This proves the Aryan invasion theory

Were Aryans the ancestors of the Hindus?

I wanted to refer to this post as Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) and Saraswati Valley Civilization (SVC) to differentiate it from Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), but I chose the former because of its popularity. The reasons are described in the article.

Indians have long received misinformation about their own origins and customs. We have received fake information from both foreign and local media, including school books.

Even among various Indians there is a misunderstanding about the word aryan. Aryan, derived from the word Arya (आर्य) in Sanskrit, from which it was later kidnapped by German nationalists because of their ulterior motives, means "noble" and the place where Aryan Āryāvarta (आर्यावर्त) live. It was neither a racial word nor a demonym. It was just a word the Sanskrit-speaking people called themselves in ancient India.

It is believed that fair-skinned, horseback, barbaric Aryan tribes from Central Asia (around Caucus Mountain) invaded the Indus Valley civilization in the late Harappan period, causing the Harappans (Dravidian) to move deeper into the Subcontinent moved. The nomads brought their culture (Vedic culture), their language (Sanskrit) to the subcontinent and to socially separate the indigenous Dravidian caste system and to bring the dark-skinned Dravidian into the lowest Shudra caste.

Let us remember that the idea that the Vedic Aryans came from outside ancient India and came to the region to start the Vedic civilization is an alien idea. There were no historical, textual or archaeological records to support this premise for an Aryan invasion. There is also no record of who the invaders would have been. The fact is, it is a theory that stems from mere linguistic speculation that took place in the nineteenth century, when very little archaeological excavation was carried out in India. Under the patronage of Lord Macaulay, who later laid the foundation for the modern Indian education system, it was Max Müller who developed the AIT. In 1988, after much persuasion, he finally declared:

"I have repeatedly stated that when I say Aryan I mean neither blood nor bones nor skull nor hair; I just mean those who speak the Aryan language ... For me, an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan blood, Aryan Race Aryan eyes and hair are as great a sinner as a linguist speaking of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar

This was the same Max Müller who praised Indian culture, such as

If I were asked under what heaven the human mind has best developed some of its best gifts, thought deeply about life's greatest problems, and found solutions to some of them that themselves deserve the attention of those who have studied Plato and Kant, I should refer to India. 2

However, if we look closely at the AIT premise above, one can see the sagacity in this statement that he praised himself by associating European Caucasians with Aryan. Max Müller's attitude to Hinduism can be judged from other quotations.

The worship of Shiva, Vishnu and other folk deities was the same and in many cases of a more humiliated and wilder character than the worship of Jupiter, Apollo or Minerva. 2


History seems to teach that all of humanity needed gradual training before they could be admitted to the truths of Christianity over time. 2

It is disheartening to see North and South Indians arguing day in and day out. North Indians claim to be the fair skinned North Indians while the South Indians claim to be victims of the foreign Aryans and their caste discrimination. This has taken a toll on Indian politics. Politics in Tamilnadu is strictly anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmin, as DMK has set foot in state politics. Let me try to clear this up once and for all.

I will try to enumerate why the Aryan invasion theory is a myth. Most of the articles have been borrowed (copied) from various sources on the Internet and I will try to include references wherever possible.

