Jump to content

No Aryan Invasion---New and recent genetic proof.


Recommended Posts

Received July 26, 2005; accepted for publication November 3, 2005; electronically published December 16, 2005.Although considerable cultural impact on social hierarchy and language in South Asia is attributable to the arrival of nomadic Central Asian pastoralists, genetic data (mitochondrial and Y chromosomal) have yielded dramatically conflicting inferences on the genetic origins of tribes and castes of South Asia. We sought to resolve this conflict, using high-resolution data on 69 informative Y-chromosome binary markers and 10 microsatellite markers from a large set of geographically, socially, and linguistically representative ethnic groups of South Asia. We found that the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000-15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent single history. Associated microsatellite analyses of the high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate independent recent histories of the Indus Valley and the peninsular Indian region. Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus and with significant genetic input resulting from demic diffusion associated with agriculture. Our results underscore the importance of marker ascertainment for distinguishing phylogenetic terminal branches from basal nodes when attributing ancestral composition and temporality to either indigenous or exogenous sources. Our reappraisal indicates that pre-Holocene and Holocene-era not Indo- Europeanexpansions have shaped the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/11/new-p...chromosome.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The pinko historians like Romila Thappar and etal, who have been taking us for a ride with borrowed intelligence from Max Muller Inc, will they rewrite history?

The Hindu aka frontline which raised a big noise against Hindutva historians Mr.Rajaram when he said about the presence of Vedic horse in Indus valley civilisation accept this and change its view on Indian history?

Will all the politicians like Arjun singh who is busy rewriting the NCERT textbooks accept this fact and rewrite the textbooks again.

People like arjun sing and all the leftists authors who claim to go only by scientific data and who have been ridiculing the Hindutva brigade for rewriting Indian history which phoo pooed the Aryan invasion myth accept the reality and restore the original text as put forth by Mr.Murali manohar joshi?

The acclaimed rationalists like Veeramani who swear by science accept this and stop his villification of Tamil brahmins together with on and off rationalist MK?

I dont think they will do because they are all hypocrites of the first order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paper presented at the Human Empowerment Conference (HEC), Houston, Texas, USA; Sept 16 – 18, 2005:

DNA, GENETICS & POPULATION DYNAMICS: DEBUNKING THE ARYAN INVASION PROPAGANDA

Summary: The so-called Aryan invasion, an idea designed to divide the Hindus of Northern and Southern Bharat, was never supported by any concrete evidence and yet was elevated to the stature of a theory. It has been pushed in secondary school textbooks as a dogma. Science now conclusively rejects any notion of any Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent.

I. Background

Study of changes (mutations, insertions) in chromosomal DNA is very difficult due to its magnitude. In humans, the egg contains 22 chromosomes plus the X sex chromosome, and the sperm has similar 22 plus either the X or the Y sex chromosome. An XX combination in the embryo ensues a female, and an XY a male. There are some 3 billion DNA base pairs in the 46 chromosomes in a human cell. Studying changes as markers in only the Y chromosome can be simpler, but traces only the male ancestry.

Cells contain mitochondria, structures where oxygen is utilized. A mitochondrion has its own DNA, only 16,569 base pairs long, and entirely independent of the chromosomal DNA. Following mutations in the mtDNA is thus significantly easier, but traces only female ancestry as the mitochondria are descendants of the egg, with no contribution from the sperm.

Attempts at linking of populations through insertions of repeat sequences are underway (1), but call for abundant caution because sampling errors, numbers of markers employed, choices of markers, statistical models selected for analysis, etc., influence the results of such studies (2). More importantly, polymorphism (different alleles, or slightly different forms of the same gene) subjected to local positive selection can result in convergent evolution, the reverse also holds true, and these can lead to abnormal conclusions regarding histories of populations (2). Attempts to demonstrate similarities amongst Asian and European gene pools not only suffer from such drawbacks in spite of vigorous statistical analysis, but also can be explained by multiple mechanisms (3).

II. North & South Bharatiyas Share mtDNA, Which Is Distinct From That of Europeans

Extensive sequencing and statistical analysis of a part of mtDNA which has sustained mutations (the mitochondrial hypervariable region I, HVR I), from reasonable sample sizes, has shown that certain sequences dominant in Europe are uncommon in India, and when found, are almost equally divided amongst the North and South Indians. Conversely, there are sequences common to both the North and South Indians which are uncommon in Europe (4). These data have been used to estimate the time of diversion of the peoples of Europe and Asia in the Pleistocenic era (4), emphasizing that these are phylogenically different peoples (5).

III. North & South Bharatiyas Share Tissue Antigens, Distinct From Those of Europeans

All diploid human cells express a set of proteins on their surfaces, HLA-A, B and C, which can be unique to an individual. They are coded for in the major histocompatibility complex of genes (MHC class I) on chromosome 6. These are the proteins which are recognized as non-self by the immune system in transplant rejection, and are variously called transplant antigens, phynotypic markers, cell-surface markers, etc. All of these proteins in all persons have identical structures and functions, yet can be distinguished from others. Not all 6 class I antigens (3 each from paternal and maternal copies of chromosomes 6) may be unique to an individual; some are identical or similar. MHC class II proteins (DP, DQ, DR) are expressed by some immune system cells only, but may be even more polymorphic.

