Arguments For Aryan Invasion Theory

http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/20000828/ied28053.html

Mother of melting pots

FRANCOIS GAUTIER



It was always thought that India was a melting pot of different influences coming from the West, either by trade or through invasions, and that she owes many of her achievements - her sciences, philosophy, or religion - to outside influences, whether by the way of the Aryan invasions, or via the Greek incursions. But more and more discoveries, both archaeological and linguistic, are pointing to exactly the opposite direction: in the millenniums before Christ, it is Indian civilization which went gradually westwards and influenced the religions, the sciences and the philosophies of many of the civilizations which are considered today by the West as the cradle of its culture and thought.

American mathematician A. Seindenberg, for instance, has demonstrated that the Sulbasutras, the ancient Vedic mathematics, have inspired all the mathematic sciences of the antique world from Babylonia to Egypt and Greece. ``Arithmetic equations from the Sulbasutras were used in the observation of the triangle by the Babylonians and the theory of contraries and of inexactitude in arithmetic methods, discovered by Hindus, inspired Pythagorean mathematics``, writes Seindenberg. In astronomy too, Indus were precursors: 17th century French astronomer Jean-Claude Bailly had already noticed that ``the Hindu astronomic systems were much more ancient than those of the Greeks or even the Egyptians and the movement of stars which was calculated by the Hindus 4500 years ago, does not differ from those used today by even one minute``. What about philosophy? French historian Alain Danielou noted as early as 1947 that ``the Egyptian myth of Osiris seemed directly inspired from a Shivaite story of the Puranas and that at anyrate, Egyptians of those times considered that Osiris had originally come from India mounted on a bull (Nandi), the traditional transport of Shiva``. But it is mainly Greece that was most influenced by the myth of Shiva: many historians have noted that the cult of Dionysius (later known as Bacchus in the Roman world), definitely looks like an offshoot of Shivaism. There is also no doubt that the impact of the Vedas and subsequent Hindu scriptures, such as the Vedanta and Upanishads, was tremendous on the different philosophical sects which flourished at different times in Greece. We know that the Greek Demetrios Galianos had translated the Bhagavad-Gita. And even William Jones, the 18th century linguist of British India, noted that ``the analogies between Greek Pythagorean philosophy and the Sankhya school are very obvious``. German philosopher Shroeder had also remarked in his book òf40óPythagoras und die Inder that nearly all the philosophical and mathematical doctrines attributed to Pythagoras are derivedfrom India.

It also seems very clear that ancient India played an immense role in the making of Christianity, particularly the writings of the Gospel. Alain Danielou thus notes that the structure of the Christian church resembles that of the Buddhist Chaitya, that the rigorous asceticism of certain early Christian sects reminds one of Jaina practices, that the veneration of relics, or the usage of rosaries are all Hindu customs``. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of the Art of Living, which is practised in more than eighty countries, also remarks that Jesus sometimes wore an orange robe, the Hindu symbol of renunciation in the world, which was not a usual practice in Judaism. ``In the same way,`` he continues, ``the worshipping of the Virgin Mary in Catholicism is probably borrowed from the Hindu cult of Devi``. Bells too, which cannot be found today in synagogues, the temples of Judaism, are used in churches and we all know their importance in Buddhism and Hinduism for thousands of years. There are many other similaritiesbetween Hinduism and Christianity: incense, sacred bread (Prasadam), the different altars around churches (which recall the manifold deities in their niches inside Hindu temples); reciting the rosary (Japamala), the Christian Trinity (the ancient Sanatana Dharma: Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh), Christian processions, the sign of the cross (Anganyasa). Hindu and Buddhist philosophies had also a great influence on 19th century Europe, particularly in Germany, where philosophers, such a Frederich Shlegel, said that ``there is no language in the world, even Greek, which has the clarity and the philosophical precision of Sanskrit,`` adding that ``India is not only at the origin of everything, she is superior in everything, intellectually, religiously or politically and even the Greek heritage seems pale in comparison``. Shopenhauer agrees with him and writes in the preface of his ``The World as a Will and as a Representation``: ``According to me, the influence of Sanskrit literature on our time will not be lesser than whatwas in the 16th century Greece`s influence on Renaissance. One day, India`s wisdom will flow again on Europe and will totally transform our knowledge and thought``.

òf40óThis is an excerpt from Gautier`s just released book `Arise O India` (Har Anand)

India played an immense role in the making of Christianity

Copyright © 2000 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

Apart from the pita/pater and mata/mater kind of stuff, there are other similarities that I find amazing!

