QuoteReplyTopic: Aryan Invasion Theory Posted: 05-Oct-2005 at 18:18
Originally posted by Darkness1089
Well people have studied astronomical positions described in the epics
and have mentioned that dates could be either 3100BCE or 1478BCE. Some
even claim it to be older.
I'm not trying to say that European people are of Indian origin, but
mostly the language. One doesnot necessarily need full conquest or
brute force to make someone else adopt a different language. Wasn't it
Persia that adopted the Armenian script for writing during Achmenid
times without any great influence from Armenians?
As far as I know the Vedic epics weren't written before 600 BCE, though
the original verbal accounts could be much older. Anyhow, if you start
making history ONLY from religious books you end believing things like
Earth being just 5000 years old and Noah being a historical factual
person (these are Biblicist examples from fundamentalist Christians, just to ilustrate the case).
I can take that c. 1500 some Aryan Indian groups migrated out of India
and maybe created the Mittani kingdom or some other phenomena. But
that's not the main IE migration, which obviously started much earlier,
but a minor branch. It's clear that in those late dates the Scythians
(another IE group, known in India as the Saka) were already dominant in
Central Asia and they remained as such many centuries after.
It's also clear that Hittites and Greeks were writing non-Indian IE
languages at that time and that linguistics can't support such a late
date as 1500 for the divergence of IE tongues, nor it supports Sanscrit
being at the origin of the IE tree.
Adopting a script is easier than adopting a language, specially for an
illiterate people. Turks and Vietnamese have changed their scripts
without changing their tongues but the opposite is not that common.
Languages are normally adopted because they are the way of relating in
society and make business. Sometimes a state forbids a minority from
using their language with more or less success, but the simple dominant
position in trade or society is normaly enough to displace other less
fortunate languages with enough time during a few generations.
I don't see any solidity to your out-of-India reasoning. India has been
invaded in historical times from Afghanistan (Muslims), why couldn't
this happen before in pre-historical times? It seems the most logical
thing.
I disagree with the AIT even though I was taught in school that aryans invaded India n destroyed the Indus Valley Civilization.
I guess the
answer to this question lies in ruins of the Indus Valley
Civilization..Even though it was amongst the earliest human
civilization, it has been discovered recently n exact reasons for its
destruction r not known plus the script hasn't been deciphered yet.
I guess this
issue has to be settled so that the north-south divide in india comes
to an end.To say that north Indians r aryans bcoz they r lighter
skinned is foolish.Not all north Indians r light skinned n vice
versa.We Indians r a mixed lot n in India we talk in terms of ethnicity
not race.
Take my
ethnicity for example.I am a garhwali from Garhwal Himalayas.People
from all over India came n settled there n formed a new ethnicity.My
father's ancestors came from Bengal n mother's from Karnataka as far as
I know.
We all know
how the Bristish acquired their empire.India was the brightest jewel in
the Indian empire.They divided the two most populous n rich states in
india along religious lines.After all how old is the AIT.Britishers
fabricated n propagated this theory in order to justify their rule over
India.N now their cousins in America r telling us that India is 3/4
aryan.Maybe they need our markets or perhaps they want to use us
against China.
I have been a
student of commerce so can't give u solid reasons against the AIT
but all I can say is that I'm proud to be an Indian n see no reason to
trace my origins outside India.
Regarding the
caste system our scriptures tell us that in the beginning caste was
determined by profession n not by birth.To say that caste system was
imposed by the so called Aryans in order to prevent interracial
marriages is foolish.Aryan as far as I know stands for a person
of noble character.It does not stand for a race.
Well, Aryans obviously embelished their traits. That's called propaganda and it's done everywhere.
Anyhow I don't think that skin shade has much to do with the Aryan
invasion, it is language what has to do with it. Most likely Aryans
were always a small minority in a native ocean, so their genetic
apportation would not be determining. It's also been suggested that
already in pre-Aryan times (Indus Civilization) peoples from the Near
East arrived at India too. But anyhow, I'd say that most of the genetic
pool was already present in Paleolithic times, unless proven otherwise.
