Source URL:
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/aryan-invasion.html-: the myth of the aryan invasion :-
- By Svami B.V. Giri
Introduction:
The aryan invasion theory has been one of the most controversial
historical topics for well over a century. However, it should be
pointed out that it remains just that – a theory. To date no hard
evidence has proven the aryan invasion theory to be fact. In this
essay we will explain the roots of this hypothesis and how, due to
recent emergence of new evidence over the last couple of decades, the
validity of the aryan invasion theory has been seriously challenged.
It is indeed ironic that the origin of this theory does not lie in
Indian records, but in 19th Century politics and German nationalism.
No where in the Vedas, Puranas or Itihasas is there any mention of a
Migration or Invasion of any kind. In 1841 M.S. Elphinstone, the first
governor of the Bombay Presidency, wrote in his book History of India:
'It is opposed to their (Hindus) foreign origin, that neither in the
Code (of Manu) nor, I believe, in the Vedas, nor in any book that is
certainly older than the code, is there any allusion to a prior
residence or to a knowledge of more than the name of any country out
of India. Even mythology goes no further than the Himalayan chain, in
which is fixed the habitation of the gods... .To say that it spread
from a central point is an unwarranted assumption, and even to
analogy; for, emigration and civilization have not spread in a circle,
but from east to west. Where, also, could the central point be, from
which a language could spread over India, Greece, and Italy and yet
leave Chaldea, Syria and Arabia untouched? There is no reason whatever
for thinking that the Hindus ever inhabited any country but their
present one, and as little for denying that they may have done so
before the earliest trace of their records or tradition.'
The Birth of a Misconception:
Interest in the field of Indology during the 19th Century was of mixed
motivations. Many scholars such as August Wilhelm von Schlegal, Hern
Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Arthur Schopenhauer lauded praise upon the
Vedic literatures and their profound wisdom, others were less than
impressed. To accept that there was an advanced civilization outside
the boundaries of Europe, at a time before the Patriarchs Abraham and
Moses had made their covenant with the Almighty was impossible to
conceive of for most European scholars, who harbored a strong
Christian tendency. Most scholars of this period were neither
archeologists nor historians in the strict sense of the word. Rather,
they were missionaries paid by their governments to establish western
cultural and racial superiority over the subjugated Indian citizens,
through their study of the indigenous religious texts. Consequently,
for racial, political and religious reasons, early European
indologists created a myth that still survives to this day.
It was established by linguists that Sanskrit, Iranian and European
languages all belonged to the same family, categorizing them as
'Indo-European' languages. It was assumed that all these people
originated from one homeland where they spoke a common language (which
they called 'Proto-Indo-European' or PIE) which later developed into
Sanskrit, Latin, Greek etc. They then needed to ascertain where this
homeland was. By pure speculation, it was proposed that this homeland
was either southeast Europe or Central Asia.
Harappa and Mohenjo-daro:
Harappa -
The discovery of ruins in the Indus Valley (Harappa and Mohenjo-daro)
was considered by indologists like Wheeler as proof of their
conjectures – that a nomadic tribe from foreign lands had plundered
India. It was pronounced that the ruins dated back to a time before
the Aryan Invasion, although this was actually never verified. By
assigning a period of 200 years to each of the several layers of the
pre-Buddhist Vedic literature, indologists arrived at a time frame of
somewhere between 1500 and 1000BC for the Invasion of the Aryans.
Using Biblical chronology as their sheet anchor, nineteenth century
indologists placed the creation of the world at 4000BC 1 and Noah's
flood at 2500BC. They thus postulated that the Aryan Invasion could
not have taken place any time before 1500BC.