Both Indian (Hindu) and European days-of-the-week are seven in number. Sunday = Ravivar (Ravi means Sun), Saturday = Shanivar (Shani = Saturn) etc.

Similarly, both have seven notes in music...

How does one explain that both Indian and European civilisations used and use a 24 hour day, with 60 minutes per hour and 60 seconds per minute? Who influenced whom? But the months are different - most Indians follow the lunar calendar which has 12 months per year with roughly 28 days per month, and a ``leap month`` every few years to bring it in sync with the rotation of the Earth round the sun. (Tamilians follow the solar calendar like the Chinese).

If you take Indian and Western astrology, it is similar, with both having twelve signs of the zodiac and the figures remaining the same (Leo = Simha raashi, Taurus = Rishabha raashi, Pisces = Meena raashi etc) with the same animals depicted... Again, did they develop independently or, if not, who influenced whom? Because these things have been around in India even before recent European invasions or Islamic invasions and even before Alexander.

It would be great to hear what Rohan and others have to say about it.

Finally, Rohan - do you agree with the AIT that Dravidians are Dasyus who were pushed from the Indus Valley to down South in India? If so, shouldn`t their language and script be similar to the Harappa-Mohenjodaro heiroglyphics. If not, what is your theory for Dravidians - pure Tamil is totally different from Sanskrit, and is a classical language in its own right.

Regards.

Ref RSaxena #: 45

{you always seem to be reading while one hand and your attention are diverted elsewhere.}

It is called multi-processing. You should try it some time.

{And how/why do you know who is wearing what???}

Petabytes of high-speed random access memory.

You can`t beat a biochemical computer for random processing of data. How do you think I recall stuff I read years back and am able to quote it chapter and verse?

I may be off for several weeks since I am shortly leaving on one of my periodic visits to the holy land of IT. We will see what exactly happens as I attempt to access the internet from India. Reality cookies have a strange way of tasting differently than they are described on paper.

Dear Rohan, I deeply enjoyed your well based comments on a variant of politically motivated distosion of history that was new to me until some weeks ago,

Maerte

gymnosophist #44,

May God help you.

Amen

Re: gymno

Uhhh, beavis, you always seem to be reading while one hand and your attention are diverted elsewhere. And how/why do you know who is wearing what??? Old man, this was entertaining thus far but now you`re going to scare us.

Phew, thank god I am nowhere near the US.

Ref RSaxena #: 41

{``I couldn`t agree more. (hope gymno isn`t reading)``

Uh oh, I bet he is and is going to accuse you of ``coming to [my] defense.``}

Gymno reads all responses and reads both direct and subtle indirect hints.

Don`t tell me you didn`t show up at that Pakistani shindig Saturday after Scout said that she would be there wearing a green shalwar. The message was nominally addressed to someone else but the hints were there for all to see.

I am confused...why name calling and use of the words ``normal people`` without defining them

Re: gymno

``Tsk, tsk. Aren`t you overlooking the fact that the Mohenjadaro civilization had running water and sewers and well laid-out streets?``

Proud announcements of past achievement by people several hundred generations from you and I doesn`t do much to motivate the do-nothing, ladoo-popping buffoons who run the country.

So the children of the Mohenjo Daro and sister civilizations - our ancestors - were good for nothing brats who squandered away the sewage systems and paved cities we were supposed to inherit...is that what we`re going to learn from these useless academic debates?

Re: scout

``I couldn`t agree more. (hope gymno isn`t reading)``

Uh oh, I bet he is and is going to accuse you of ``coming to [my] defense.``

``With all the running around that they do, their behinds are worth more than most desi peoples`.``

Well, most desi people run around a lot. Some of them doing less than noble things but they do chase a dollar better than anyone else.

Ref RSaxena #: 30

You said {Stop yo silly academic debates. Whether or not the Aryans came to India or vice versa, the fact of the matter is that all of Europe has running water and flush toilets and most of us in the subcontinent don`t. So whether or not we have linguistic or other linkages is hardly worth a chooha`s behind.}

Tsk, tsk. Aren`t you overlooking the fact that the Mohenjadaro civilization had running water and sewers and well laid-out streets? Thus, it is of supreme importance to determine what caused us to lose our sense of geometrically laid out cities with sanitation and go in the direction we had taken since. ;-)

By the way, has anybody read Nirad Chaudhri`s `The Continent of Circe`? I thought it was a hoot. It took the Aryan Invasion Theory to the next level.

