Ancient Man and His First Civilizations.Proving Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth and severe lie

[SrNair]

The problem is you do not know what the IVC people followed, there are theories but no accepted truth. Your theory is that they followed some Tamil type thing based on your website written by an author who as far as I am concerned may have an agenda says he claims to have deciphered scripts that the rest of the world still claims have not been deciphered. What came to flourish in India namely the Vedic civilization came after the migration so how can you claim to know that it is the same exact civilization followed by IVC? The answer is you don't but Indians have an agenda to promote because God forbid they accept the reality that outsiders helped shape their so called continuous civilization. Not to mention the more senile group of Indians who claim not only was their no outside influence but that Indian instead influenced the rest of the planet with OIT . These are the same loons who opened the Mexicans are actually Indians thread on pdf not so long ago.



That is because scholars don't accept AIT anymore. AMT makes sense and historically we have seen plenty of migrations to support such a theory but if it was an invasion where are the remains of the dead? No excavation has unearthed any mass grave to support such a theory.

Please check my previous posts.I dont claim we contribute all our civilization to rest of the planet.
Fact is that someone want that all Indians must believe a nomadic people from Central Asia suddenly got an enlightment when they visit IV and creates all structure of Indian Society .I oppose that.If they can creates someone that ,then why dont they stay in Central Asia itself and creates some like IVC.That is why I dont trust Aryans AIT and its glorification.According to archaeological evidence for creating a civilization like this ,need thousands of years effort.

 

[Indischer]

So now, we both accept that there was either a migration or an invasion. One or the other. I would argue for invasion as during migration, the migrating people would absorb into the population of the native people. In invasion, especially if the invading population is sizeable, the invading culture and language and even religion would replace that of the invaded people. So an Aryan invasion is still the most plausible.

I've always maintained that RigVedic Sanskrit is so similar to Avestan that it's impossible to dispute that Sanskrit had partly foreign roots. But you need to remember one important thing here. The India of today is not the India of old. The boundaries of the Indian civilization have overlapped with the boundaries of Iranic civilization in many areas and at many times in History. It really isn't difficult to imagine cultural exchanges between these two civilizations.

Now comes the need for proof to establish an invasion. What was the size of the invading Aryan hordes? What were their weapons? Where did these battles with an older Indian population take place? What was the religion of the people before this invasion? As told by you earlier, any such theory needs archeological proof, and oral history counts for zilch.

Hinduism has encompassed all local religions into it's fold. The RigVedic religion was greatly expanded upon through a series of additional Vedas, Upanishads, Sutras etc. All in India. Why do you think was the need to do this? To appease a defeated and subjugated populace(which no invading army does)? Or to accomodate every Native tradition and God on equal terms(some perhaps older than the RigVeda itself)?

 

[KingMamba]

Please check my previous posts.I dont claim we contribute all our civilization to rest of the planet.
Fact is that someone want that all Indians must believe a nomadic people from Central Asia suddenly got an enlightment when they visit IV and creates all structure of Indian Society .I oppose that.If they can creates someone that ,then why dont they stay in Central Asia itself and creates some like IVC.That is why I dont trust Aryans AIT and its glorification.According to archaeological evidence for creating a civilization like this ,need thousands of years effort.

Why do people migrate? Not because they don't have civilization rather for the same reasons people migrate today, for better opportunity.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Romans and Greeks got it from the Persians themselves.

So Persians ... okay so what's this?

That's Egypt. Ok let me see - they built a time machine - went to the future Persia and got horses, transported them and built chariots. Hmm..

 

[KingMamba]

So Persians ... okay so what's this?
View attachment 19690

That's Egypt. Ok let me see - they built a time machine - went to the future Persia and got horses, transported them and built chariots. Hmm..

What does Egypt have to do with Romans and Greeks idiot. Egyptians may have had their own chariots but it has nothing to do with how Romans and Greeks knew of Chariots themselves.

 

[Vinod2070]

I don't think so. That is a subsequent derivative of the discussion that flows from the original proposition.

If you say so. Looking at the history on this forum, you will excuse me for not being completely taken in though.

If you are referring to @faithfulguy , he is not one of my favourite posters, but he is making some pretty effective points. I think he should be heard, not abused.