Archeologists excavating the sites at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro found
human skeletal remains; this seemed to them to be undeniable evidence
that a large-scale massacre had taken place in these cities by the
invading Aryan hordes. Prof. G. F. Dales (Former head of department of
South-Asian Archaeology and Anthropology, Berkeley University, USA) in
his 'The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daro', states the following
about this evidence:
Mohenjo-daro:
'What of these skeletal remains that have taken on such undeserved
importance? Nine years of extensive excavations at Mohenjo-daro
(1922-31) - a city of three miles in circuit - yielded the total of
some 37 skeletons, or parts thereof, that can be attributed with some
certainty to the period of the Indus civilizations. Some of these were
found in contorted positions and groupings that suggest anything but
orderly burials. Many are either disarticulated or incomplete. They
were all found in the area of the Lower Town - probably the
residential district. Not a single body was found within the area of
the fortified citadel where one could reasonably expect the final
defense of this thriving capital city to have been made…Where are the
burned fortresses, the arrow heads, weapons, pieces of armor, the
smashed chariots and bodies of the invaders and defenders? Despite the
extensive excavations at the largest Harappan sites, there is not a
single bit of evidence that can be brought forth as unconditional
proof of an armed conquest and the destruction on the supposed scale
of the Aryan Invasion.'
Evidence from the Vedas:
It was therefore concluded that light-skinned nomads from Central Asia
who wiped out the indigenous culture and enslaved or butchered the
people, imposing their alien culture upon them had invaded the Indian
subcontinent. They then wrote down their exploits in the form of the
Rg Veda. This hypothesis was apparently based upon references in the
Vedas that point to a conflict between the light-skinned Aryans and
the dark-skinned Dasyus. 2 This theory was strengthened by the
archeological discoveries in the Indus Valley of the charred skeletal
remains that we have mentioned above. Thus the Vedas became nothing
more than a series of poetic tales about the skirmishes between two
barbaric tribes.
However, there are other references in the Rg Veda 3 that point to
India being a land of mixed races. The Rg Veda also states that "We
pray to Indra to give glory by which the Dasyus will become Aryans." 4
Such a statement confirms that to be an Aryan was not a matter of
birth.
An inattentive skimming through the Vedas has resulted in a gross
misinterpretation of social and racial struggles amongst the ancient
Indians. North Aryans were pitted against the Southern Dravidians,
high-castes against low-castes, civilized orthodox Indians against
barbaric heterodox tribals. The hypothesis that of racial hatred
between the Aryans and the dark-skinned Dasyus has no sastric
foundation, yet some 'scholars' have misinterpreted texts to try to
prove that there was racial hatred amongst the Aryans and Dravidians
(such as the Rg Veda story of Indra slaying the demon Vrta 5 ).
Based on literary analysis, many scholars including B.G. Tilak,
Dayananda Saraswati and Aurobindo dismissed any idea of an Aryan
Invasion. For example, if the Aryans were foreign invaders, why is it
that they don't name places outside of India as their religious sites?
Why do the Vedas only glorify holy places within India?
Max Mueller:
What is an 'Aryan'?
The Sanskrit word 'Aryan' refers to one who is righteous and noble. It
is also used in the context of addressing a gentleman (Arya-putra,
Aryakanya etc). 6 Nowhere in the Vedic literature is the word used to
denote race or language. This was a concoction by Max Mueller who, in
1853, introduced the word 'Arya' into the English language as
referring a particular race and language. He did this in order to give
credibility to his Aryan race theory (see Part 2). However in 1888,
when challenged by other eminent scholars and historians, Mueller
could see that his reputation was in jeopardy and made the following
statement, thus refuting his own theory -
"I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither
blood nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an
Aryan language...to me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan
blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who
speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar."
(Max Mueller, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas, 1888, pg 120)
But the dye had already been cast! Political and Nationalist groups in
Germany and France exploited this racial phenomenon to propagate the
supremacy of an assumed Aryan race of white people. Later, Adolf
Hitler used this ideology to the extreme for his political hegemony
and his barbaric crusade to terrorize Jews, Slavs and other racial
minorities, culminating in the holocaust of millions of innocent
people.
According to Mueller's etymological explanation of 'Aryan', the word
is derived from 'ar' (to plough, to cultivate). Therefore Arya means
'a cultivator, or farmer'. This is opposed to the idea that the Aryans
were wandering nomads. V.S. Apte's Sanskrit-English Dictionary relates
the word Arya to the root 'r-' to which the prefix 'a' has been added
in order to give a negating meaning. Therefore the meaning of Arya is
given as 'excellent, best', followed by 'respectable' and as a noun,
'master, lord, worthy, honorable, excellent,' 'upholder of Arya
values, and further: teacher, employer, master, father-in-law,
friend.'
