Posted by: kanchu! April 22, 2009
THE ORIGIN OF HINDU RELIGION
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        

The Myth of the Aryan Invasion
of India



By David Frawley






One of the main ideas used to interpret and generally devalue the ancient
history of India is the theory of the Aryan invasion. According to this
account, India was invaded and conquered by nomadic light-skinned Indo-European
tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100 BC, who overthrew an earlier and
more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization from which they took
most of what later became Hindu culture. This so-called pre-Aryan civilization
is said to be evidenced by the large urban ruins of what has been called
the "Indus valley culture" (as most of its initial
sites were on the Indus river). The war between the powers of light and
darkness, a prevalent idea in ancient Aryan Vedic scriptures, was thus
interpreted to refer to this war between light and dark skinned peoples.
The Aryan invasion theory thus turned the "Vedas", the
original scriptures of ancient India and the Indo-Aryans, into little more
than primitive poems of uncivilized plunderers.



This idea totally foreign to the history of India, whether north or
south has become almost an unquestioned truth in the interpretation of
ancient history Today, after nearly all the reasons for its supposed validity
have been refuted, even major Western scholars are at last beginning to
call it in question.



In this article we will summarize the main points that have arisen.
This is a complex subject that I have dealt with in depth in my book "Gods,
Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization", for
those interested in further examination of the subject.



The Indus valley culture was pronounced pre-Aryans for several reasons
that were largely part of the cultural milieu of nineteenth century European
thinking As scholars following Max Mullar had decided that the Aryans came
into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus valley culture was earlier than
this, they concluded that it had to be preAryan. Yet the rationale behind
the late date for the Vedic culture given by Muller was totally speculative.
Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era, believed in
Biblical chronology. This placed the beginning of the world at 400 BC and
the flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became difficult
to get the Aryans in India before 1500 BC.



Muller therefore assumed that the five layers of the four 'Vedas'
& 'Upanishads' were each composed in 200 year periods before
the Buddha at 500 BC. However, there are more changes of language in Vedic
Sanskrit itself than there are in classical Sanskrit since Panini, also
regarded as a figure of around 500 BC, or a period of 2500 years. Hence
it is clear that each of these periods could have existed for any number
of centuries and that the 200 year figure is totally arbitrary and is likely
too short a figure.



It was assumed by these scholars many of whom were also Christian missionaries
unsympathetic to the 'Vedas' that the Vedic culture was that of
primitive nomads from Central Asia. Hence they could not have founded any
urban culture like that of the Indus valley. The only basis for this was
a rather questionable interpretation of the 'Rig Veda' that they
made, ignoring the sophisticated nature of the culture presented within
it.



Meanwhile, it was also pointed out that in the middle of the second
millennium BC, a number of Indo-European invasions apparently occured in
the Middle East, wherein Indo-European peoples the Hittites, Mit tani and
Kassites conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for some centuries. An Aryan invasion
of India would have been another version of this same movement of Indo-European
peoples. On top of this, excavators of the Indus valley culture, like Wheeler,
thought they found evidence of destruction of the culture by an outside
invasion confirming this.



The Vedic culture was thus said to be that of primitive nomads who came
out of Central Asia with their horse-drawn chariots and iron weapons and
overthrew the cities of the more advanced Indus valley culture, with their
superior battle tactics. It was pointed out that no horses, chariots or
iron was discovered in Indus valley sites.



This was how the Aryan invasion theory formed and has remained since
then. Though little has been discovered that confirms this theory, there
has been much hesitancy to question it, much less to give it up.



Further excavations discovered horses not only in Indus Valley sites
but also in pre-Indus sites. The use of the horse has thus been proven
for the whole range of ancient Indian history. Evidence of the wheel, and
an Indus seal showing a spoked wheel as used in chariots, has also been
found, suggesting the usage of chariots.



Moreover, the whole idea of nomads with chariots has been challenged.
Chariots are not the vehicles of nomads. Their usage occured only in ancient
urban cultures with much flat land, of which the river plain of north India
was the most suitable. Chariots are totally unsuitable for crossing mountains
and deserts, as the so-called Aryan invasion required.