Analysis of the DNA sequences coding for the different forms of these proteins (alleles) demonstrate that while populations which are closely related, geographically or through known migrations, show similarities in their class I and II MHC antigens, the Asians and the Europeans are distinct, separate but equal, people (6).

Conclusion: The stark lack of similarities in the gene pools of the Indian subcontinent and Europe, vividly evident in the mtDNA and the MHC complex, destroys any ' Aryan invasion' notions, and confirms the genetic uniformity of peoples of the Indian subcontinent.

Chandrakant Pansé, Professor of Biotechnology

Credits

I gratefully acknowledge research support from my dharmapatnee Dr. Ujwala Pansé, professor of biochemistry, and our sukanya Kumaree Anjali Pansé.

References

1. Callinana PA, Hedgesa DJ, Salema A-H, Xinga J, Walkera JA, Garbera RK, Watkinsc WS, Bamshad MJ, et al. Comprehensive analysis of Alu-associated diversity on the human sex chromosomes. Gene 317, 103-110 (2003).

2. Bamshad M, Wooding S, Salisbury BA, Stephens JC. Deconstructing the Relationship Between Genetics and Race. Nature Rev. Gen. 5, 598-609 (2004).

3. Watkins WS, Rogers AR, Ostler CT, Wooding S, Bamshad MJ, Brassington AE, Carroll ML, Nguyen SV, Walker JA, Ravi Prasad BV, et al. Genetic Variation Among World Populations: Inferences From 100 Alu Insertion Polymorphisms. Genome Res. 13, 1607-1618 (2003).

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/13/7/1607.

4. Kivisild T, Bamshad MJ, Kaldma K, Metspalu M, Metspalu E, Reidla M, Laos S, Parik J, Watkins WS, Dixon ME, Papiha SS, Mastana SS, Mir MR, Ferak V, Villems R. Deep common ancestry of indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages. Current Biol. 9, 1331-4 (1999).

5. Disotell TR. Human evolution: the southern route to Asia. Curr. Biol. 9, R925-8 (1999).

6. Arnaiz-Villena A, Karin M, Bendikuze N, Gomez-Casado E, Moscoso J, Silvera C, Oguz FS, Diler AS, de Pacho A, Allende L, Guillen J, Laso JM. HLA alleles and haplotypes in the Turkish population: relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other Mediterraneans. Tissue Antigens 57, 308-317 (2001).

(a plea: please do not ever refer to the aryan invasion propaganda as a "theory".)

http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_051219.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetic proof 3:

During the deliberations (December 2005) of Curriculum Commission of California Department of Education of a sixth grade textbook containing references to 'Aryan Invasion/Migraiton/Influx/Trickle-in Theories', "Commissioner Metzenberg, a biologist, objected on scientific grounds. He said, "I've read the DNA research and there was no Aryan migration. I believe the hard evidence of DNA more than I believe historians." http://www.Hinduismtoday.com/hpi/2005/12/4.shtml#1 See a paper presented by Arvind Kumar at the Curriculum Commission hearing: http://jitnasa.india-forum.com/Docs/ProAry...elsupporter.htm

Efforts were also made to present the need for instilling a sense of pride in Hindu children on their Hindu heritage. See /columns/OL_051204.htm Scholarship of Equine Posteriors by Narayanan Komerath, Dec. 4, 2005

Dr. Metzenberg read he read to the committee, from a 1999 paper by Kivisild, et al. (Current Biology, vol 9 pp.1331-1334):

"A commonly held hypothesis, albeit not the only one, suggests a massive Indo-Aryan invasion to India some 4,000 years ago [1]. Recent limited analysis of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Indian populations has been interpreted as supporting this concept [2 and 3]. Here, this interpretation is questioned. We found an extensive deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations.Our estimate for this split is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia [4, 5, 6, 7 and 8] and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe. Only a small fraction of the �Caucasoid-specific� mtDNA lineages found in Indian populations can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture...Thus, we have shown that the overwhelming majority of the so-called western-Eurasian-specific mtDNA lineages in Indian populations, estimated here to be carried by more than a hundred million contemporary Indians, belong in fact to an Indian-specific variety of haplogroup U of a late Pleistocene origin. The latter exhibits a direct common phylogenetic origin with its sister groups found in western Eurasia (Figure 1), but it should not be interpreted in terms of a recent admixture of western Caucasoids with Indians caused by a putative Indo-Aryan invasion 3,000 �4,000 years BP. From the deep time depth of the split between the predominant Indian and European haplogroup U varieties, it could be speculated that haplogroup U arose in neither of the two regions. This split could have already happened in Africa, for example, in Ethiopia, where haplogroup U was recently described [21]."

The full paper of Kivisild et al (1999) is available at http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivi...visild1999a.pdf

Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasianmitochondrial DNA lineages by T. Kivisild*, M.J. Bamshad† , K. Kaldma*, M. Metspalu*, E. Metspalu*,M. Reidla*, S. Laos*, J. Parik*, W.S. Watkins†, M.E. Dixon† , S.S. Papiha‡,S.S. Mastana§, M.R. Mir¶ , V. Ferak¥ and R. Villems* (Current Biology, 199, 9:1331-1334).