No Nomads:
Kenneth Kennedy of Cornell University has recently proven that there
was no significant influx of people into India during 4500 to 800BC.
Furthermore it is impossible for sites stretching over one thousand
miles to have all become simultaneously abandoned due to the Invasion
of Nomadic Tribes.
There is no solid evidence that the Aryans belonged to a nomadic
tribe. In fact, to suggest that a nomadic horde of barbarians wrote
books of such profound wisdom as the Vedas and Upanisads is nothing
more than an absurdity and defies imagination.
Although in the Rg Veda Indra is described as the 'Destroyer of
Cities,' the same text mentions that the Aryan people themselves were
urban dwellers with hundreds of cities of their own. They are
mentioned as a complex metropolitan society with numerous professions
and as a seafaring race. This begs the question, if the Aryans had
indeed invaded the city of Harrapa, why did they not inhabit it after?
Archeological evidence shows that the city was left deserted after the
'Invasion'.
Colin Renfrew, Prof. of Archeology at Cambridge, writes in his book
Archeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins' -
'It is certainly true that the gods invoked do aid the Aryas by
over-throwing forts, but this does not in itself establish that the
Aryas had no forts themselves. Nor does the fleetness in battle,
provided by horses (who were clearly used primarily for pulling
chariots), in itself suggest that the writers of these hymns were
nomads. Indeed the chariot is not a vehicle especially associated with
nomads'
Horses and Chariots:
The Invasion Theory was linked to references of horses in the Vedas,
assuming that the Aryans brought horses and chariots with them, giving
military superiority that made it possible for them to conquer the
indigenous inhabitants of India. Indologists tried to credit this
theory by claiming that the domestication of the horse took place just
before 1500BC. Their proof for this was that there were no traces of
horses and chariots found in the Indus Valley. The Vedic literature
nowhere mentions riding in battle and the word 'asva' for horse was
often used figuratively for speed. Recent excavations by Dr.S.R. Rao
have discovered both the remains of a horse from both the Late
Harrapan Period and the Early Harrapan Period (dated before the
supposed Invasion by the Aryans), and a clay model of a horse in
Mohenjo-daro. Since Dr. Rao's discoveries other archeologists have
uncovered numerous horse bones of both domesticated and combat types.
New discoveries in the Ukraine also proves that horse riding was
prevalent as early as 4000BC – thus debunking the misconception that
the Aryan nomads came riding into history after 2000BC.
Another important point in this regard is that nomadic tribes do not
use chariots. They are used in areas of flat land such as the Gangetic
plains of Northern India. An Invasion of India from Central Asia would
require crossing mountains and deserts – a chariot would be useless
for such an exercise. Much later, further excavations in the Indus
Valley (and pre-Indus civilizations) revealed horses and evidence of
the wheel on the form of a seal showing a spoked wheel (as used on
chariots).
An Iron Culture:
Similarly, it was claimed that another reason why the Invading Aryans
gained the upper hand was because their weapons were made of iron.
This was based upon the word 'ayas' found in the Vedas, which was
translated as iron. Another reason was that iron was not found in the
Indus Valley region.
However, in other Indo-European languages, ayas refers to bronze,
copper or ore. It is dubious to say that ayas only referred to iron,
especially when the Rg Veda does not mention other metals apart from
gold, which is mentioned more frequently than ayas. Furthermore, the
Yajur and Atharva Vedas refer to different colors of ayas. This seems
to show that he word was a generic term for all types of metal. It is
also mentioned in the Vedas that the dasyus (enemies of the Aryans)
also used ayas to build their cities. Thus there is no hard evidence
to prove that the 'Aryans invaders' were an iron-based culture and
their enemies were not.
Yajna-vedhis:
Throughout the Vedas, there is mention of fire-sacrifices (yajnas) and
the elaborate construction of vedhis (fire altars). Fire-sacrifices
were probably the most important aspect of worshiping the Supreme for
the Aryan people. However, the remains of yajna-vedhis (fire altars)
were uncovered in Harrapa by B.B. Lal of the Archeological Survey of
India, in his excavations at the third millenium site of Kalibangan.