Let's not waste time on him. He is not worth it.

This conflates two different bodies of thought: the first being the attempt to justify colonial domination of India per se, the second being to understand their own social structures and political and financial networks in Europe, and even in the world.

None of which was concerned with objective history. Won't you say?

The outcome can't be said to be just an academic exercise but was designed to get premediated results.

I suppose you mean those of us who are opposed to the OOI theory, and believe that the AIT itself is flawed, and have evolved it to a better, more suited narrative. Your military metaphors are noted with interest; they might return at some future date.

That is a convenient way to put it. The reality is very different.

OOI is a very recent theory and you are welcome not to "believe" it. It is just a hypothesis after all just like the AIT (however one chooses to expand it).

You may find a version of the AIT "more suited" (whatever that is supposed to mean), it doesn't make it any more than a theory that is based not on any real evidence but on linguistic arguments. Whatever I have seen of those arguments, I have not come away impressed. The alternatives could be more elegant and simpler.

Anyway the AIT is something which was created for the first time by the colonialists, for which there is no evidence in the real world, never was, no trace of memory in any people, no records, no archaeological evidence. Not even any river names and place names in North India that support the theory (you know that is a big hole, for the proponents of AIT, it is just "surprising")?

Just nada, zilch, shunya.

There is of course an argument for common origin of the Indo Aryan languages but the way it has been used to politicize the debate in India is another matter.

I note that you are now wholly in the ranks of the Hindutva crowd.

Whatever that is supposed to mean. I am proud of my country, my religion, my ancient civilization and I respect the right of everyone else to be proud of their own.

Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti

I am proud to be from the unique Dharma that recognized what seems obvious to me that there are multiple paths to the truth.

Anyway, was this also a "subsequent derivative"?

Here we go.

Interesting to see how you practice what you preach. This seems to be a single-minded concentration on the interaction, and not on the facts of the discussion. Isn't that precisely what you complained against?

Quite a flourish, but what precisely did you add, besides a commentary on the way that the topic was discussed, rather than contributing to the discussion on the topic?

You are right. This part was about the tactics used by the brand of "historians" that I was talking of. It is important to understand their modus operandi and motives after all. It is a very repeatable and often repeated pattern and I have seen it multiple times here as well.

Anyway, the issue is also the strong political overtones this theory has even today, what the purveyors intend to achieve through it and the real damage that the country is suffering because of this spurious theory.

Also the very clear desire of some people to have the narrative of India and Hinduism continue to be defined by outsiders with their own motives. I have seen their discomfort at the very sight of an Indian and a Hindu defining that narrative. All other countries' and religious groups' narratives are primarily defined by insiders, here we have a leftist brigade that tries to make sure our narrative is outsourced to a cabal of "academics" that are patting each others' back with sham "peer reviews" that never get too uncomfortable.

If it pleases you to think that you won a famous victory, keep dreaming on. Good that you have such an excellent opinion of yourself. Someone has to, after all.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, I believe that our respective ratings tell the tale in clear and direct terms.

Really? Ratings on an anonymous forum are supposed to tell a tale now!

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I've always maintained that RigVedic Sanskrit is so similar to Avestan that it's impossible to dispute that Sanskrit had partly foreign roots. But you need to remember one important thing here. The India of today is not the India of old. The boundaries of the Indian civilization have overlapped with the boundaries of Iranic civilization in many areas and at many times in History. It really isn't difficult to imagine cultural exchanges between these two civilizations.

This is assuming Avestan influenced Sanskrit. What if it was the other way round. By chance of probability there is a 50 50 chance. Now let's dig a few sources -
This was interesting - The Relationship of Vedic Sanskrit and Avestan (Old Persian)
One major and I mean major point is that Avestan DID NOT have a native script!!! Sanskrit had and still has. Also there are some serious conflicts between the Bharatiyas and the Avestan people(Devas/Asuras etc)

Agree with your second and third paras.

What does Egypt have to do with Romans and Greeks idiot. Egyptians may have had their own chariots but it has nothing to do with how Romans and Greeks knew of Chariots themselves.

Good. We are making progress
Now let me rewrite what you wrote with minor modifications.
What does India have to do with Romans and Greeks and Persians*****. Indians may have had their own chariots but it has nothing to do with how Romans and Greeks knew of Chariots themselves.