See also: Deka, R. Papiha, SS Kluwer, eds., 1999, Genomic Diversity, Academic/Plenum Publishers, Toomas Kivisild et al, The place of the Indian mtDNA variants in the Global Network of Maternal lineages and the peopling of the old world, pp.133-152. http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivi...visild1999b.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr kurkalapooravn

If you need more details about this researches sponsored by American government I am ready to give.

Aryan Invasion theory was propounded by Max Muller at the behest of his British bosses to project English as a superior race compared to the others in Europe and to have come from Iran.

Jokers here adopted it to create a chasm between one ethnic group and the other.

Human gene was fully decoded by 2000 by the GENOME project. Immediately, some scientists published proofs shooting this theiry down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr kurkalapooravn

If you need more details about this researches sponsored by American government I am ready to give.

Aryan Invasion theory was propounded by Max Muller at the behest of his British bosses to project English as a superior race compared to the others in Europe and to have come from Iran.

Jokers here adopted it to create a chasm between one ethnic group and the other.

Human gene was fully decoded by 2000 by the GENOME project. Immediately, some scientists published proofs shooting this theiry down.

அமெரிக்க அரசாங்கத்தின் ஆதரவில் என்னத்தைப் பற்றி ஆய்வு நடக்குது என்று சொல்லவாறீகள்?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

இன்னும் சில ஆராச்சிகள் நடந்து கொண்டு வருகிறது. அதன் முழு செய்திகளையும் நான் விரைவில் பதிவு செய்கிரேன். இந்த மனித மறபனு ஆராய்சியில் அமெரிக்கா மற்ற நாடுகளை விட முண்ணியில் உள்ளது.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

குறிப்பிட்ட சில பிரதேசங்களில் ஒரு இனம் வந்தேறு குடிகளா இல்லையா என்ற விவாவதற்கு அந்த இனம் மற்றைய இனங்களை விட தூய்மையான உயர் இனம் என்ற நிலைப்பாடு ஆராச்சிகள் மூலம் கேள்விக்குறியாக்கப்படுவதற்

Link to comment
Share on other sites

´Õ þÉõ þо¡ý ±ý âÁ¢ ±ýÚ ¦º¡øžüÌ ´ýÚ ÅÃÄ¡Ú §ÅñÎõ,«øÄÐ ¾É¢ ¦Á¡Æ¢ §ÅñÎõ þÐ þÃñÎõ þøÄ¡Áø,þÕ츢ýÈ ÅÃÄ¡ü¨È ¾¢ÕòÐõ ÓÂüº¢§Â¡ «øÄÐ ÅÆì¸õ §À¡ø ¦Åû¨Ç§¾¡Ä÷¸Ç¢ý þðÎ츨¾¸¨Ç§Â¡ ±ÎòÐ즸¡ñÎ «¨Ä ܼ¡Ð. º¢óÐ ºÁ¦ÅÇ¢ º¢ýÉí¸¨Ç ¾¢ÕòÐõ ÓÂüº¢Â¢ø þÃñÎ ¬ñÎìÌ Óý þÃí¸¢ ãį̀¼Àð¼Ð «¾üÌû ¿£í¸û ÁÈó¾¡Öõ ¿¡í¸û ÁÈì¸Å¢ø¨Ä,«Ð ÀÄ¢ì¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÈ×¼ý þô§À¡Ð «¦ÁÃ¢ì¸ ¬Ã¡ö¡ ? õ õ À¡÷ô§À¡õ ¯í¸û ¸¨¾ ±ùÅÇ× ¿¡û ´Î¸¢ÈÐ ±ýÚ............... :evil: :evil: :evil: :twisted: :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

குருக்கால போறவ்ரே, யாரும் எந்த மனிதரும் உயர்ந்தவர் தாழ்ந்தவர் என்ற பேதம் சொல்லும் எந்த சரக்கும் மிதிக்க பட வேண்டு. அதில் எனக்கு மாற்று கருத்கு இல்லை.

இதில் என்ன சொல்ல்வருகிறார்கள் என்றால் இங்கு இந்திய துணை கண்டத்தில் வாழும் அத்துனை மனிதர்களும் ஒரே இடத்தில் இருந்து வத்தவர்கள் என்று மருபு ரீதியாக உறுதி படுத்தி இருக்கிறார்கள். பார்பனர்கள் தங்கள் தவறுகளால் தான் பிரிக்க பட்டுகிறார்கள். அவ்ர்கள் வந்தேறிகள் அல்ல என்பது என் வாதம்.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

தம்பியுடையான் ஆரியர் படியெடுப்பு என்பது முல்லர் என்ற ஒரு வெள்ளதோல் அறிவாளியின் கண்டுபிடுப்பு. அதை ஏற்று கொண்ட தாங்கள் இந்த கருத்தை எதிர்பதன் மர்மம் என்ன? சிந்து சம வெளியில் நடந்த ஆராய்சி பற்றி எனக்கு தெரியாது.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ராஜாதிராஜா..உங்கள் கட்டுரைகளைத் தொடர்ந்து தாருங்கோ..! இப்போ மரபணுவியல் ரீதியான ஆய்வுகளே அதிகம் நம்பகத்தன்மையைத் தந்து வருகின்றன. தமிழர்கள் பற்றியும் இப்படியான ஆய்வுகள் செய்யப்பட வேண்டும்..! கல் தோன்றி மண் தோன்றாக் காலத்து மூத்த குடிகள் பற்றி நிரூபிக்க இப்படியான ஆய்வுகள் நிச்சயம் உதவும். உங்கள் கட்டுரைகள் அதற்கான அடிப்படைகளை வழங்கலாம். :idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