That the Vedic culture used iron & must hence date later than the
introduction of iron around 1500 BC revolves around the meaning of the
Vedic term "ayas", interpreted as iron. 'Ayas'
in other Indo- European languages like Latin or German usually means copper,
bronze or ore generally, not specially iron. There is no reason to insist
that in such earlier Vedic times, 'ayas' meant iron, particularly since
other metals are not mentioned in the 'Rig Veda' (except gold that is much
more commonly referred to than ayas). Moreover, the 'Atharva Veda'
and 'Yajur Veda' speak of different colors of 'ayas'(such as red
& black), showing that it was a generic term. Hence it is clear that
'ayas' generally meant metal and not specifically iron.



Moreover, the enemies of the Vedic people in the 'Rig Veda' also use
ayas, even for making their cities, as do the Vedic people themselves.
Hence there is nothing in Vedic literture to show that either the Vedic
culture was an ironbased culture or that there enemies were not.



The 'Rig Veda' describes its Gods as 'destroyers of cities'.
This was used also to regard the Vedic as a primitive non-urban culture
that destroys cities and urban civilization. However, there are also many
verses in the 'Rig Veda' that speak of the Aryans as having having cities
of their own and being protected by cities upto a hundred in number. Aryan
Gods like Indra, Agni, Saraswati and the Adityas are praised as being like
a city. Many ancient kings, including those of Egypt and Mesopotamia, had
titles like destroyer or conquerer of cities. This does not turn them into
nomads. Destruction of cities also happens in modern wars; this does not
make those who do this nomads. Hence the idea of Vedic culture as destroying
but not building the cities is based upon ignoring what the Vedas actually
say about their own cities.



Further excavation revealed that the Indus Valley culture was not des-
troyed by outside invasion, but according to internal causes and, most
likely, floods. Most recently a new set of cities has been found in India
(like the Dwaraka and Bet Dwaraka sites by S.R. Rao and the National Institute
of Oceanography in India) which are intermidiate between those of the Indus
culture and later ancient India as visited by the Greeks. This may eliminate
the so-called dark age following the presumed Aryan invasion and shows
a continuous urban occupation in India back to the beginning of the Indus
culture.



The interpretation of the religion of the Indus Valley culture -made
incidentlly by scholars such as Wheeler who were not religious scholars
much less students of Hinduism was that its religion was different than
the Vedic and more likely the later Shaivite religion. However, further
excavations both in Indus Valley site in Gujarat, like Lothal, and those
in Rajsthan, like Kalibangan show large number of fire altars like those
used in the Vedic religion, along with bones of oxen, potsherds, shell
jewelry and other items used in the rituals described in the 'Vedic
Brahmanas'. Hence the Indus Valley culture evidences many Vedic
practices that can not be merely coincidental. That some of its practices
appeared non-Vedic to its excavators may also be attributed to their misunderstanding
or lack of knowledge of Vedic and Hindu culture generally, wherein Vedism
and Shaivism are the same basic tradition.



We must remember that ruins do not necessarily have one interpretation.
Nor does the ability to discover ruins necessarily gives the ability to
interpret them correctly.



The Vedic people were thought to have been a fair-skinned race like
the Europeans owing to the Vedic idea of a war between light and darkness,
and the Vedic people being presented as children of light or children of
the sun. Yet this idea of a war between light and darkness exists in most
ancient cultures, including the Persian and the Egyptian. Why don't we
interpret their scriptures as a war between light and dark-skinned people?
It is purely a poetic metaphor, not a cultural statement. Moreover, no
real traces of such a race are found in India.