Invasion vs. Migration:

The term “invasion” does not always imply invasion by a group of people with the intention of overpowering others. A migration followed by coersion or a migration leading to harmful consequences is also termed as invasion. From the perspective of native Amerindians, the migration of Europeans to Americas can be termed as invasion of Europeans because it led to harmful consequences. The term invasion is not restricted to humans only. A seasonal migration of locust, other insects or animals to an area with destructive outcome is also termed invasion though it may be a seasonal migration from insects or animal point of view. It is usually termed, in cultural terms, invasion of western culture through media by the people who consider it harmful to their value system.

The Aryan theory, as it is written in most of history books, clearly mention the destruction of Indus Valley Civilization of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro by Aryan migrants. They often use such terms as “Victory of Aryans” to describe the coming of dominance of Aryans in North India. It is then appropriate to consider it “Aryan Invasion Theory”, no matter what the intensions of original immigrants may be. The term “Arguments” clearly suggests it to be a debatable and open-ended subject, otherwise a “Death or End of Aryan Invasion Theory” might have been preferred.

Migrations:

Pulsed migrations have been the undeniable fact of human history. It is not contested in “Arguments Against.....”. The arguments were made against a very large number of people migrating in a relatively short period of time and its coersive nature leading to the violent destruction of Indus Valley Civilization, forcing people to move South. This part of Aryan Invasion theory is an attempt to link it with Rig-Veda description of wars under the leadership of Indra, although there are no ways to prove when these hymns were composed. Moreover, it does not provide any evidence for Indra and his followers to be of extra-sub continent origin. A mere moving the date of these compositions to earlier than the Invasion period would eliminate the possiblity of it has to do anything with the migrants. Since they are composed in Sanskrit and Sanskrit is beleived to be an Indo-Aryan language, it is assumed these hymns to have been composed after the invasion. You have to assume also that these hymns are the eye-witnessed accounts and not a recomposition of older material, for their current utility in terms of religion. Religious literature tend to exaggerate history because their motives are more noble than recording history. There motives are social, moral and religious teachings. Unfortunately there is an obsession going on for the last two hundred or so years to prove the history of Old Testament. A mere blank square next to Ramses II mural is paraded as a proof of the death of his first born due to the curse of Moses. This mindset and predisposition also influenced the Aryan Theory in relation to Vedic literature.

Race:

Aryan as a racial group is no longer taken seriously among informed people. Many others whose knowledge is limited to old history books or a desire of belonging to a noble race, still believe and take pride in Aryan as race. Those who do not believe in it do so for two different reasons. There are those, like myself, who believe that migrants were in small numbers to significantly alter the genetic make up of pre-existing people of mixed races (see SR post at Arguments Against.......), the term aryan represents a family of languages and in time became part of the lingua franca of north Indian people. Others think that we are mixed race because of the later waves of migrants, the Scythians, White Huns etc.

Language:

The issue here really is many-fold. There are valid reasons for linguistics to classify languages in groups based on large number of similar sounding words for same objects. The relationship among various Indo-European languages is a fact based on common roots for such words. On this basis a proto-Indo-European vocabulary is undeniable. First question arises as to what percent of a language actually utilizing such words. As I suggested the possibility of Indo-Aryan language becoming part of Sanskrit, thus sharing phonetics for several words with other Indo-European Languages. Does Urdu belong to Indo-Iranian family of languages for having a large number of Persian words or it belongs to Indo-Aryan for sharing a large number of Hindi, Sanskrit words? I tend to believe it to be an Indo-Aryan. Is Pidgen also an Indo-European Language because of its relationship with English? Sometimes it is traditon and other times it depends who classifies them and rest of the world accepts it. And what does it mean to have term Indo ahead of Aryan, Iranian and European; why not other way around. There is nothing magical about it; it simply means that pioneers of this subject invented these terms.

What does it mean to belong to a family of languages as seen in the family tree of Indo-European languages? I am conceding here that proto-Indo-European speaking were the carrier of common words in these languages but at the same time I am not conceding the time frame described for this transfer, nor do I concede that it is the only available mechanism of words transfer ( as I expained in my piece). I tend to agree with Colin Renfrew, in “Archaeology and Language” that it is a long drawn out period dating several thousand years befor 1200-1800 BC. It started with the Neolithic Age (cultivation and domestication of animals), 6000-8000 BC. Since it is a pulsed mechanism, it will have its periods of fast diffusion as well as slow diffusions. Without proven time frame, language family tree does not lose its value in analysis but loses its luster. I can draw a family tree of life with a dog, a tree and a girl all related to earliest form of life. Can it be justification enough to marry a girl to a dog or hugging a tree because afterall they are her cousins through tree of life? The time frame is primary boundary condition to make a language independent of its cousins. More we push the time frame backward, less important it becomes for a living thing, like a language.