குருக்கால போறவ்ரே, யாரும் எந்த மனிதரும் உயர்ந்தவர் தாழ்ந்தவர் என்ற பேதம் சொல்லும் எந்த சரக்கும் மிதிக்க பட வேண்டு. அதில் எனக்கு மாற்று கருத்கு இல்லை.

இதில் என்ன சொல்ல்வருகிறார்கள் என்றால் இங்கு இந்திய துணை கண்டத்தில் வாழும் அத்துனை மனிதர்களும் ஒரே இடத்தில் இருந்து வத்தவர்கள் என்று மருபு ரீதியாக உறுதி படுத்தி இருக்கிறார்கள். பார்பனர்கள் தங்கள் தவறுகளால் தான் பிரிக்க பட்டுகிறார்கள். அவ்ர்கள் வந்தேறிகள் அல்ல என்பது என் வாதம்.

ம் மிகவும் நகைப்புக்கிடமான கருத்து ,மனிதர்கள் எல்லாம் ஒரு இடத்தில் இருந்து தானே வந்தவர்கள்.ஆதி மனிதன் ஆபிரிக்காவில் உருவாகினான் படிப் படியாக கூர்ப்பிய விதிகளுக்கு அமய மரபணுக்கள் பரிணாமம் அடந்து வித்தியாசமான மனிதர்கள் அந்த அந்த சூழ் நிலைக்கேப்ப மாற்றம் பெற்றனர் இது குடிப் பரம்பலினால் வந்தது.ஆனால் மனிதக் கலங்களில் உள்ள மரபணுக்கள் சிலது சில இடங்களின் சூழ் நிலைக்கமைவாக வீரியம் பெற்றது சில இடங்களில் வீரியம் பெறவில்லை.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ஐயா நாரதரே நானும் அதை தானே சொன்னேன் !! ஆரியர் ,என்று அழைக்கபடும் பிராமணியரும் பூரவகுடி என அழைக்க படும் திராவிடர் என்ற கருத்து தவறு என்று நீருபிக்க பட்டுள்ளது. இது என் வாதம்.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ராஜாதிராஜா..உங்கள் கட்டுரைகளைத் தொடர்ந்து தாருங்கோ..! இப்போ மரபணுவியல் ரீதியான ஆய்வுகளே அதிகம் நம்பகத்தன்மையைத் தந்து வருகின்றன. தமிழர்கள் பற்றியும் இப்படியான ஆய்வுகள் செய்யப்பட வேண்டும்..! கல் தோன்றி மண் தோன்றாக் காலத்து மூத்த குடிகள் பற்றி நிரூபிக்க இப்படியான ஆய்வுகள் நிச்சயம் உதவும். உங்கள் கட்டுரைகள் அதற்கான அடிப்படைகளை வழங்கலாம்

நன்றி குருவி !! நம் சமுதாயம் தேவை இல்லாத பல கருத்துகளை கொண்டு சண்டை போட்டு கொண்டு இருக்கிறோம்.நம் தவறான கருத்துகளை களைந்து முன்னேற்ற பாதையில் செல்ல வேண்டும் என்பது என் ஆசை.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

கலாச்சாரங்கள் மொழிகள் பழக்கவழக்கங்கள் இந்திய ஆரியர் என்று கூறிக்கொள்ளும் பார்பான்கள் வந்தேறுகுடிகள் என்றும் திராவிடர்கள் பூர்விகக்குடிகள் என்று நிரூபிக்கிறது.

கால ஓட்டத்தில் வந்தேறுகுடிகளின் மரபணுக்களும் சிலசந்ததிகளுக்குள் குடியேறிய நிலைக்கு ஏற்றமாதிரி மாற்றங்கொள்வதே இயற்கை. அதைவைத்துக் கொண்டு அவர்களும் அந்தப் பிரதேசத்து பூர்வீகர்கள் என்பது சிறுபிள்ளைத்தனமானது.

குரங்கிற்கும் மனிதருக்கும் இடையில் கூட மரபணுக்களில் குறிப்பிட்ட வீதத்தில் ஒற்றுமை இருக்கு. உலகில் எல்லா மனிதர்களுக்கும் மரபணுக்களில் மேலும் அதிகப்படியாக குறிப்பிட்ட வீதத்தில் ஒற்றுமையிருக்கு. பின்னர் ஒவ்வொரு பிராந்தியங்களிலும் அந்த காலநிலை மற்றும் ஏனைய ஒத்த புறக் காரணிகளால் அந்தப் பிராந்திய மக்களின் மரபணுக்களில் சில விசேட ஒற்றுமை இருக்கும்.