The geometry of these yajna-vedhis is explained in the Vedic texts
such as the Satpatha-brahmana. The University of California at Berkley
has compared this geometry to the early geometry of Ancient Greece and
Mesopotamia and established that the geometry found in the Vedic
scriptures should be dated before 1700BC. Such evidence proves that
the Harrapans were part of the Vedic fold.
Objections in the Realm of Linguistics and Literature:
There are various objections to the conclusions reached by the
indologists concerning linguistics. Firstly they have never given a
plausible excuse to explain how a Nomadic Invasion could have
overwhelmed the original languages in one of the most densely
populated regions of the ancient world.
Secondly, there are more linguistic changes in Vedic Sanskrit than
there are in classical Sanskrit since the time of Panini (aprox.500
BC). So although they have assigned an arbitrary figure of 200 year
periods to each of the four Vedas, each of these periods could have
existed for any number of centuries and the 200 year figure is totally
subjective and probably too short a figure.
Another important point is that none of the Vedic literatures refer to
any Invasion from outside or an original homeland from which the
Aryans came from. They only focus upon the region of the Seven Rivers
(sapta-sindhu). The Puranas refer to migrations of people out of
India, which explains the discoveries of treaties between kings with
Aryan names in the Middle East, and references to Vedic gods in West
Asian texts in the second millenium BC. However, the indologists try
to explain these as traces of the migratory path of the Aryans into
India.
North-South Divide:
Indologists have concluded that the original inhabitants of the Indus
Valley civilization were of Dravidian descent. This poses another
interesting question. If the Aryans had invaded and forced the
Dravidians down to the South, why is there no Aryan/Dravidian divide
in the respective religious literatures and historical traditions?
Prior to the British, the North and South lived in peace and there was
a continuous cultural exchange between the two. Sanskrit was the
common language between the two regions for centuries. Great acaryas
such as Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Nimbarka were all
from South, yet they are all respected in North India. Prior to them,
there were great sages from the South such as Bodhayana and Apastamba.
Agastya Rsi is placed in high regard in South India as it is said that
he brought the Tamil language from Mount Kailasa to the South. 7 Yet
he is from the North! Are we to understand that the South was
uninhabited before the Aryan Invasion? If not, who were the original
inhabitants of South India, who accepted these newcomers from the
North without any struggle or hostility?
Pasupati Siva and Saivism:
The advocates of the Invasion theory argue that the inhabitants of
Indus valley were Saivites (Siva worshippers) and since Saivism is
more prevalent among the South Indians, the inhabitants of the Indus
valley region must have been Dravidians. Siva worship, however, is not
alien to Vedic culture, and is certainly not confined to South India.
The words Siva and Sambhu are not Dravidian in origin as some
indologists would have us believe (derived from the Tamil words 'civa'
- to redden, to become angry, and 'cembu' - copper, the red metal).
Both words have Sanskrit roots – 'si' meaning auspicious, gracious,
benevolent, helpful, kind, and 'sam' meaning being or existing for
happiness or welfare, granting or causing happiness, benevolent,
helpful, kind. These words are used in this sense only, right from
their very first occurrence. 8 Moreover, some of the most important
holy places for Saivites are located in North India: the traditional
holy residence of Lord Siva is Mount Kailasa situated in the far
north. Varanasi is the most revered and auspicious seat of Saivism.
There are verses in the Rg Veda mentioning Siva and Rudra and consider
him to be an important deity. Indra himself is called Siva several
times in Rg Veda (2:20:3, 6:45:17, 8:93:3).
So Siva is not a Dravidian divinity only, and by no means is he a
non-Vedic divinity. Indologists have also presented terra-cotta lumps
found in the fire-alters in Harappa and taken them to be Siva-lingas,
implying that Saivism was prevalent among the Indus valley people. But
these terra-cotta lumps have been proved to be the measures for
weighing commodities by shopkeepers and merchants. Their weights have
been found in perfect integral ratios, in the manner like 1 gm, 2 gms,
5 gms, 10 gms etc. They were not used as the Siva-lingas for worship,
but as the weight measurements.