I know that the reasons behind the end of the Indus Civilization are
not totally clear and it may well be that Aryans destroyed nothing or
just gave the shot of grace to something that was already badly
wounded.
But I can tell you one thing: Europe is not Aryan nor IE either if we
look at it through genetics. It's mostly IE speaking but that only
concerns language. So, while Aryanist theories could be considered
Europeist/Colonialist in the early 20th century, when many identified,
quite gratuitously, Aryan with Germanic. This can't be the case
anymore. Yet it does affect the "purity" of India in some way but at
least we can say it was not any European invasion but rather Central
Asian in origin.
I can't say how much this historical issue divides India along
north-south lines but it's clear that in history as in prehistory the
north and south of the subcontinent have been interacting but often
separated as well. It is a historical duality that many other coutries
have: China, France, Spain, Italy, Ukraine are some examples. You will
have to live with it.
U say that the Aryans were most likely a minority in a native ocean n that India n Europe arn't Aryan genetically.
The question that comes forth is ' How were the Aryans able to impose their language on the natives if they were a minority'?
I'd also like to ask u 'Which people today do u think r GENETICALLY the purest Aryans'?
Regards,
Dinesh Mohan Raturi.
Because they had the weapons and were in control of socio-political
organization? How were Spanish able to impose their language in America
(migration was always small)? How were the Romans able to impose their
language in Gaul and Iberia? How were the Anglo-Saxons able to impose
their language in England? How were the Turks able to impose their
language in Asia Minor? How were Arabs able to impose their language in
Syria, Egypt, Iraq or North Africa? History is full of similar examples
where succesful invaders impose their language, customs and religion to
the invaded populatons. Why do you see such mistery in that is what
puzzles me.
U say that the Aryans were most likely a minority in a native ocean n that India n Europe arn't Aryan genetically.
The question that comes forth is ' How were the Aryans able to impose their language on the natives if they were a minority'?
I'd also like to ask u 'Which people today do u think r GENETICALLY the purest Aryans'?
Regards,
Dinesh Mohan Raturi.
Because they had the weapons and were in control of socio-political organization? How were Spanish able to impose their language in America (migration was always small)? How were the Romans able to impose their language in Gaul and Iberia? How were the Anglo-Saxons able to impose their language in England? How were the Turks able to impose their language in Asia Minor? How were Arabs able to impose their language in Syria, Egypt, Iraq or North Africa? History is full of similar examples where succesful invaders impose their language, customs and religion to the invaded populatons. Why do you see such mistery in that is what puzzles me.
But there is no substantial evidence of any attack. There are no weapons, and a total of eleven bodies which were found buried odly (mass grave). This hardly reads as evidence of physical attack. As for socio-political organization, the Aryan migration/invasion theory understands that the Aryans were a nomadic tribe, whereas the Indus-Saraswati civilization consisted of a higly organized system (as evident by their architectural planning of such feats as sewer systems, an accomplishment impossible without group cooperation and organized systems of government). The theory relies on the fact that the Aryan tribes vanquished the Indus-Saraswatians through the use of superior fighting abilities. If so, where is the proof of any conflict?
That one you mention, Aloka, is probably the best argument against the
traditional theory. But it could well be that the civilization was
already half-dead because of inner causes and that the invaders only
gave it the death blow. It could even be something like in Crete, where
the invaders (Mycenean Greeks) took power over the older civilization
(Minoan) before suffering a peasant revolt and later being conquered by
a new invasion of their own kinsmen (Dorians) - or so it seems.
Anyhow, I wonder how many Roman sites show any trace of attack, yet we
know, via written history and other indirect evidence, that Rome
suffered major invasions in its last phase and succumbed to new less
developed Germanic monarchies.