Btw - post reported for personal attacks.

 

[KingMamba]

Good. We are making progress
Now let me rewrite what you wrote with minor modifications.
What does India have to do with Romans and Greeks and Persians*****. Indians may have had their own chariots but it has nothing to do with how Romans and Greeks knew of Chariots themselves.

Btw - post reported for personal attacks.

Except you have no proof to that effect whereas Egyptians actually used it in battle as did Persians. Also horses itself were first domesticated in central asia and India has no evidence of horses being used until the first mentions in the Rig Veda which brings us back to the topic in discussion.

Cry me a river.

 

[SrNair]

Why do people migrate? Not because they don't have civilization rather for the same reasons people migrate today, for better opportunity.

So you think they may got an better opportunity in India.But creating a civilization based on languages ,culture and others
you need more than that.We cant conclude thats only inflow of Aryans develop the Indian society.
Rig Veda dont mention about Aryan invasion.

 

[KingMamba]

So you think they may got an better opportunity in India.But creating a civilization based on languages ,culture and others
you need more than that.We cant conclude thats only inflow of Aryans develop the Indian society.
Rig Veda dont mention about Aryan invasion.

I don't believe in invasion, also rig veda was written after supposed migration and is a religious text so why would it talk of a historical event in the past? Also the authors may not have deemed it important because by that time the migrants were living amongst the locals and considered themselves apart of the same land, Aryavarta. Not only that but the Rig veda itself is not written by one person so you cannot ascertain the motives behind the writers all you can say is they never wrote about invasion because it probably never happened, if it had it probably would have been written down based on the atrocities alone.

 

[scorpionx]

Religious affinities of early Rg Vedas with the ones in Baltic states? Startling!!

I think I get what you mean, but you certainly chose to put it in a curious way.

Do you mean that all the references to flora and fauna in the Rg Veda deal with a common ecology which is to be seen in the Baltic states as well? If so, it is probably more prudent to consider the very large swathes of territory to which those indicative flora and fauna belong, swathes of territory covering a stretch between certain south Asian locations through parts of central Asia and ranging up to the shores of the Baltic.

There is one explanation covering the common mythology, but I can't believe you have spotted it. If it is not the explanation in the previous paragraph that you had in mind, would you share with us why you used that wording?.

Sir, while I was writing "religious affinities" the only thing I had in my mind was the resemblance of mythological deities between Rg and their Baltic counterparts. The amazing similarities between Varuna/ Ouranos, Dyavaprithi/ Zeus Pater (Greek), Parjanya/Perkunas (Lithuanian) possibly prove a close contact between those living in NW India and those roaming in the region between Turkey and Central Asia.

I really do not know how appropriate it will be if I cite Mr. C.V Vaidya here. In his opinion, the enormous importance of Usas as a goddess circling the horizon like a courser (30 in number) applies only to the arctic and it is a deity whose importance can only be realized in a region where sun disappears for a long time. I certainly should not bring Mr.Tilak and Jacobi with their astronomical approach because critics have widely discouraged such methods and rejected these assumptions.

So, just as an ordinary and very average reader of History I formed the opinion that people who composed Rg were possibly those who came close relationship with the satam language speakers and were influenced by their religious beliefs which they carried with themselves since their departure from the Centum group of language speakers. Quite probably for the matrimonial alliances with this group and the later rigidity in varna system, we see an unequal distribution of paternal genes among us,varying with the caste pyramid.

PS: A humble request.I am not distantly well informed like you or Mr.Bang Galore.So please think twice before slitting my throat now.

 

[Fattyacids]

Why do people migrate? Not because they don't have civilization rather for the same reasons people migrate today, for better opportunity.

So now, we both accept that there was either a migration or an invasion. One or the other. I would argue for invasion as during migration, the migrating people would absorb into the population of the native people. In invasion, especially if the invading population is sizeable, the invading culture and language and even religion would replace that of the invaded people. So an Aryan invasion is still the most plausible.