Anthropologists have observed that the present population of Gujarat
is composed of more or less the same ethnic groups as are noticed at Lothal
in 2000 BC. Similarly, the present population of the Punjab is said to
be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar 4000 years
ago. Linguistically the present day population of Gujrat and Punjab belongs
to the Indo-Aryan language speaking group. The only inference that can
be drawn from the anthropological and linguistic evidences adduced above
is that the Harappan population in the Indus Valley and Gujrat in 2000
BC was composed of two or more groups, the more dominent among them having
very close ethnic affinities with the present day Indo-Aryan speaking population
of India.



In other words there is no racial evidence of any such Indo-Aryan invasion
of India but only of a continuity of the same group of people who traditionally
considered themselves to be Aryans.



There are many points in fact that prove the Vedic nature of the Indus
Valley culture. Further excavation has shown that the great majority of
the sites of the Indus Valley culture were east, not west of Indus. In
fact, the largest concentration of sites appears in an area of Punjab and
Rajsthan near the dry banks of ancient Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers.
The Vedic culture was said to have been founded by the sage Manu between
the banks of Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. The Saraswati is lauded
as the main river (naditama) in the 'Rig Veda' & is the most frequently
mentioned in the text. It is said to be a great flood and to be wide, even
endless in size. Saraswati is said to be "pure in course from
the mountains to the sea". Hence the Vedic people were well
acquainted with this river and regarded it as their immemorial hoemland.



The Saraswati, as modern land studies now reveal, was indeed one of
the largest, if not the largest river in India. In early ancient and pre-historic
times, it once drained the Sutlej, Yamuna and the Ganges, whose courses
were much different than they are today. However, the Saraswati river went
dry at the end of the Indus Valley culture and before the so-called Aryan
invasion or before 1500 BC. In fact this may have caused the ending of
the Indus culture. How could the Vedic Aryans know of this river and establish
their culture on its banks if it dried up before they arrived? Indeed the
Saraswati as described in the 'Rig Veda' appears to more accurately show
it as it was prior to the Indus Valley culture as in the Indus era it was
already in decline.



Vedic and late Vedic texts also contain interesting astronomical lore.
The Vedic calender was based upon astronomical sightings of the equinoxes
and solstices. Such texts as 'Vedanga Jyotish' speak of a
time when the vernal equinox was in the middle of the Nakshtra Aslesha
(or about 23 degrees 20 minutes Cancer). This gives a date of 1300 BC.
The 'Yajur Veda' and 'Atharva Veda' speak of the vernal equinox in the
Krittikas (Pleiades; early Taurus) and the summer solstice (ayana) in Magha
(early Leo). This gives a date about 2400 BC. Yet earlier eras are mentioned
but these two have numerous references to substantiate them. They prove
that the Vedic culture existed at these periods and already had a sophisticated
system of astronomy. Such references were merely ignored or pronounced
unintelligible by Western scholars because they yielded too early a date
for the 'Vedas' than what they presumed, not because such references did
not exist.



Vedic texts like 'Shatapatha Brahmana' and 'Aitereya
Brahmana' that mention these astronomical references list a group
of 11 Vedic Kings, including a number of figures of the 'Rig Veda', said
to have conquered the region of India from 'sea to sea'. Lands of the Aryans
are mentioned in them from Gandhara (Afganistan) in the west to Videha
(Nepal) in the east, and south to Vidarbha (Maharashtra). Hence the Vedic
people were in these regions by the Krittika equinox or before 2400 BC.
These passages were also ignored by Western scholars and it was said by
them that the 'Vedas' had no evidence of large empires in India in Vedic
times. Hence a pattern of ignoring literary evidence or misinterpreting
them to suit the Aryan invasion idea became prevalent, even to the point
of changing the meaning of Vedic words to suit this theory.