Mistery over the exact course of history in that transition will remain, yet two things are quite clear:
An advanced civilization (Indus)was replaced by another much less developed culture (Vedic).
IEs do not seem to be original from India, however you look at
it, so they must have entered India at some time, violently or
peacefully, as conquerors or mercenaries or semi-nomadic inmigrants or
all those roles together.
The second question was who do I think that are the purest Aryans. I
understand you ask about Indo-Europeans, as Aryans seems only a term to
be used in Indo-Iranian context, Indo-Aryan=Indo-Iranian, which is just
the eastern branch of IEs.
In any case my reply would be the same more or less: they don't exist anymore.
I think that IEs originated in Central Asia in what nowadays is
Kazakhstan and that their most direct descendants are surely Scythians
and primitive Indo-Aryans. Yet, the very characteristic of this people
is that they migrated to almost everywhere around and they got mixed
with the natives, sometimes going forth and back in succesive
migrations, so we can just find their mixed descendants.
Anyhow if I'd have to pick up a people to say that these are closer to
the original IEs, I'd say that either Kazakhs, Southern
Russian+Ukranians or Irano-Afghano-Tayiks.
The question is that we don't know for sure how Caucasoid or Mongoloid
the original IEs of Kazakhstan were, seemingly they were brachicephalic
(round or square skulls, not elongated,) but that's a trait that is
found among Caucasoids as among Mongoloids. What we do know is that,
soon after they are first located in the archaeological register, they
enter Southern Russia and Ukraine where they mix with the local
Caucasoid natives. This, depending on which theory we follow, applies
only for the Western IE branch or the full IE group. Anyhow, Eastern
IEs (proto-Scythians and proto-Indo-Aryans, then still the same group)
also invaded Southern Russia and Ukraine and the Caucasus area soon
after, so they should have also mixed with Europeans anyhow before the
migrations into Iran and India.
So the fact is that we can't say much for sure; only trace the most
likely developements that have left traces in the archaeological
registry.
In any case, Eastern IEs were most of the time in Central Asia until they arrived into Iran, Afghanistan and India c. 2000 BCE.
I'd say that Scythians were during all their existence the people that
more closely resembled the original IEs. But they are culturally extint
now.
Voil! The original (recreated digitally) super-Aryan-man.
"It came out looking incredibly like a modern Kazakh person, the nose
in particular," Olsen said. "We really didn't know if he would come out
looking more Indo-European or Chinese. But if you saw [the digitally
reconstructed man] on the street, you'd swear he was a Kazakh."
The exhibit shows the skull and the digital reconstruction, as well as
a more elaborate rendering by museum artist Mark A. Klingler, who based
it on features from four modern Kazakh men.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04348/425914.stm
Obviously the eyelid features can't be reconstructed from the skull.
Voil! The original (recreated digitally) super-Aryan-man.
"It came out looking incredibly like a modern Kazakh person, the nose in particular," Olsen said. "We really didn't know if he would come out looking more Indo-European or Chinese. But if you saw [the digitally reconstructed man] on the street, you'd swear he was a Kazakh."
The exhibit shows the skull and the digital reconstruction, as well as a more elaborate rendering by museum artist Mark A. Klingler, who based it on features from four modern Kazakh men. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04348/425914.stm
Obviously the eyelid features can't be reconstructed from the skull.
I hate digitally reconstructed stuff. A lot of it is guess work. And when trying to show "ethnicity" especially (ethinicity in the way we look at it today), digital reconstruction is bogus, IMO. You bring up a good point about the eyelid features. You can't tell from a skull. Or skin and hair colors, lip size (if that makes a difference), ear size, etc. It is like how those programs on Discovery and stuff have reconstructions of dinosaurs. Most of it is guess work.
I believe we do everything for a purpose.The AIT was constructed n propagated by the Britishers for a purpose.
I also believe that belief is the strongest thing.I believe in my country.Let our ARYAN brothers in the developed nations {almost all the developed nations in the world r predominantly Aryan,arn't they},whether they be genetically similar or just linguistically similar help India prosper.Afterall Indian ARYANS seemed to have preserved the most ancient ARYAN language n religion.