There must have been some language in which people of Indus Valley communicated. They were continuously accepting the words from each migrants. They accepted words from Indo-Aryan language also and the result is Sanskrit. It was Indo-European as well as Indic. Languages keep evolving as modern north Indian languages do, though originating from proto-Indic (Sanskrit) language are quite different from one another. Many Indo-European languages use mother, madar, maa, madre, mata for mother and father, pidr, padre, fater, pita for father but the most common terms in vogue in Pakistan are ammi and abba for mother and father. Koreans also use ammi and abba for mother and father. Are ammi and abba words from pre-Aryan origin? Are these terms introduced in Korea by Buddhist monks from India? Or these words have their origin somewhere in the chain of cultures from Korea, Manchuria, Mongols, White Huns and Scythians? I tend to believe in the last possibility. There origin might be somewhere in the chain and brought to Pakistan by later Scythian or White Hun migrants. Another common word fro mother in Punjabi villages is bey-bey. No Idea about its origin. Wheat is called by different names within Pakistan. It is kanak in Punjabi and gandum in Urdu. This does not sound related to Aryan theory because it is post-Aryan influence. But it is relevent to my suggesting that as people, as cultures and as languages, we are mixed, influenced by many who cotributed and enriched cultures and languages.

The similarites of some verses and language of Zend Avesta and Rig-Veda is not tht importsnt. Persia ruled wester India during 6th century BC, western India contributed tremendous revenues to persian Empire and Indian soldier took part in the wars including sacking and burning of Athens, Greece. It is not unusal to influence each other’s religious literature besides niether Zend Avesta nor Rig-Veda are compositions of one person in a shord period of time. It was very easy to include or delete portions even later than Persian rule over western India. Moreover, persianised Greek, the Parthians and Selucids also ruled western India later. Ashoka’s empire including the headquarter of Mullah Omar, Qandhahar.

In short, both time frame and accepting new words contradict Aryan Invasion Theory as it was widely believed.

Archaeology:

Since Arguments for... did not go into details about archaeology, I will not stress about it too much but it must be known that archaeology has lot more evidence against Aryan Invasion than for it. Carbon-14 dating of many of the pottery shard believe to be of Indo-European style, from several European sites date them to much earleir period than supposed Indo-European arrival in Europe. In India, the finding of 27 human reamins at Mohenjo-daro, and more than usual charred material in that particular layer is all the evidence to support the violent sudden destruction of the city. This in itself is no proof of destruction by war from Indo-Aryan people.

The horses remains are not that important. The suggestion of chariots and horses playing a signifcant role in the destruction is based on Hyksos model of destroying a weakened Egyptian empire and much later successes fo Mongols although many people Mongols defeated were also on horses back.

Similarly, the whole Invasion theory utilizing religion and force, overpowering pre-Aryan people is right out of book of Muslim Arabs conquering whole of Middle East and North Africa with the help of religion and sword. Since it happened and we have enough proof for it; same could have happened to India.

My interest in this subject dates back about 12 years by first reading “Archaeology and Language” by Colin Renfrew. Since then, I have raed a lot of books, articles and talking to people interested in this subject. I used several Indian History books, Colin Renfrew (Archaeology and Languages), Mallory(In Search of the Indo-European Origins), Kak/ Frowley (boring cosmology, In Search of the Cradle of Civilization), Ariel & Will Durrant (Our Oriental Heritage), Arnold Toynbee (A Study of History) and couple of books about Asian Philosophies (for information about Rig-Veda) for writing “Arguments Against.......” over a month period. I come from Muslim backgroung in Pakistan. I have no interest in BJP/ RSS or other indo-centric websites; never visited any of those, not familiar with Voice of India or any of their literature. My interest, as I alluded to, earlier is more due to dislikeness of sweating over the history described in religious literature, turning half of Israel upside down to prove the history described in the Old Testament and using Rig-Veda to substantiate Aryan Invasion Theory. Religious literature offers more important things than history.

While it is argued for human carrier of Indo-European and Bantu (African) languges, the topic of Semitic origins are carefully avoided. It is no secret that like proto-Indo-Euroean and its origins somewhere in Central Asia, proto-Semitic is an African language of Ethiopean highlands. Noone will believe that modern day Semites (Hebrews, Arabs) could be of African origin, in the same way Aryans are believed to be Central Asian. Because, it might decrease their claim to the Holy Land and Middle East. It is fiercely argued for contact of wandering nomadic tribes from Middle East coming in contact with Ethiopean Highlanders and accepting words from their language alongwith circumcision and some other myths. In this way, Indo-centric myth could be thought of if its sole purpose is to create an identity.