இவை எல்லா மனிதர்களுக்கும் ஆரம்பம் ஒன்று என்றதை நிரூபிக்க உதவுகிறது. மனிதனும் ஒரு விலங்கு, உயிரினங்களின் பரிணாம வழர்ச்சியில் (evolution) மனிதர்களும் ஒரு அங்கம் தான் கடவு(ள்க)ளின் அவதாரங்கள் அல்ல என்று அறிந்து கொள்ள உதவுகிறது. ஒரு இனம் இன்னொரு இனத்தைவிட புனிதமானது என்ற பித்தலாட்டங்களை பெய்யாக உதவுகிறது.

வந்தேறுகுடிகளை பூர்வீகர்கள் என்று இன்னெரு பித்தலாட்டத்தை உருவாக்க அது உதவவில்லை.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ஐயா நாரதரே நானும் அதை தானே சொன்னேன் !! ஆரியர் ,என்று அழைக்கபடும் பிராமணியரும் பூரவகுடி என அழைக்க படும் திராவிடர் என்ற கருத்து தவறு என்று நீருபிக்க பட்டுள்ளது. இது என் வாதம்.

ராஜாதிராஜா நீங்கள் இணைத்த கட்டுரைகளை நான் இன்னும் முழுமயாக வாசிக்கவில்லை அதற்கு எனக்கு இன்னும் நேரம் கிடைக்கவில்லை.ஆனால் எனக்குத்தெரிந்த சில மரபணுரீதியான அடிப்படைகளைக் கூறுகிறேன்.மரபணுவியல் ரீதியான ஆய்வுகள் இப்போது தான் நடை பெறத்து துவங்கி உள்ளன,இவற்றில் எடுக்கப்படும் மாதிரிகள் எவ்வளவு பரந்து பட்டவை என்பதுவும் அஐய்வுக் குள்ளான மரபணுக்கள் அவை மருவிய விதம் மற்றும் குட்டிப் பரம்பல் மற்றைய எதிர்வு கூறல் என்பவற்றில் பல கேள்விகள் இருக்கின்றன.

ஆரியர்,திராவிடர் என்பது மரபணு ரீதியாக வெவ்வேறு பரிணாம நிலக்களுக்குள் இருக்கும் மனிதர் பற்றியது.ஆகவே அவசரமாக அரசியல் காரணங்களுக்காக இந்தக் கட்டுரை இங்கே இணைக்கப் பட்டுள்ளது.ஆகவே விவாதம் இன்னும் முடிந்து விடவில்லை. நேரம் எடுத்து இதற்கு ஆறுதலாகப் பதில் அழிக்கிறேன்.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

அரசியல் காரணங்க்ளுக்காக நான் இதை இங்கு இணைக்க வில்லை. மாறாக இந்து மதத்தை சீரழிக்க ஆங்கிலேயர் கண்டு பிடித்த இந்த கருத்துகளை மாற்றுவதே என் நொக்கம்.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

கலாச்சாரங்கள் மொழிகள் பழக்கவழக்கங்கள் இந்திய ஆரியர் என்று கூறிக்கொள்ளும் பார்பான்கள் வந்தேறுகுடிகள் என்றும் திராவிடர்கள் பூர்விகக்குடிகள் என்று நிரூபிக்கிறது.

கால ஓட்டத்தில் வந்தேறுகுடிகளின் மரபணுக்களும் சிலசந்ததிகளுக்குள் குடியேறிய நிலைக்கு ஏற்றமாதிரி மாற்றங்கொள்வதே இயற்கை. அதைவைத்துக் கொண்டு அவர்களும் அந்தப் பிரதேசத்து பூர்வீகர்கள் என்பது சிறுபிள்ளைத்தனமானது.

குரங்கிற்கும் மனிதருக்கும் இடையில் கூட மரபணுக்களில் குறிப்பிட்ட வீதத்தில் ஒற்றுமை இருக்கு. உலகில் எல்லா மனிதர்களுக்கும் மரபணுக்களில் மேலும் அதிகப்படியாக குறிப்பிட்ட வீதத்தில் ஒற்றுமையிருக்கு. பின்னர் ஒவ்வொரு பிராந்தியங்களிலும் அந்த காலநிலை மற்றும் ஏனைய ஒத்த புறக் காரணிகளால் அந்தப் பிராந்திய மக்களின் மரபணுக்களில் சில விசேட ஒற்றுமை இருக்கும்.

இவை எல்லா மனிதர்களுக்கும் ஆரம்பம் ஒன்று என்றதை நிரூபிக்க உதவுகிறது. மனிதனும் ஒரு விலங்கு, உயிரினங்களின் பரிணாம வழர்ச்சியில் (evolution) மனிதர்களும் ஒரு அங்கம் தான் கடவு(ள்க)ளின் அவதாரங்கள் அல்ல என்று அறிந்து கொள்ள உதவுகிறது. ஒரு இனம் இன்னொரு இனத்தைவிட புனிதமானது என்ற பித்தலாட்டங்களை பெய்யாக உதவுகிறது.

வந்தேறுகுடிகளை பூர்வீகர்கள் என்று இன்னெரு பித்தலாட்டத்தை உருவாக்க அது உதவவில்லை.