After having spent 2 yrz in S Korea I'm very sure that S Koreans arn't very gifted mentally {A S Korean with a master's degree told me that korean n bangla language r very close while hindi is dissimilar,that's why illegal bangladeshi workers in this country pick up korean faster-----believe me he took half an hour n illustrated his point with examples on a white board},they don't have natural resouces,they r densely populated,etc.Still no other country in the world has developed more rapidly economically than S Korea.Why? bcoz of the benevolence of our GENETICALLY or LINGUISTICALLY similar brethern in the US.
U might say I'm discussing politics on a history forum.I BELIEVE history is not just what has happened n is recorded in books.The people who made history were once living n breathing souls like us.N what is happening now would be recorded in history books some time later.
This common origin,common language,common whatever creates problems for some people.N if u r still passionate about the AIT ask our ARYAN US brethern {their army is virtually occupying S Korea} to impose their ARYAN language here.
S Koreans spend lots of money on learning english but all they do is butcher english language.I don't wanna abuse any nationality so i'll stop here.
My point is "Turks came from central asia n they accept it,US citizens came from Europe n Africa {most of them}they accept it,Why don't Indian ARYANS claim that they came from a foreign land n settled in India".There must be a reason.Maybe they came from no foreign land.Maybe Sanskrit n other ARYAN languages spoken in India did originate in India.
Voil! The original (recreated digitally) super-Aryan-man.
"It came out looking incredibly like a modern Kazakh person, the nose in particular," Olsen said. "We really didn't know if he would come out looking more Indo-European or Chinese. But if you saw [the digitally reconstructed man] on the street, you'd swear he was a Kazakh."
The exhibit shows the skull and the digital reconstruction, as well as a more elaborate rendering by museum artist Mark A. Klingler, who based it on features from four modern Kazakh men. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04348/425914.stm
Obviously the eyelid features can't be reconstructed from the skull.
I hate digitally reconstructed stuff. A lot of it is guess work. And when trying to show "ethnicity" especially (ethinicity in the way we look at it today), digital reconstruction is bogus, IMO. You bring up a good point about the eyelid features. You can't tell from a skull. Or skin and hair colors, lip size (if that makes a difference), ear size, etc. It is like how those programs on Discovery and stuff have reconstructions of dinosaurs. Most of it is guess work.
But very intelligent guess work at that, a reconstruction of a french man who had commited suicide in the Scottish highlands and removed all items of identity was identified thanks to one of these facial reconstructions a couple of years ago.
NB nobody knew anything about him till the pictures of the reconstruction were circulated by interpol.
I believe we do everything for a purpose.The AIT was constructed n propagated by the Britishers for a purpose.
I also believe that
belief is the strongest thing.I believe in my country.Let our ARYAN
brothers in the developed nations {almost all the developed nations in
the world r predominantly Aryan,arn't they},whether they be genetically
similar or just linguistically similar help India prosper.Afterall
Indian ARYANS seemed to have preserved the most ancient ARYAN language
n religion.
After having spent 2
yrz in S Korea I'm very sure that S Koreans arn't very gifted mentally
{A S Korean with a master's degree told me that korean n bangla
language r very close while hindi is dissimilar,that's why illegal
bangladeshi workers in this country pick up korean faster-----believe
me he took half an hour n illustrated his point with examples on a
white board},they don't have natural resouces,they r densely
populated,etc.Still no other country in the world has developed more
rapidly economically than S Korea.Why? bcoz of the benevolence of our
GENETICALLY or LINGUISTICALLY similar brethern in the US.
U might say I'm
discussing politics on a history forum.I BELIEVE history is not just
what has happened n is recorded in books.The people who made history
were once living n breathing souls like us.N what is happening now
would be recorded in history books some time later.