Last word: Most people will say democracy, respect for law, powerful economy or individual human rights to the question: what impressed you most in the USA? My answer would be, academia. I believe the best and brightest of American are found in universities, unequal in knowledge and wisdom. I have been extra careful even responding to retired academician at chowk. I can be blamed for anything else but not for being disrespectful of specialists, professors and researchers in any discipline. Though no longer in academia, I still consider them gods. Disagrreing or debating an issue for the purpose of learning more about it is in no way a criticism or abuse of any learned individual.

Urstruly:

The assumption that Aryan invaders destroyed Harappa (rather than any of the alternative possibilities, ie. that they arrived at some point during or after its decline, or even during its heyday) was put forward in the middle of the twentieth century, eg. by Mortimer Wheeler. It is no longer assumed by most scholars that the Indo-Aryans actually destroyed Harappa, since there is no positive evidence for that, though it remains open, of course, as a possibility.

Rohan.

Arun:

Since you seem determined to misinterpret it, here`s what I said again:

``I personally find the existence of the Mitanni in West Asia in 1600 BC, using recognisable archaic Sanskrit and recognisable Vedic deities (Mitra, Varuna, Nasatya) fascinating.``

Nothing in there implies that the Hurrian state exclusively spoke Indic, rather than Hurrian, or that they used nothing but Vedic deities. The important point about the Mitanni is that they did use Indic words, and that they did have the Vedic deities and use them in treaties. By doing so they attest (in writing) the existence of an archaic and already differentiated (from proto-Indo-Iranian) form of Indic in 1600 BC, over a thousand years before the next written evidence of any Indic language. But we don`t have the slightest idea by what mechanism they came by that Indic element. That`s what I referred to.

I`m glad you`ve worked out some of this for yourself through web searches, but I strongly suggest you get a better grip on it and the rest of the subject (since you are so interested in it) by doing some background reading. A copy of Mallory is easy to get a hold of. Trying to build the kind of deductions that you do on the high level of ignorance that you display is a recipe for going off on pointless tangents, the way you just did.

Regards,

Rohan.

Hi,

I will honestly accept that, I do not understand this or the previous article in detail.

The basic theory I can see is:

1)Language are similar.

So similar that it has to come from a common ancestory and not developed as part of interaction. (I cannot see how one can proove that.)

2)Horses: Something about them.

3)pre-literate: did not have long term memory but were able to remember the whole shlokas. Can only laugh at that.

Based on the above, the only way it is possible is Aryans must have invaded, means physically attack. I find that conclusion little un-reasonable. I am not saying it is not possible, but saying that it is not reasonable enough.

One way to disproove is, to attack someone of their intention. Those who oppose AIT, are supportes of some political party and have some political motive.

Similar thing can be said of those who support AIT:(I am not saying these are true, but just showing how we can attack each other intentions):

a)Still have the slave mentallity. Whatever the west says is good. Cannot think independently.(Even the famous Indian Chess player Ananand, said, that for Indians to appreciate something, it has to be appreciated by westerners before. I think it was in 50th year celeberation of India Today)

b)Want to look good, honest and unbiased in other eyes.

I think, that this thing cannot be prooved. We have to make assumptions. I do not want somebody else to tell me who am I. I don`t mind Indian Historian, telling me who am I. Others have this privilege,(there historian tell them, who they are). Why should not I have the privilege. How do we know that those historians are not biased? I think everyone is almost biased, so we should only look at facts. If we have to be biased, let us be biased by our own people.

If one look at the spread of Buddhism, it will be difficult to see as India as the origin(if one take the central place from where it might have spread.). There is no example I know of where, people, came to different region and worshipped and made that place as theirs. All there gods, also somehow begin to live in the new region.

Until there is explicit proove that, invasion was there, basing it on language alone is too far fetched. Not all natural phenomenon has another example. Some are unique.

(One more theory with a cursory glance: the people in North are big and built, the people in the south also are big and built. If you look at the middle of India, than people are medium built and usually thin. It might mean, that the people in middle are the one who got attacked both in North and South. Another theory. :-))

Vijay

ASK# 31

Thank you ASK for your reply. I have one more question to ask, as a matter of fact I asked that question to Mr. Oberoi and he chose to ignore it-so I am a bit more curious. My question was, why is it assumed that the Aryans destroyed the indegenous civilization. Is there an evidence based on archeological finds or is it just an assumption. What if the indeginous culture was not destroyed-I think that people used to leave places very often due to natural disasters, floods, earthquakes, unusually long periods of drought, plague, volcanoes (Pompie and some South American places). So why the assumption that the destruction took place.