According to this theory, the Vedic people were nomads in the Punjab,
comming down from Central Asia. However, the 'Rig Veda' itself has nearly
100 references to ocean (samudra), as well as dozens of references to ships,
and to rivers flowing in to the sea. Vedic ancestors like Manu, Turvasha,
Yadu and Bhujyu are flood figures, saved from across the sea. The Vedic
God of the sea, Varuna, is the father of many Vedic seers and seer families
like Vasishta, Agastya and the Bhrigu seers. To preserve the Aryan invasion
idea it was assumed that the Vedic (and later sanskrit) term for ocean,
samudra, originally did not mean the ocean but any large body of water,
especially the Indus river in Punjab. Here the clear meaning of a term
in 'Rig Veda' and later times verified by rivers like Saraswati mentioned
by name as flowing into the sea was altered to make the Aryan invasion
theory fit. Yet if we look at the index to translation of the 'Rig Veda'
by Griffith for example, who held to this idea that samudra didn't really
mean the ocean, we find over 70 references to ocean or sea. If samudra
does noe mean ocean why was it traslated as such? It is therefore without
basis to locate Vedic kings in Central Asia far from any ocean or from
the massive Saraswati river, which form the background of their land and
the symbolism of their hymns.



One of the latest archeological ideas is that the Vedic culture is evidenced
by Painted Grey Ware pottery in north India, which apears to date around
1000 BC and comes from the same region between the Ganges and Yamuna as
later Vedic culture is related to. It is thought to be an inferior grade
of pottery and to be associated with the use of iron that the 'Vedas' are
thought to mention. However it is associated with a pig and rice culture,
not the cow and barley culture of the 'Vedas'. Moreover it is now found
to be an organic development of indegenous pottery, not an introduction
of invaders.



Painted Grey Ware culture represents an indigenous cultural development
and does not reflect any cultural intrusion from the West i.e. an Indo-Aryan
invasion. Therefore, there is no archeological evidence corroborating the
fact of an Indo-Aryan invasion.



In addition, the Aryans in the Middle East, most notably the Hittites,
have now been found to have been in that region atleast as early as 2200
BC, wherein they are already mentioned. Hence the idea of an Aryan invasion
into the Middle East has been pushed back some centuries, though the evidence
so far is that the people of the mountain regions of the Middle East were
Indo-Europeans as far as recorded history can prove.



The Aryan Kassites of the ancient Middle East worshipped Vedic Gods
like Surya and the Maruts, as well as one named Himalaya. The Aryan Hittites
and Mittani signed a treaty with the name of the Vedic Gods Indra, Mitra,
Varuna and Nasatyas around 1400 BC. The Hittites have a treatise on chariot
racing written in almost pure Sanskrit. The IndoEuropeans of the ancient
Middle East thus spoke Indo-Aryan, not Indo-Iranian languages and thereby
show a Vedic culture in that region of the world as well.



The Indus Valley culture had a form of writing, as evidenced by numerous
seals found in the ruins. It was also assumed to be non-Vedic and probably
Dravidian, though this was never proved. Now it has been shown that the
majority of the late Indus signs are identical with those of later Hindu
Brahmi and that there is an organic development between the two scripts.
Prevalent models now suggest an Indo-European base for that language.



It was also assumed that the Indus Valley culture derived its civilization
from the Middle East, probably Sumeria, as antecedents for it were not
found in India. Recent French excavations at Mehrgarh have shown that all
the antecedents of the Indus Valley culture can be found within the subcontinent
and going back before 6000 BC.



In short, some Western scholars are beginning to reject the Aryan invasion
or any outside origin for Hindu civilization.



Current archeological data do not support the existence of an Indo Aryan
or European invasion into South Asia at any time in the preor protohistoric
periods. Instead, it is possible to document archeologically a series of
cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural development from prehistoric
to historic periods. The early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion
into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of indigenous society. The
Indo-Aryan invasion as an academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe
reflected the cultural milieu of the period. Linguistic data were used
to validate the concept that in turn was used to interpret archeological
and anthropological data.



In other words, Vedic literature was interpreted on the assumption that
there was an Aryan invasion. Then archeological evidence was interpreted
by the same assumption. And both interpretations were then used to justify
each other. It is nothing but a tautology, an exercise in circular thinking
that only proves that if assuming something is true, it is found to be
true!



Another modern Western scholar, Colin Renfrew, places the IndoEuropeans
in Greece as early as 6000 BC. He also suggests such a possible early date
for their entry into India.