இப்படித்தான் நல்லா பூச்சுத்துறீங்கள்..! அங்கு கருத்தில் எடுக்கப்பட்டது சாதாரண கலத்தின் கருவில் உள்ள டி என் ஏ அல்ல. இப்படியான தொல்பியல் பாரம்பரிய ஆய்வுகளின் போது இழைமணி எனும் கலப்புன்னங்கம் கொண்டிருக்கும் டி என் ஏயே கருத்தில் எடுக்கப்படும். அத்தோடு மனித ஆணின் வை குறோமோசோம் டி என் ஏயும் கவனத்தில் கொள்ளப்படும். இவை அதிகம் மாறல் அடைவதில்லை. குறுக்காலபோவாரே எல்லா இடமும் உங்கள் ஜம்பம் பலிக்காது. சும்மா பூச்சுத்திறதை நிறுத்துங்கோ..! கடைசில நவீன விஞ்ஞான செயன்முறைகளையே வாயால வார்த்தைகளால டிஸ்புறூவ் பண்ணிடுவள். இதாலதான் இன்னும் தமிழர்கள் படிச்சவன் எல்லாம் அறிவாளி என்று ஏமாந்து கொண்டிருக்கிறான். உண்மையில் படிச்சவன் மக்களை ஏமாத்தி தன்னை உயர்ந்தவனாகக் காட்டி சமூகத்தை ஏய்திக் கொண்டிருகிறான். இது மேற்குலக சமூகத்தில் வேகாது..! தமிழர்கள் மத்தியில் மட்டும் வேகும்...! அதனால்தான் கொஞ்சம் மாறுபட்ட கருத்துக்களைச் சொன்னதும் அதன் உண்மை யதார்த்தம் பார்க்காது அவன் புரட்சிவாதி புதுமைக் குஞ்சு என்று போற்ற..அவரும் ஏய்க்கும் மட்டும் ஏய்ச்சிட்டு.. போக வேண்டியதுதான். இதனால் சமூகத்தை தொடர்ந்து ஏமாற்றக் கூடிய நிலையில் வைத்துக் கொள்ளலாம்..! நீங்கள் பிழைத்தும் கொள்ளலாம். சமூகத்தை சிந்திக்கவே விடக்கூடாது..சுயமா..! சிந்திச்சிட்டா உங்கள் கருத்துக்களை எங்க வைக்கிறது..உங்களை பெருமையா காட்டுறது எங்க..! :P :idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

இது மறபனு அடிப்படையில் இல்லாத கட்டுரை

the myth of the aryan invasion By Svami B.V. Giri

indus-map.jpg

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:

seal2.jpg

'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.’

head1.jpg

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.

harrapa.jpg

Harappa

Harappa and Mohenjo-daro

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-kunda.jpg

death-mask.jpg

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.’

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/...n-invasion.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.jpg

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.’

seal4.jpg

mohenjo-daro.jpg

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’

ratha.jpg

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).

seal1.jpg

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pasupati.jpg

Pasupati Siva

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.

lingam.jpg

saraswati-map.jpg

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.

indus-river.jpg

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.

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/...n-invasion.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following is the article written by David Frawley in "The India Times" David Frawley, a well-known Vedic scholar, runs the American Institute of Vedic Studies in santa Fe, New Mexico. He is also a famed Ayurveda doctor. Those interested in this subject may refer to his book "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization".

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.

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/anci...an_frawley.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Tell a friend