This common
origin,common language,common whatever creates problems for some
people.N if u r still passionate about the AIT ask our
ARYAN US brethern {their army is virtually occupying S Korea} to impose
their ARYAN language here.
S Koreans spend lots of
money on learning english but all they do is butcher english language.I
don't wanna abuse any nationality so i'll stop here.
My point is "Turks came
from central asia n they accept it,US citizens came from Europe n
Africa {most of them}they accept it,Why don't Indian ARYANS claim that
they came from a foreign land n settled
in India".There must be a reason.Maybe they came from no foreign
land.Maybe Sanskrit n other ARYAN languages spoken in India did
originate in India.
Would love to know ur views.
Regards,
Dinesh Mohan Raturi.
Karakatula:
First, in Europe nobody but Nazis talk of Aryans anymore.
If the term had some sense it's been so much misused that it's looked
upon with mistrust and rejection. The apropiate term is
Indo-European (IE to write faster) and anyhow the term Aryan only
is actually in context in Iran (Aryanam) and India, so sometimes the
term Indo-Aryan is still used as synonim of Indo-Iranian. No historical
European people has ever called themselves Aryan or anything of the like (not c**ting Nazi Germany and other racist pretetntions of the 19th and 20th century, of course)
Second, there's no Aryan or Indo-European race, in the biological
meaning of the term. The original IE blood got diluted as their small
numbers advanced into densely poplated lands.
Above you can see the Cavalli-Sforza map for European genetic Principal
Component 3, usually attributed to IE expansion (though this can be
argued). You can see that most of Europe has pretty low levels of this
component, which is concentrated in Eastern Europe. French and Britons,
for instance, have no more than Basques, a totally pre-IE people. While
notorious historical IE-speaking civilizations such as Greeks or Romans
have even less of this component.
This means that race is truly irrelevant when we talk about these
mostly linguistical and historical matters. IEs are not any race: IE
exists only as a linguistic family and a historical migrational
phenomenon. You can same almost the same about other largely expanded
linguistic families such as Afroasian (Semito-Hamitic), Altaic
(Turco-Mongol), etc.
There is no IE race and there is no IE or Aryan natural
superiority. There is a quite well defined Caucasian family in the
genetic tree of Humankind but the closest relatives are precisely North
Asians (and Native Americans). So we should not expect too many
diferences between Western and Eastern Eurasians on genetics grounds.
To worsen things for white-supremacists, it seems likely that the
specificty of Caucasian race is caused by their mixture with members of the Afican branch in an early stage.
Furthermore, I've seen your picture and I can tell you that any European Aryanist (=
Nazi) would claim you belong to an "inferior race" just because you're
dark skined. They still equate the term Aryan with Nordic, what
obviously has no historical nor genetic bases but do you think they
care?
Finally, I must say that I do believe that Koreans, as Japanese or
Chinese, have a lot of merit on their own in making their countries so
advanced with so many things against. They are among the peoples that
are destroying the racial myths with their daily effort. As they say in
Spain: speed is proven by walking. I don't think that North Americans have much to do with it and much less that it is caused by any generous effort.
Well Maju has some valid points, but so do the rest, first and fore most the aryan invasion is a theory, migration is more plausable. As for aryans originating in India sorry but there is no evidence of this, no migration patterns out of India but many that shows migration into India.
Please the britsih were responsible for many propoganda just like the Hinduism ones, saying that Aryans came from India is only an Indian theory made up by nationalists and hindu nationalists. The truth is as Maju said is central asia there is actual evidence for this, saying Aryans came from India originally is the same as saying Turks came from Turkey originally they just migrated out and back in..... see how stupid that sounded? Turks invaded turkey and were a minority, but they subdued the masses and instigated their culture while adopting the countries cutlure too.
lets look at Turkey as an example, we can give India the same model, only about 20% is said to be true Turks in modern day Turkey the rest are people who were there before Turk invasion.
Sanscrit was a laguage of the Elite, look at the class system the whiter you are the higher your class, now does not that say something about Aryan migration and intergration.