As far as I can see there is nothing in the Hymns of the 'Rig Veda'
which demonstrates that the Vedic-speaking population was intrusive to
the area: this comes rather from a historical assumption of the 'comming
of the Indo-Europeans.



When Wheeler speaks of 'the Aryan invasion of the land of the 7 rivers,
the Punjab', he has no warrenty at all, so far as I can see. If one checks
the dozen references in the 'Rig Veda' to the 7 rivers, there is nothing
in them that to me implies invasion: the land of the 7 rivers is the land
of the 'Rig Veda', the scene of action. Nor is it implied that the inhabitants
of the walled cities (including the Dasyus) were any more aboriginal than
the Aryans themselves.



Despite Wheeler's comments, it is difficult to see what is particularly
non-Aryan about the Indus Valley civilization. Hence Renfrew suggests that
the Indus Valley civilization was in fact Indo-Aryan even prior to the
Indus Valley era:



This hypothesis that early Indo-European languages were spoken in North
India with Pakistan and on the Iranian plateau at the 6th millennium BC
has the merit of harmonizing symmetrically with the theory for the origin
of the IndoEuropean languages in Europe. It also emphasizes the continuity
in the Indus Valley and adjacent areas from the early neolithic through
to the floruit of the Indus Valley civilization.



This is not to say that such scholars appreciate or understand the 'Vedas'
their work leaves much to be desired in this respect but that it is clear
that the whole edifice built around the Aryan invasion is beginning to
tumble on all sides. In addition, it does not mean that the 'Rig Veda'
dates from the Indus Valley era. The Indus Valley culture resembles that
of the 'Yajur Veda' and the reflect the pre-Indus period in India, when
the Saraswati river was more prominent.



The acceptance of such views would create a revolution in our view of
history as shattering as that in science caused by Einstein's theory of
relativity. It would make ancient India perhaps the oldest, largest and
most central of ancient cultures. It would mean that the Vedic literary
record already the largest and oldest of the ancient world even at a 1500
BC date would be the record of teachings some centuries or thousands of
years before that. It would mean that the 'Vedas' are our most authentic
record of the ancient world. It would also tend to validate the Vedic view
that the Indo-Europeans and other Aryan peoples were migrants from India,
not that the Indo-Aryans were invaders into India. Moreover, it would affirm
the Hindu tradition that the Dravidians were early offshoots of the Vedic
people through the seer Agastya, and not unaryan peoples.



In closing, it is important to examine the social and political implications
of the Aryan invasion idea:





This discredited not only the 'Vedas' but the genealogies of the 'Puranas'
and their long list of the kings before the Buddha or Krishna were left
without any historical basis. The 'Mahabharata', instead of a civil
war in which all the main kings of India participated as it is described,
became a local skirmish among petty princes that was later exaggerated
by poets. In short, it discredited the most of the Hindu tradition and
almost all its ancient literature. It turned its scriptures and sages into
fantacies and exaggerations.



This served a social, political and economical purpose of domination,
proving the superiority of Western culture and religion. It made the Hindus
feel that their culture was not the great thing that their sages and ancestors
had said it was. It made Hindus feel ashamed of their culture that its
basis was neither historical nor scientific. It made them feel that the
main line of civilization was developed first in the Middle East and then
in Europe and that the culture of India was peripheral and secondary to
the real development of world culture.



Such a view is not good scholarship or archeology but merely cultural
imperialism. The Western Vedic scholars did in the intellectual spehere
what the British army did in the political realm discredit, divide and
conquer the Hindus. In short, the compelling reasons for the Aryan invasion
theory were neither literary nor archeological but political and religious
that is to say, not scholarship but prejudice. Such prejudice may not have
been intentional but deep-seated political and religious views easily cloud
and blur our thinking.