    Love கருத்துக்களம்? Tell a friend!
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • இலங்கையில் இடம்பெற்ற யுத்த குற்றங்கள் குறித்து விசாரணைகளை மேற்கொள்வதற்கான ஐநாவின் முயற்சிகளிற்கு பைடன் நிர்வாகம் ஆதரவளிக்கவேண்டும் - காங்கிரஸ் உறுப்பினர்கள் வேண்டுகோள் By RAJEEBAN 29 SEP, 2022 | 01:06 PM இலங்கையின் உள்நாட்டு மோதலின் போது யுத்த குற்றங்களில் ஈடுபட்டவர்கள் என குற்றம்சாட்டப்படும் இலங்கையின் முன்னாள் ஜனாதிபதி கோத்தபாய ராஜபக்ச அவரது குடும்பத்தினர்  உட்பட அனைவரையும் விசாரணை செய்து பொறுப்புக்கூறலிற்கு உட்படுத்துவதற்கு மேற்கொள்ளப்படும் முயற்சிகளிற்கு அமெரிக்க இராஜாங்க செயலாளர் அன்டனிபிளிங்கென் ஆதரவளிக்கவேண்டும் என அமெரிக்க காங்கிரஸ் உறுப்பினர்கள் வேண்டுகோள் விடுத்துள்ளனர். அமெரிக்க காங்கிரஸ் உறுப்பினர்கள் ராஜா கிருஸ்ணமூர்த்தி ஹாங்ஜோன்சன் உட்பட 8 காங்கிரஸ் உறுப்பினர்கள் அமெரிக்க இராஜாங்க செயலாளருக்கு அனுப்பிவைத்துள்ள கடிதத்தில் இந்த வேண்டுகோளை முன்வைத்துள்ளனர் குற்றவாளிகளை பொறுப்புக்கூறச்செய்தல் இலங்கையின் உள்நாட்டு யுத்ததின் மனித குலத்திற்கு எதிரான குற்றம் யுத்த குற்றங்கள் ஆகியவற்றிற்காக சர்வதேச நீதி பொறிமுறையை உருவாக்குவது குறித்து அமெரிக்கா தொடர்ந்து ம்  அர்ப்பணிப்புடன் விளங்கவேண்டும் என அவர்கள் வேண்டுகோள் விடுத்துள்ளனர் குறிப்பிட்ட கடிதத்தில் அவர்கள் மேலும் தெரிவித்துள்ளதாவது ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் பொதுச்சபை தனது 77 அமர்விற்காக கூடுகின்ற இந்த தருணத்தில் இலங்கையின் உள்நாட்டு மோதலின் போது யுத்த குற்றங்களில் ஈடுபட்டவர்கள் என குற்றம்சாட்டப்படும் இலங்கையின் முன்னாள் ஜனாதிபதி கோத்தபாய ராஜபக்ச அவரது குடும்பத்தினர்உட்பட அனைவரையும்    விசாரணை செய்து பொறுப்புக்கூறலிற்கு உட்படுத்துவதற்கு மேற்கொள்ளப்படும் முயற்சிகளிற்கு ஆதரவளிக்குமாறும் ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் மனித உரிமை ஆiணாயாளருடன்இணைந்து செயற்படுமாறும் நாங்கள் உங்களை கேட்டுக்கொள்கின்றோம். இலங்கையில் பாரிய மனித உரிமை மீறல்கள் துஸ்பிரயோகங்களிற்கு காரணமானவர்கள் எனகுற்றம்சாட்டப்படுபவர்களை பொறுப்புக்கூறச்செய்வதற்கு தடைகள் உட்பட இராஜதந்திர சாதனங்களை பயன்படுத்தவேண்டும் எனவும் நான் உங்களை கேட்டுக்கொள்கின்றேன். தசாப்தகாலயுத்தத்தின் போது மனித உரிமை மீறல்களால்பாதிக்கப்பட்டவர்களிற்கு நீதி மற்றும் பரிகாரம் ஆகியவற்றை வழங்குவதன் மூலம் மாத்திரம் இலங்கை தற்போதைய பொருளாதார அரசியல் நெருக்கடிக்கு முழுமையான தீர்வை காணமுடியும். 2009 இல் முடிவடைந்த இலங்கை அரசாங்கத்திற்கும் தமிழ் புலிகளிற்கும் எதிரான 27 வருட கால  போரில்ஒரு இலட்சத்திற்கும் அதிகமானவர்கள் கொல்லப்பட்;டனர் காணாமல்போயினர் என்பதை நீங்கள் அறிவீர்கள். 13 வருடங்களிற்கு பின்னர் இலங்கையின் உள்நாட்டு யுத்தத்தில் இழைக்கப்பட்ட மனித உரிமை மீறல்களால் பாதிக்கப்பட்டவர்கள் இன்னமும் நீதிக்காக காத்திருக்கின்றனர் என  சமீபத்தைய செப்டம்பர் 22 - ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் மனித உரிமை ஆணையாளரின் அறிக்கை தெரிவிக்கின்றது. 2020 ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் மனித உரிமை ஆணையாளர் சுட்டிக்காட்டியது போல கடந்த கால குற்றங்களிற்கு தண்டனையின் பிடியிலிருந்து விலக்களிப்பதற்கு இலங்கை இன்னமும் தீர்வை காணவில்லை என்றஅடிப்படை பிரச்சினை இன்னமும் நீடிக்கின்றது இதன் காரணமாக பாதிக்கப்பட்டவர்கள் தொடர்ந்தும் நீதி மறுக்கப்பட்ட நிலையில் உள்ளனர்இஅனைத்து சமூகத்தினரும் கடந்த கால மனித உரிமை மீறல்கள்  மீண்டும் இடம்பெறாது என்ற உறுதியற்று காணப்படுகின்றனர் என குறிப்பிட்டிருந்தார். இலங்கையின் கடந்த கால யுத்த குற்றங்களிற்கு பொறுப்புக்கூறலிற்கான வேண்டுகோளை விடுப்பதில் அமெரிக்கா முக்கியமான நாடாக காணப்படுகின்றதுஇ2015 இல் இலங்கை  இணை அனுசரணை வழங்கிய தீர்மானமொன்றை மனித உரிமை பேரவை நிறைவேற்றுவதற்கான முயற்சிகளில் அமெரிக்கா முன்னிலையில் காணப்பட்டது. 