  1. The main evidence of this alleged invasion comes from the discovery of Skeletons in the industrial valley towns of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro. However, recent studies have shown that this skeleton was not formed by death during the war with the invading Aryans and that they likely died a natural death due to the drying up of the Saraswati River, which caused widespread famine. This is why IVC should more appropriately be called the Saraswati Valley Civilization. Even the Vedas attach great importance to the Saraswati River, not the Indus. Furthermore, the dating of these skeletons has been questioned (ie if the skeletons did not belong to the late Indus Valley period, their death, even if the war did not imply any "invasion" of any kind), David Feuerstein in his book "In Search of the Cradle of Civilization" argues that there was likely a period of "immigration" of fair-skinned people from the area around southern Turkey (the speculated homeland of the Aryans), but that this immigration occurred before the Ice Age and that the so-called Dravidian and Aryans on the Indian subcontinent since the beginning of the Indus-Saraswati civilization.
  2. Various Dravidian gods found their way into Vedic literature and mainstream Hinduism from the start. Aryans, if they were "invaders", would likely have discarded local Dravidian gods or at least vilified / given them a lower status. Shiva, known by Dravidians as Pashupati, is a "Dravidian" god - but he receives the highest status from the Vedic "Aryans" and he designates Shakti (ie the energy that keeps the universe going). The picture below is a clay table made from Harappa. Krishna, one of the avatars of Vishnu (supposedly an Aryan god), is well documented as being dark-skinned.
  3. There is still no evidence that the Dravidian writings from the as yet indecipherable Industal script. In fact, recent studies have found similarities between the Brahmi script and the Indus Valley script. The Brahmi script was used to write Sanskrit before the Devnagri script emerged. In fact, this would mean that the Indus Valley script was a forerunner of the Brahmi Call Of The Lost Ages: a study of the Indus Valley script, or the Sanskrit Indus script dictionary.
  4. Occam's razor argument . Not using the AIT can fill a great logical gap in the history of Indian civilization. On the one hand there is the great IVC, which is characterized by urban planning and trade at a level that is much more advanced than any other contemporary civilization - but which has left no literary works. On the other hand, there are the Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads - the oldest texts and surviving realizations that point to events that occurred over 7000 years ago - and yet no urban Aryan civilization in India is known back in history. The only logical way to fill this void is to accept that Vedic literature is the product of the Indus Saraswati civilization and that this very civilization was the only common ancestor of all modern Indians. Another point is that it was an oral tradition before the Vedas were written. Oral transmission of this type of philosophy and culture, however, cannot be sustained by a people in constant motion over decades, if not centuries, over many thousands of kilometers, as the AIT proposes. Such a tradition as the Vedic culture could only be preserved by a sedentary people, where the older generation would have the necessary time to pass the communal tradition on to the younger generation.
  5. Newer DNA studies have also shown that North Indian "Aryans" and South Indian "Dravidians" are more genetically similar to contemporary Europeans than North Indian "Aryans". This strengthens the last sentences of Argument 1 as it implies that the waves of Aryan migration to India occurred in the very distant past (very likely before the Indus Valley civilization began) and that these "Aryans" and "Dravidians" are likely in India's subcontinent coexisted for 7,000 years or more. This study also shows that the Indian population in general has been stable for a very long time and that no major injection of Central Asian genes has been made for at least 10,000 years. So when there was migration, settlements took a long time to emerge, before the domestication of the horse, before the Iron or Bronze Age. We're talking about hunters and gatherers, small groups of nomads, etc. The latest dating of the Indus Saraswati civilization is 9,000 years - according to Radio Metric Dating; The genetic evidence is at least 1000+ years older.
  6. literature : The Rigveda. The geographic area of ​​Rig Veda (RigVed) is clearly delineated as Northwest India. There is no room for doubt. It specifically mentions the Saraswati as being between the Yamuna and the Sutlej. That can only be the Ghaggar river bed. Satellite imagery has shown that this used to be a massive river system. The Rig Veda makes no mention of drying Saraswati, which clearly means that it was long before 1900-2600 BC. Must have been written. There is no mention of invasion or migration in the Rig Veda; If there was migration, it was before 3000 BC. Chr. - if at all. There is also no mention of a Central Asian landscape in the RigVed; It is specific in that it mentions the Kabul River in the west and the Ganga in the east. There is an awareness of the Himalayas.
  7. Radiometric dating des Indus-Saraswati puts the real age of this civilization at about 7200 BC. BC back. This was announced by the ASI at an international conference on November 5, 2012. This also suggests that the migration did not take place 3500 years ago or even 9000 years ago.
  8. The R1a1a -Gen mutation has been found in northern India and eastern Europe, southern Siberia, Tajikistan, and northeastern Iran. A 2010 study found that the oldest strain of the R1a1a branch was concentrated in the Gujarat-Sindh-West Rajasthan region of India, suggesting that this was close to the origin of the genetic group. A mutation M458 occurs in Europeans, but not at all in Asians. This M458 mutation is at least 8000 years old and gives credibility to the above observations.
  9. Another civilization at that time was that Avestan civilization that often known as the Mesopotamian civilization. The later formed their own religion, Zoroastrianism, which was obliterated by the caliphate. There are notable similarities in Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, which is a force of good, is an asura in Hinduism, and, analogously, devas in Hinduism were Ahirman forces of evil in the Zoroaster religion. So it confirms the claim that IVC had the proto-concepts of Hinduism and it was not a concept brought up by the invading Aryan hoards.

In my opinion, this nine-point argument against the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) should be enough to clear up any misunderstandings about AIT and IVC . However, the question that remains is why this crazy idea was developed in the first place, even with no proper scientific data to validate it. The only thing that was taken into account was the superficial variations in skin color between southern and northern Indians. What motives did it serve the Europeans?

References -

[1] Max Muller, Biographies of the Words and the Homeland of the Aryas, from London, 1888, p.120.

[2] Max Müller - Wikiquote.

[3] The last nail in his coffin.

[4] Vishal Kale's Response to Indian Politics: The Aryan Invasion Theory: What Are the Arguments of His Supporters and Opponents?

[5] Shatajit Basu's Response to India: What Are Some Alternatives to the Aryan Invasion Theory of Indian History?

[6] Indus Script Dictionary: SM Sullivan: 9781450770613: Books: I had a wonderful chat with the author in the comments on this post.]