The Discovery of the Sarasvati River:
Whereas the famous River Ganga is mentioned only once in the Rg Veda,
the River Sarasvati is mentioned at least sixty times. Sarasvati is
now a dry river, but it once flowed all the way from the Himalayas to
the ocean across the desert of Rajasthan. Research by Dr. Wakankar has
verified that the River Sarasvati changed course at least four times
before going completely dry around 1900BC. 9 The latest satellite data
combined with field archaeological studies have shown that the Rg
Vedic Sarasvati had stopped being a perennial river long before 3000
BC.
As Paul-Henri Francfort of CNRS, Paris recently observed –
"...We now know, thanks to the field work of the Indo-French
expedition that when the proto-historic people settled in this area,
no large river had flowed there for a long time."
The proto-historic people he refers to are the early Harappans of 3000
BC. But satellite photos show that a great prehistoric river that was
over 7 kilometers wide did indeed flow through the area at one time.
This was the Sarasvati described in the Rg Veda. Numerous
archaeological sites have also been located along the course of this
great prehistoric river thereby confirming Vedic accounts. The great
Sarasvati that flowed "from the mountain to the sea" is now seen to
belong to a date long anterior to 3000 BC. This means that the Rg Veda
describes the geography of North India long before 3000 BC. All this
shows that the Rg Veda must have been in existence no later than 3500
BC. 10
With so many eulogies composed to the River Sarasvati, we can gather
that it must have been well known to the Aryans, who therefore could
not have been foreign invaders. This also indicates that the Vedas are
much older than Mahabharata, which mentions the Sarasvati as a dying
river.
Discoveries of New Sites:
Since the initial discoveries of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa on the Ravi
and Sindhu rivers in 1922, over 2500 other settlements have been found
stretching from Baluchistan to the Ganga and beyond and down to the
Tapti Valley. This covers almost a million and a half square
kilometers. More than 75% of these sites are concentrated not along
the Sindhu, as was believed 70 years ago, but on the banks of the
dried up river Sarasvati. The drying up of this great river was a
catastrophe, which led to a massive exodus of people in around
2000-1900BC. Some of these people moved southeast, some northwest, and
some to Middle-eastern countries such as Iran and Mesopotamia.
Dynasties and rulers with Indian names appear and disappear all over
west Asia confirming the migration of people from East to West.
With so much evidence against the Aryan Invasion theory, one wonders
as to why this ugly vestige of British imperialism is still taught in
Indian schools today! Such serious misconceptions can only be
reconciled by accepting that the Aryans were the original inhabitants
of the Indus Valley region, and not a horde of marauding foreign
nomads. Such an Invasion never occurred.
_____________
1. In 1654 A.D. Archbishop Usher of Ireland firmly announced that his
study of Scripture had proved that creation took place at 9.00am on
the 23rd October 4004 B.C. So from the end of the seventeenth century,
this chronology was accepted by the Europeans and they came to believe
that Adam was created 4004 years before Christ.
2. Rg Veda (2-20-10) refers to "Indra, the killer of Vritra, who
destroys the Krishna Yoni Dasyus". This is held as evidence that the
"invading Aryans" exterminated the "dark aboriginals"
3. RV.10.1.11, 8.85.3, 2.3.9
4. RV.6.22.10
5. RV. 1.32.10-11
6. In Valmiki's Ramayana, Lord Ramacandra is described as an Arya as
follows - aryah sarva-samas-caivah sadaiva priya-darsana (Arya: one
who cares for the equality of all and is dear to everyone)
7. Tradition has it that Lord Siva requested the sage Agastya to write
the Tamil grammar, which was spoken prior to Sage Agastya's work.
Agastya chose his disciple Tholgapya's grammar for Tamil which was
considered much more simple than the grammar that Agastya had
developed. This laid the foundation for later classical Tamil
literature, and also spawned other Dravadian languages. Agastya Muni
and Tholgapya are considered to be the Tamil counterpart of Panini of
Sanskrit.
8. Monier-Williams Sanskrit to English Dictionary
9. Gods, Sages and Kings by David Frawley
10. Aryan Invasion of india: The Myth and the Truth by N.S. Rajaram