It is unfortunate that this this approach has not been questioned more,
particularly by Hindus. Even though Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda
saraswati, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Arobindo rejected it, most Hindus today
passively accept it. They allow Western, generally Christian, scholars
to interpret their history for them and quite naturally Hinduism is kept
in a reduced role. Many Hindus still accept, read or even honor the translations
of the 'Vedas' done by such Christian missionary scholars as Max Muller,
Griffith, MonierWilliams and H. H. Wilson. Would modern Christians accept
an interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history done by Hindus aimed
at converting them to Hinduism? Universities in India also use the Western
history books and Western Vedic translations that propound such views that
denigrate their own culture and country.



The modern Western academic world is sensitive to critisms of cultural
and social biases. For scholars to take a stand against this biased interpretation
of the 'Vedas' would indeed cause a reexamination of many of these historical
ideas that can not stand objective scrutiny. But if Hindu scholars are
silent or passively accept the misinterpretation of their own culture,
it will undoubtly continue, but they will have no one to blame but themselves.
It is not an issue to be taken lightly, because how a culture is defined
historically creates the perspective from which it is viewed in the modern
social and intellectual context. Tolerance is not in allowing a false view
of one's own culture and religion to be propagated without question. That
is merely self-betrayal.




References

  1. "Atherva Veda" IX.5.4.
  2. "Rig Veda" II.20.8 & IV.27.1.
  3. "Rig Veda" VII.3.7; VII.15.14; VI.48.8; I.166.8; I.189.2;
    VII.95.1.
  4. S.R. Rao, "Lothal and the Indus Valley Civilization",
    Asia Publishing House, Bombay, India, 1973, p. 37, 140 & 141.
  5. Ibid, p. 158.
  6. "Manu Samhita" II.17-18.
  7. Note "Rig Veda" II.41.16; VI.61.8-13; I.3.12.
  8. "Rig Veda" VII.95.2.
  9. Studies from the post-graduate Research Institute of Deccan College,
    Pune, and the Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI), Jodhapur. Confirmed
    by use of MSS (multi-spectral scanner) and Landsat Satellite photography.
    Note MLBD Newsletter (Delhi, India: Motilal Banarasidass), Nov. 1989. Also
    Sriram Sathe, "Bharatiya Historiography", Itihasa Sankalana
    Samiti, Hyderabad, India, 1989, pp. 11-13.
  10. "Vedanga Jyotisha of Lagadha", Indian National Science
    Academy, Delhi, India, 1985, pp 12-13.
  11. "Aitareya Brahmana", VIII.21-23; "Shatapat
    Brahmana    ", XIII.5.4.
  12. R. Griffith, "The Hymns of the Rig Veda", Motilal
    Banarasidas, Delhi, 1976.
  13. J. Shaffer, "The Indo-Aryan invasions: Cultural Myth and Archeological
    Reality    ", from J. Lukas(Ed), 'The people of South Asia', New York,
    1984, p. 85.
  14. T. Burrow, "The Proto-Indoaryans", Journal of Royal
    Asiatic Society, No. 2, 1973, pp. 123-140.
  15. G. R. Hunter, "The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its
    connection with other scripts    ", Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner &
    Co., London, 1934. J.E. Mitchiner, "Studies in the Indus Valley
    Inscriptions    ", Oxford & IBH, Delhi, India, 1978. Also the
    work of Subhash Kak as in "A Frequency Analysis of the Indus Script",
    Cryptologia, July 1988, Vol XII, No 3; "Indus Writing",
    The Mankind Quarterly, Vol 30, No 1 & 2, Fall/Winter 1989; and "On
    the Decipherment of the Indus Script A Preliminary Study of its connection
    with Brahmi    ", Indian Journal of History of Science, 22(1):51-62
    (1987). Kak may be close to deciphering the Indus Valley script into a
    Sanskrit like or Vedic language.
  16. J.F. Jarrige and R.H. Meadow, "The Antecedents of Civilization
    in the Indus Valley    ", Scientific American, August 1980.
  17. C. Renfrew, "Archeology and Language", Cambridge University
    Press, New York, 1987.
Read Full Discussion Thread for this article