2021 இல் யுத்த குற்ற ஆதாரங்களை சேகரிப்பது நீதியை கண்டறிவது குறித்து ஆலோசனை வழங்குவது ஆகியவற்றை கோரிய தீர்மானத்தை ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் மனித உரிமை பேரவை ஏற்றுக்கொள்வதில் அமெரிக்கா முக்கிய பங்களிப்பை வழங்கியது. எனினும் 2019 இல் ஜனாதிபதியாக பதவியேற்ற பின்னர் இலங்கையின் உறுதிமொழிகளில் இருந்து ஜனாதிபதி கோட்டாபய ராஜபக்ச பின்வாங்கினார். அவர் பதவியிலிருந்து விலகிய பின்னர் இலங்கை அரசாங்கம் உறுதியான நிலைமாற்று நீதி செயற்பாட்டை முன்வைக்கவில்லை. குற்றவாளிகளை பொறுப்புக்கூறச்செய்தல் இலங்கையின் உள்நாட்டு யுத்ததின் மனித குலத்திற்கு எதிரான குற்றம் யுத்த குற்றங்கள் ஆகியவற்றிற்காக சர்வதேச நீதி பொறிமுறையை உருவாக்குவது குறித்து அமெரிக்கா அர்ப்பணிப்புடன் விளங்கவேண்டும். இலங்கையின் மூன்று அதிகாரிகளிற்கு எதிராக தடைகளை விதித்தமைக்காக நான் உங்களை பாராட்டுகின்றேன்.என கடிதத்தில் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. இலங்கையில் இடம்பெற்ற யுத்த குற்றங்கள் குறித்து விசாரணைகளை மேற்கொள்வதற்கான ஐநாவின் முயற்சிகளிற்கு பைடன் நிர்வாகம் ஆதரவளிக்கவேண்டும் - காங்கிரஸ் உறுப்பினர்கள் வேண்டுகோள் | Virakesari.lk
    • இளவயதுச் சீரழிவுகளைக் கட்டுப்டுத்தும் நோக்காக இருக்கலாம்.
    • அதற்கு முன்பாக சனாதிபதிமீது நம்பிக்கையில்லாப் பிரேரணையைக் கொண்டுவந்தால் இவர் சனாதிபதியே இல்லையென்றாகிவிடும். எல்லா அரசியற் கள்வர்களும் ஒத்து ஓடுகிறார்கள். ஒருவேளை கலைத்துத் தேர்தலை வைத்தாலும் எந்தவொரு முன்னணி அரசியற்கட்சிகளாலும் அறுதிப் பெரும்பான்மையைப் பெறக்கூடிய வாய்ப்பில்லை. தேர்தலில் தொங்கு நாடாளுமன்றமே சாத்தியம் அல்லது குட்டிக்கட்சிகளின் கூட்டணியாட்சியும் சாத்தியமாகலாம். எது அமைந்தாலும் தற்போதைய நிலையைவிட இன்னும் குழப்பம் நிறைந்ததாகவே இருக்கும். ஒரு தேர்தலைச் சந்திக்கும் மனோநிலை மக்களுக்கு இருக்கிறதா? போராட்டக்களம் சுழியமாகி உறைநிலைக்குச் சென்றுவிட்டது. போராட்டத் தலைமைகளை சிறையில் அடைத்தாயிற்று. அச்சுறுத்தும் செயற்பாடுகளை அரசு தொடர்கிறது. மக்கள் சலப்படைந்தநிலை என பெரியதொரு ஆர்வமான தேர்தலாக இருக்காதென்றே நம்புகின்றேன்.  தமிழரது நிலை சிங்களத் தரப்பைவிட மிகவும் மோசமானதாக அமையலாம். அதனையே சிங்கள-இந்திய சக்திகள் செயற்படுத்தி வருகின்றன. அதற்கு நல்லதொரு எடுத்துக்காட்டாக "தியாக தீபம் திலீபனின் நினைவு நாள்' எப்படிக் குழப்பியடிக்கப்பட்டது என்று எல்லோரும் அறிந்ததே. இவற்றை ஆய்வுக்குட்படுத்தி தமிழ் மக்களும், அறிவார்ந்த தரப்புகள், பல்கலைக் கழக குமுகம் என்பன இப்போதே அணைத்துத் தமிழ் அரசியல் கட்சிகளையும் ஒரு மேசைக்கு கொண்டுவரும் செயற்பாடுகளை முன்னெடுக்க வேண்டும். அப்படி உடன்படாதவிடத்து புதிய இளையதலைமுறை துணிவோடு களமிறங்கி தலைமைதாங்கும் நிலையை ஏற்படுத்த வேண்டும். தேர்தலூடாக அமையும் பலமற்ற நாடாளுமன்றோடு, சாதுரியமாக அரசியல் செய்வதற்குத் தமிழரிடையே பெரும்பான்மைப் பலத்துடனான அரசியல் தலைமையின் அவசியத்தைத் தமிழர்கள் இலக்கு வைப்பதும், அதனைச் சாத்தியமாக்கவுமான கருத்தியலை வளர்த்தெடுத்தலும் இன்றைய சூழலாகவுள்ளதை நாம் மறுத்துவிடமுடியாதென நம்புகின்றேன். கடன்வேண்டும் பொருண்மியமுறைமையிலான எந்தவொரு அரசும் தொடர் இனவாத பிடிமானத்தில் நின்றுபிடிக்கப் போவதில்லை. கனிந்துவரவுள்ள அகப்-புறச் சூழலைத் தமிழினம் அறிவார்ந்த நோக்கில் சிந்திந்து முடிவெடுத்தால் தமிழரது அரசியல் இலக்கை கணிசமாக நகர்த்த முடியும்.   நன்றி  
    • ரஷ்யா வெற்றி! ஆதவா.....மொழியைக் கொலை செய்து, தற்போது கருத்தையே கொலை செய்கிறார்கள்.. 🤦🏼‍♂️
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.