Even Iran had people before Araysn came in, but until the Persians and Medes came most of Arayn migration mixed with the local population with no real impact, the it the Persians and Medes who came in larger numbers and with more or the same popultion there, taking over and becoming the elites and driving out daravidian language and peoples, some stayed and mixed.
Nationalism is more of a modern day phenomena it existed in anceint Persia but not the same as it did today.
Never under estimate the predictablity of stupidity! - Bullet Tooth Tony
In order to seek archaeological evidence about the invasion of the Aryans to India and infact into Asia, we must start from the archaeological finds those were available in Central Asia and the steppe Region. Archaeologist Maria Gimbutas unearthed several important aspect of the Aryan lives when they recided in that region.let us look into her finds and then make a conclusion.
1) SREDNY STOG COMPLEX (4500-3500 BC):
It was located in the middle Dneiper region.Traces of Domestication of Horses were found. The resedential quarters found here were basically sub-terranean which probably protected from hostile weather.However surfaces residences were also found.
2) YAMNYA COMPLEX (3600-2300 BC):
The region it covered extended from the Black Sea in the West to the Volga-Ural Region in the East.This suggests a definite expansion of Aryan habitation.Horse riding gained much more importance during this phase.Wheels were unearth showing the invention of wheels and their wide spread usage.Horse drawn carts and wagons were unearthed and copper was introduced for the first time in this phase. Animal remains suggested prevelance of the practice of animal sacrifice.
3)ANDRO-NOVO CULTURE (2000B BC onwards):
This culture covered entire central Asia.There was an evidence of stock breeding and wider usage of horses.Practice of cremation was there.Pit dwellings made up of Birch Woods and other kind of woods were found.Sacrificial Altars were found.One branch of this culture was the Sintashta culture which grew in the banks of Sintashta river in the south Ural region i.e is Western Kazakhstan around 1700 BC. The war chariots appeared consisting of three or two wheels.Spoked wheels and traces of horse sacrifice and usages of of soma and sura were uncovered.
4)BACTRIA-MARGIANA COMPLEX(1900-1500 BC):
This stage saw more advancement of the Aryan towards the Indian subcontinent.This stage covered South Turkemenistan , North Afganistan and Southern parts of Uzbekistan. It was these people who finally migrated into the sub-continent and established the Gandhara Grave Culture. Then they gradually won over the Dravidians.
These archaeological evidences suggests the gradual advancements of the Indo-Aryans in the Indian subcontinent.
Moreover, another question was raised that why there is no mention of the Aryan migration in the Rig Veda.the fact is that intially vedas were not written and were recollected in memory by the scholars. The first written version of Rig Veda was found in South India during twelfth or thirteenth century AD(It is not a joke).Thus it is quite obvious that several hymns of RigVeda were lost into obscurity or that the later priest began to neglect those hymns which they considered as non religious.
Moroever if we analyse the animal of Rig Veda, we will definitely find a Central Asian influence rather than a sub-continental influence on it.Rig Veda doesnot mention about Tiger or Rhinicerous. There are rare mentions of lion,deer and buffaloe. These animals were abundant in India when Aryans arrived here.But the les or no mention of these animals besides suggeting non-Indian origin of Rig Veda suggests non-Indian origin of the Aryans.
Don't forget that before Serdny-Stog and Yamna there is an older
culture in Ural-Volga region (Khvalinsk culture) that is at the origin
of both. Actually Seredny-Stog is a mixed complex with a relatively
short existence but it is important as it seems to be clearly at the
origin of Western IEs. Yamna is more homogeneous and rather clearly
proto-Indo-Iranian (Eastern IE).
These reconstruction renders are relatively biased. Case in point, King Tut. There was 2 reconstructions done, one by a team who knew it was King Tut, and one by a forensic team that didnt know it was King Tut.
Team that knew it was King Tut:
Team that did not know:
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum