{"id":6333,"date":"2012-03-13T10:15:00","date_gmt":"2012-03-13T10:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/?p=6333"},"modified":"2012-03-13T10:15:00","modified_gmt":"2012-03-13T10:15:00","slug":"the-myth-of-the-aryan-invasion-theory-by-dr-david-frawley","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.eastrovedica.com\/wordpress\/?p=6333","title":{"rendered":"The Myth of the Aryan Invasion Theory by Dr David Frawley"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
\nThe Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India \n<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
\nBy David Frawley<\/span><\/span><\/i><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
\n \n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n
<\/span><\/div>\n
\nOne of the main ideas used to \ninterpret and generally devalue the ancient history of India is the theory of \nthe Aryan invasion. According to this account, India was invaded and conquered \nby nomadic light-skinned Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100 \nBC, who overthrew an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian \ncivilization from which they took most of what later became Hindu culture. This \nso-called pre-Aryan civilization is said to be evidenced by the large urban \nruins of what has been called the “<\/span>Indus valley culture<\/span><\/i>” (as most \nof its initial sites were on the Indus river). The war between the powers of \nlight and darkness, a prevalent idea in ancient Aryan Vedic scriptures, was thus \ninterpreted to refer to this war between light and dark skinned peoples. The \nAryan invasion theory thus turned the “Vedas”, the original scriptures of \nancient India and the Indo-Aryans, into little more than primitive poems of \nuncivilized plunderers.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThis idea totally foreign to \nthe history of India, whether north or south has become almost an unquestioned \ntruth in the interpretation of ancient history Today, after nearly all the \nreasons for its supposed validity have been refuted, even major Western scholars \nare at last beginning to call it in question.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nIn this article we will \nsummarize the main points that have arisen. This is a complex subject that I \nhave dealt with in depth in my book <\/span>“Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets \nof Ancient Civilization<\/span><\/i>“, for those interested in further examination of \nthe subject.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThe Indus valley culture was \npronounced pre-Aryans for several reasons that were largely part of the cultural \nmilieu of nineteenth century European thinking As scholars following Max Mullar \nhad decided that the Aryans came into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus \nvalley culture was earlier than this, they concluded that it had to be preAryan. \nYet the rationale behind the late date for the Vedic culture given by Muller was \ntotally speculative. Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era, \nbelieved in Biblical chronology. This placed the beginning of the world at 400 \nBC and the flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became \ndifficult to get the Aryans in India before 1500 BC.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nMuller therefore assumed that \nthe five layers of the four ‘Vedas’ & ‘Upanishads’ were each \ncomposed in 200 year periods before the Buddha at 500 BC. However, there are \nmore changes of language in Vedic Sanskrit itself than there are in classical \nSanskrit since Panini, also regarded as a figure of around 500 BC, or a period \nof 2500 years. Hence it is clear that each of these periods could have existed \nfor any number of centuries and that the 200 year figure is totally arbitrary \nand is likely too short a figure.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nIt was assumed by these \nscholars many of whom were also Christian missionaries unsympathetic to the \n‘Vedas’ that the Vedic culture was that of primitive nomads from Central \nAsia. Hence they could not have founded any urban culture like that of the Indus \nvalley. The only basis for this was a rather questionable interpretation of the \n‘Rig Veda’ that they made, ignoring the sophisticated nature of the \nculture presented within it.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nMeanwhile, it was also pointed \nout that in the middle of the second millennium BC, a number of Indo-European \ninvasions apparently occured in the Middle East, wherein Indo-European peoples \nthe Hittites, Mit tani and Kassites conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for some \ncenturies. An Aryan invasion of India would have been another version of this \nsame movement of Indo-European peoples. On top of this, excavators of the Indus \nvalley culture, like Wheeler, thought they found evidence of destruction of the \nculture by an outside invasion confirming this.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThe Vedic culture was thus said \nto be that of primitive nomads who came out of Central Asia with their \nhorse-drawn chariots and iron weapons and overthrew the cities of the more \nadvanced Indus valley culture, with their superior battle tactics. It was \npointed out that no horses, chariots or iron was discovered in Indus valley \nsites.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThis was how the Aryan invasion \ntheory formed and has remained since then. Though little has been discovered \nthat confirms this theory, there has been much hesitancy to question it, much \nless to give it up.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nFurther excavations discovered \nhorses not only in Indus Valley sites but also in pre-Indus sites. The use of \nthe horse has thus been proven for the whole range of ancient Indian history. \nEvidence of the wheel, and an Indus seal showing a spoked wheel as used in \nchariots, has also been found, suggesting the usage of chariots.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nMoreover, the whole idea of \nnomads with chariots has been challenged. Chariots are not the vehicles of \nnomads. Their usage occured only in ancient urban cultures with much flat land, \nof which the river plain of north India was the most suitable. Chariots are \ntotally unsuitable for crossing mountains and deserts, as the so-called Aryan \ninvasion required.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThat the Vedic culture used \niron & must hence date later than the introduction of iron around 1500 BC \nrevolves around the meaning of the Vedic term “ayas”, interpreted as \niron. ‘<\/span><\/b>Ayas<\/span><\/b><\/i>‘ in other Indo- European languages like Latin or German \nusually means copper, bronze or ore generally, not specially iron. There is no \nreason to insist that in such earlier Vedic times, ‘ayas’ meant iron, \nparticularly since other metals are not mentioned in the ‘Rig Veda’ (except gold \nthat is much more commonly referred to than ayas). Moreover, the ‘Atharva \nVeda’ and ‘Yajur Veda’ speak of different colors of ‘ayas'(such as \nred & black), showing that it was a generic term. Hence it is clear that \n‘ayas’ generally meant metal and not specifically iron.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nMoreover, the enemies of the \nVedic people in the ‘Rig Veda’ also use ayas, even for making their cities, as \ndo the Vedic people themselves. Hence there is nothing in Vedic literture to \nshow that either the Vedic culture was an ironbased culture or that there \nenemies were not.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThe ‘Rig Veda’ describes \nits Gods as ‘<\/span><\/b>destroyers of cities<\/span><\/b><\/i>‘. This was used also to regard the \nVedic as a primitive non-urban culture that destroys cities and urban \ncivilization. However, there are also many verses in the ‘Rig Veda’ that speak \nof the Aryans as having having cities of their own and being protected by cities \nupto a hundred in number. Aryan Gods like Indra, Agni, Saraswati and the Adityas \nare praised as being like a city. Many ancient kings, including those of Egypt \nand Mesopotamia, had titles like destroyer or conquerer of cities. This does not \nturn them into nomads. Destruction of cities also happens in modern wars; this \ndoes not make those who do this nomads. Hence the idea of Vedic culture as \ndestroying but not building the cities is based upon ignoring what the Vedas \nactually say about their own cities.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nFurther excavation revealed \nthat the Indus Valley culture was not des- troyed by outside invasion, but \naccording to internal causes and, most likely, floods. Most recently a new set \nof cities has been found in India (like the Dwaraka and Bet Dwaraka sites by \nS.R. Rao and the National Institute of Oceanography in India) which are \nintermidiate between those of the Indus culture and later ancient India as \nvisited by the Greeks. This may eliminate the so-called dark age following the \npresumed Aryan invasion and shows a continuous urban occupation in India back to \nthe beginning of the Indus culture.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThe interpretation of the \nreligion of the Indus Valley culture -made incidentlly by scholars such as \nWheeler who were not religious scholars much less students of Hinduism was that \nits religion was different than the Vedic and more likely the later Shaivite \nreligion. However, further excavations both in Indus Valley site in Gujarat, \nlike Lothal, and those in Rajsthan, like Kalibangan show large number of fire \naltars like those used in the Vedic religion, along with bones of oxen, \npotsherds, shell jewelry and other items used in the rituals described in the \n‘<\/span>Vedic Brahmanas<\/span><\/i>‘. Hence the Indus Valley culture evidences many \nVedic practices that can not be merely coincidental. That some of its practices \nappeared non-Vedic to its excavators may also be attributed to their \nmisunderstanding or lack of knowledge of Vedic and Hindu culture generally, \nwherein Vedism and Shaivism are the same basic tradition.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nWe must remember that ruins do \nnot necessarily have one interpretation. Nor does the ability to discover ruins \nnecessarily gives the ability to interpret them correctly.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThe Vedic people were thought \nto have been a fair-skinned race like the Europeans owing to the Vedic idea of a \nwar between light and darkness, and the Vedic people being presented as children \nof light or children of the sun. Yet this idea of a war between light and \ndarkness exists in most ancient cultures, including the Persian and the \nEgyptian. Why don’t we interpret their scriptures as a war between light and \ndark-skinned people? It is purely a poetic metaphor, not a cultural statement. \nMoreover, no real traces of such a race are found in India.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nAnthropologists have observed \nthat the present population of Gujarat is composed of more or less the same \nethnic groups as are noticed at Lothal in 2000 BC. Similarly, the present \npopulation of the Punjab is said to be ethnically the same as the population of \nHarappa and Rupar 4000 years ago. Linguistically the present day population of \nGujrat and Punjab belongs to the Indo-Aryan language speaking group. The only \ninference that can be drawn from the anthropological and linguistic evidences \nadduced above is that the Harappan population in the Indus Valley and Gujrat in \n2000 BC was composed of two or more groups, the more dominent among them having \nvery close ethnic affinities with the present day Indo-Aryan speaking population \nof India.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nIn other words there is no \nracial evidence of any such Indo-Aryan invasion of India but only of a \ncontinuity of the same group of people who traditionally considered themselves \nto be Aryans.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThere are many points in fact \nthat prove the Vedic nature of the Indus Valley culture. Further excavation has \nshown that the great majority of the sites of the Indus Valley culture were \neast, not west of Indus. In fact, the largest concentration of sites appears in \nan area of Punjab and Rajsthan near the dry banks of ancient Saraswati and \nDrishadvati rivers. The Vedic culture was said to have been founded by the sage \nManu between the banks of Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. The Saraswati is \nlauded as the main river (naditama) in the ‘Rig Veda’ & is the most \nfrequently mentioned in the text. It is said to be a great flood and to be wide, \neven endless in size. Saraswati is said to be “<\/span>pure in course from the \nmountains to the sea<\/span><\/i>“. Hence the Vedic people were well acquainted with \nthis river and regarded it as their immemorial hoemland.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThe Saraswati, as modern land \nstudies now reveal, was indeed one of the largest, if not the largest river in \nIndia. In early ancient and pre-historic times, it once drained the Sutlej, \nYamuna and the Ganges, whose courses were much different than they are today. \nHowever, the Saraswati river went dry at the end of the Indus Valley culture and \nbefore the so-called Aryan invasion or before 1500 BC. In fact this may have \ncaused the ending of the Indus culture. How could the Vedic Aryans know of this \nriver and establish their culture on its banks if it dried up before they \narrived? Indeed the Saraswati as described in the ‘Rig Veda’ appears to more \naccurately show it as it was prior to the Indus Valley culture as in the Indus \nera it was already in decline.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nVedic and late Vedic texts also \ncontain interesting astronomical lore. The Vedic calender was based upon \nastronomical sightings of the equinoxes and solstices. Such texts as \n‘<\/span>Vedanga Jyotish<\/span><\/i>‘ speak of a time when the vernal equinox was in \nthe middle of the Nakshtra Aslesha (or about 23 degrees 20 minutes Cancer). This \ngives a date of 1300 BC. The ‘Yajur Veda’ and ‘Atharva Veda’ speak of the vernal \nequinox in the Krittikas (Pleiades; early Taurus) and the summer solstice \n(ayana) in Magha (early Leo). This gives a date about 2400 BC. Yet earlier eras \nare mentioned but these two have numerous references to substantiate them. They \nprove that the Vedic culture existed at these periods and already had a \nsophisticated system of astronomy. Such references were merely ignored or \npronounced unintelligible by Western scholars because they yielded too early a \ndate for the ‘Vedas’ than what they presumed, not because such references did \nnot exist.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nVedic texts like \n‘<\/span>Shatapatha Brahmana<\/span><\/i>‘ and ‘<\/span>Aitereya Brahmana<\/span><\/i>‘ that \nmention these astronomical references list a group of 11 Vedic Kings, including \na number of figures of the ‘Rig Veda’, said to have conquered the region of \nIndia from ‘sea to sea’. Lands of the Aryans are mentioned in them from Gandhara \n(Afganistan) in the west to Videha (Nepal) in the east, and south to Vidarbha \n(Maharashtra). Hence the Vedic people were in these regions by the Krittika \nequinox or before 2400 BC. These passages were also ignored by Western scholars \nand it was said by them that the ‘Vedas’ had no evidence of large empires in \nIndia in Vedic times. Hence a pattern of ignoring literary evidence or \nmisinterpreting them to suit the Aryan invasion idea became prevalent, even to \nthe point of changing the meaning of Vedic words to suit this theory.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nAccording to this theory, the \nVedic people were nomads in the Punjab, comming down from Central Asia. However, \nthe ‘Rig Veda’ itself has nearly 100 references to ocean (samudra), as well as \ndozens of references to ships, and to rivers flowing in to the sea. Vedic \nancestors like Manu, Turvasha, Yadu and Bhujyu are flood figures, saved from \nacross the sea. The Vedic God of the sea, Varuna, is the father of many Vedic \nseers and seer families like Vasishta, Agastya and the Bhrigu seers. To preserve \nthe Aryan invasion idea it was assumed that the Vedic (and later sanskrit) term \nfor ocean, samudra, originally did not mean the ocean but any large body of \nwater, especially the Indus river in Punjab. Here the clear meaning of a term in \n‘Rig Veda’ and later times verified by rivers like Saraswati mentioned by name \nas flowing into the sea was altered to make the Aryan invasion theory fit. Yet \nif we look at the index to translation of the ‘Rig Veda’ by Griffith for \nexample, who held to this idea that samudra didn’t really mean the ocean, we \nfind over 70 references to ocean or sea. If samudra does noe mean ocean why was \nit traslated as such? It is therefore without basis to locate Vedic kings in \nCentral Asia far from any ocean or from the massive Saraswati river, which form \nthe background of their land and the symbolism of their hymns.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nOne of the latest archeological \nideas is that the Vedic culture is evidenced by Painted Grey Ware pottery in \nnorth India, which apears to date around 1000 BC and comes from the same region \nbetween the Ganges and Yamuna as later Vedic culture is related to. It is \nthought to be an inferior grade of pottery and to be associated with the use of \niron that the ‘Vedas’ are thought to mention. However it is associated with a \npig and rice culture, not the cow and barley culture of the ‘Vedas’. Moreover it \nis now found to be an organic development of indegenous pottery, not an \nintroduction of invaders.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\n <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\nPainted Grey Ware culture \nrepresents an indigenous cultural development and does not reflect any cultural \nintrusion from the West i.e. an Indo-Aryan invasion. Therefore, there is no \narcheological evidence corroborating the fact of an Indo-Aryan \ninvasion.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n