[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Myth of Aryan Invasion of India
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. Accord- ing 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 cul- ture. This so-called
pre-Aryan civilization is said to be evidenced by the large urban ruins of
what has been called the "Indus valley cul- ture" (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 sup- posed 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 cul- ture was earlier than
this, they concluded that it had to be pre- Aryan. 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 San- skrit 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 arbi- trary 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 centu- ries. An Aryan
invasion of India would have been another version of this same movement of
Indo-European peoples. On top of this, excava- tors of the Indus valley
culture, like Wheeler, thought they found evidence of destruction of the
culture by an outside invasion confirm- ing 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
iron- based 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 scho- lars
much less students of Hinduism - was that its religion was dif- ferent 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 coin- cidental. That some of its practices appeared
non-Vedic to its excava- tors 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 interpreta- tion.
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 dark- ness, and
the Vedic people being presented as children of light or children of the
sun. Yet this idea of a war between light and dark- ness 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 Pun- jab and Rajsthan
near the dry banks of ancient Saraswati and Drishad- vati 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 imme- morial 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 substan- tiate 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 con- quered 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 refer- ences 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
wit- hout 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 develop- ment
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 moun- tain 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 Indo- Europeans 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 civili- zation
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 pre- or protohistoric
periods. Instead, it is possible to document archeologi- cally 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 funda- mental restructuring of indigenous
society. The Indo-Aryan invasion as an academic concept in 18th and 19th
century Europe reflected the cul- tural milieu of the period. Linguistic
data were used to validate the concept that in turn was used to interpret
archeological and anthropo- logical 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 Indo- Europeans in
Greece as early as 6000 BC. He also suggests such a pos- sible 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 'com- ming 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 particu- larly
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 mil- lennium BC
has the merit of harmonizing symmetrically with the theory for the origin of
the Indo- European 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 civili- zation.
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 inva- sion 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 prom- inent.
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 centu- ries 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 impli-
cations of the Aryan invasion idea:
* First, it served to divide India into a northern Aryan and southern
Dravidian culture which were made hostile to each other. This kept the
Hindus divided and is still a source of social tension.
* Second, it gave the British an excuse in their conquest of India. They
could claim to be doing only what the Aryan ancestors of the Hindus had
previously done millennia ago.
* Third, it served to make Vedic culture later than and possibly derived
from Middle Eastern cultures. With the proximity and relationship of
the latter with the Bible and Christianity, this kept the Hindu reli-
gion as a sidelight to the development of religion and civilization to
the West.
* Fourth, it allowed the sciences of India to be given a Greek basis, as
any Vedic basis was largely disqualified by the primitive nature of the
Vedic culture.
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 partici- pated 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, Monier- Williams and H. H. Wilson. Would modern Christians accept
an interpre- tation of the Bible or Biblical history done by Hindus aimed at
con- verting 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 misinterpre- tation 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 intellec- tual 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
