of his retinue came back for something and found the Sakyas busy washing and purifying the places where the crown prince had sat. Virudhaka’s response when he heard of it was chilling , he vowed to wash the place with their blood when he was king. He made good on his word and the Sakyas, the Buddha’s clan was extinguished.
the ait claims of noble invaders riding in chariots and civilizing the savage, dark skinned natives isn't borne out by the evidence. indications are that there was an extant civilized populace already there who in all likelihood were related culturally to the supposed 'invaders'. there was an article circulating around last year that harappa was a 'dravidian' site. the present mainstream narratives suited the hitherto prevailing political discourses so it is not surprising even with evidence flying in the face of it the periyarites and marxist indologists double down and move the goalposts when necessary.
 

Knowitall

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
2,783
Likes
9,181
Country flag
Very sober/mature evaluation of the topic. Racial Superiority Theories like the Nazis are obviously bogus, and the Westerners definitely played fast & loose w/ the Aryan "Invasion" Theory - but the solution isn't to "over-correct" and tip toe around facts by pretending that there wasn't ever any migration or genetic diversity (later followed by plentiful mixing, due to which we're all largely the same people NOW).
i have heard that Hinduism was already established in 500BC and rig veda refers to India as its homeland but the aryans came from somewhere else.

whats your take on this?
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,855
Likes
3,744
Country flag
Very sober/mature evaluation of the topic. Racial Superiority Theories like the Nazis are obviously bogus, and the Westerners definitely played fast & loose w/ the Aryan "Invasion" Theory - but the solution isn't to "over-correct" and tip toe around facts by pretending that there wasn't ever any migration or genetic diversity (later followed by plentiful mixing, due to which we're all largely the same people NOW).
The Itihas of Bharatvarsh - Mahabharat and Ramayana provide a clear and harmonius picture of how the mixing occurred organically, yet "you-know-who"(South Carolina, South Texas) people emphasise on "Invasion" and "Inferiority". These people are like non-white Nazis.
 

cannonfodder

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
970
Likes
2,072
Country flag
If people have foolproof evidence and time, then there in prize of 2 crore, $285K from Jaipur fest (good amount imo).
 

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,422
Likes
1,978
Country flag
Just to add , Brahman jaat nahi quality h . Brahman wahi hai jisey brahm (Absolute truth / Ishwar) ka gyan hai. Surname say koi brahman nhi banta .

Regards...
Bhai ye jaati me iski tabdeeli khud Ramayana kaal me ho gayi thi,Brahmans race descend from the rishis and their equivalent wives,aur Valmiki ke anusaar kisi aur jaati ke log brahman nahi banne,jo Kshatriyon ne kshatra ka tyaag kiya unki different wives se different jaatiyan aayi jaise vishwamitra ke kshatriya wife se puru vansh chala aur brahman wife se aaj ke mishra brahman,per jo brahman jaati chali unko ucch kul kar brahman nahi mana jata...Valmiki khud jo brahman the unko aaj wrongly sab shudra rishi bolte hain jo ki sahi nahi hai...he was born as dasrath Sharma...
 

N4tsula67

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
990
Likes
4,275
Country flag
Bhai ye jaati me iski tabdeeli khud Ramayana kaal me ho gayi thi,Brahmans race descend from the rishis and their equivalent wives,aur Valmiki ke anusaar kisi aur jaati ke log brahman nahi banne,jo Kshatriyon ne kshatra ka tyaag kiya unki different wives se different jaatiyan aayi jaise vishwamitra ke kshatriya wife se puru vansh chala aur brahman wife se aaj ke mishra brahman,per jo brahman jaati chali unko ucch kul kar brahman nahi mana jata...Valmiki khud jo brahman the unko aaj wrongly sab shudra rishi bolte hain jo ki sahi nahi hai...he was born as dasrath Sharma...
Varna can change there are numerous tales in scriptures about that. Its not birth based only. It is both birth and karma based btw. For your kind information Jaati isn't Varna both are different. Even in Manusmriti it is said that a brahmin can become shudra and Shudra can become brahmin
 
Last edited:

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,422
Likes
1,978
Country flag
Varna can change there are numerous tales in scriptures about that. Its not birth based only. It is both birth and karma based btw. For your kind information Jaati isn't Varna both are different.
,
What I said is related to varna itself,bharatpur jatt's ancestor were yaduvanshi Rajput princes who were saved from huns and then brought up and married to Jaat girls,that's how the degraded their varna from Kshatriya to shudra and their progenies were recognised as jaats and not the Rajputs or Kshatriya in the Indian varna system itself. Bajwa jats of the bajawat area which now is in Pakistan were descendants of a hindu shahi Rajput and thus they called themselves as Suryavanshi jaats but they still were jaats and not Kshatriyas...Varna system itself is based on the purity of the geneology...
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top