@Reashot Xigwin

"Migration" may be a more appropriate word to describe Aryans moving out of Ural region, as they don't belong to any empire, calling it an "invasion" is a little off. But 3500 years ago, it was a dog-eat-dog world, wherever people ventured out, almost certainly battles of some sort were fought. Invasion theory seems to hold more ground in the US.

California textbook controversy over Hindu history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original textbook draft: “Around 1500 B.C.E., invaders called Aryans conquered northern India.”

Ad hoc committee action: Publisher is directed to add a clarifying note that the “Aryan invasion theory” has been contradicted by scholarly evidence.

Final SBE/CDE recommendation
Prof Bajpai and Prof. Witzel
Change to, “In the second millennium B.C.E., invaders called Aryans came to northern India.”

*********************************************
"In a letter to the Board of Education, Vinay Lal, a history professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote:

As far as I am aware, the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation and their supporters do not number among their ranks any academic specialists in Indian history or religion other than Professor Bajpai himself. It is a remarkable fact that, in a state which has perhaps the leading public research university system in the United States, these two foundations could not find a single professor of Indian history or religion within the UC system (with its ten campuses) to support their views. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that they would be hard pressed to find a single scholar at any research university in the United States who would support their views."


@Joe Shearer are these the revisionist Brahmins you referring to?

"The HEF campaign was dismissed by critics as "one driven by the sectarian agenda of the Sangh Parivar, a term commonly used to describe the Hindu nationalist triumvirate of India's Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

 

[Indischer]

This is assuming Avestan influenced Sanskrit. What if it was the other way round. By chance of probability there is a 50 50 chance. Now let's dig a few sources -
This was interesting - The Relationship of Vedic Sanskrit and Avestan (Old Persian)
One major and I mean major point is that Avestan DID NOT have a native script!!! Sanskrit had and still has. Also there are some serious conflicts between the Bharatiyas and the Avestan people(Devas/Asuras etc)

Actually, RigVedic Sanskrit too did not have a script of it's own. It was orally passed on for at least 2000 years before being written down. The only reason why Sanskrit cannot be held to have influenced Avestan is that Avestan has been attested to be older than Sanskrit. Now, there are many who doubt this assertion as well, and it's fair not to fully believe this theory. But another crucial clue is that RigVedic Sanskrit has a substratum of another,older Indian language, which is absent in Avestan. If Avestan was derived from Sanskrit, this substratum must have been carried over as well. Besides, classical(post Panini's codification) Sanskrit isn't as close to other Iranic languages in comparison with RigVedic sanskrit.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Except you have no proof to that effect whereas Egyptians actually used it in battle as did Persians. Also horses itself were first domesticated in central asia and India has no evidence of horses being used until the first mentions in the Rig Veda which brings us back to the topic in discussion.

Cry me a river.

Actually, RigVedic Sanskrit too did not have a script of it's own. It was orally passed on for at least 2000 years before being written down. The only reason why Sanskrit cannot be held to have influenced Avestan is that Avestan has been attested to be older than Sanskrit. Now, there are many who doubt this assertion as well, and it's fair not to fully believe this theory. But another crucial clue is that RigVedic Sanskrit has a substratum of another,older Indian language, which is absent in Avestan. If Avestan was derived from Sanskrit, this substratum must have been carried over as well. Besides, classical(post Panini's codification) Sanskrit isn't as close to other Iranic languages in comparison with RigVedic sanskrit.

I may be wrong - but am I correct to assume that there was a pre-Sanskrit root common to both Sanskrit and Avestan? Interesting... I ain't qualified to draw any conclusions But like I said - interesting.

 

[KingMamba]

Actually, RigVedic Sanskrit too did not have a script of it's own. It was orally passed on for at least 2000 years before being written down. The only reason why Sanskrit cannot be held to have influenced Avestan is that Avestan has been attested to be older than Sanskrit. Now, there are many who doubt this assertion as well, and it's fair not to fully believe this theory. But another crucial clue is that RigVedic Sanskrit has a substratum of another,older Indian language, which is absent in Avestan. If Avestan was derived from Sanskrit, this substratum must have been carried over as well. Besides, classical(post Panini's codification) Sanskrit isn't as close to other Iranic languages in comparison with RigVedic sanskrit.

Sanskrit is probably a mixture of Avestan and the local tongue of the IV people.