Aryan Civilization a continuity of Indus Valley Civilization

The Aryan invasion theory proposed by max muller discredits India of its cultural, religious and spiritual continuity, it states that around 1500 b.c people of indus valley civilization known as Dravidian were conquered by a tribe known as Aryans who originated from europe (central asia, arctic region, southern russia, hungary and germany). it adds that this aryan tribe from europe brought the vedic knowledge to the indian sub-continent thereby declining india of its indigenous culture. 

But the fact is this theory was devised by europeans to undermine the contribution of indian culture to the world and show its supremacy over the greatest culture of world thereby deliberately coming to wrong conclusions and misinterpreted sanskrit text to support their argument. But the theory has been challenged and conclusive evidence against the aryan invasion theory were found. some of the important points that can be mentioned are 

Similarities between Indus valley civilization and aryan civilization:
  1. Indus valley civilization script though not understood till date has symbols such as 'OM' and 'swastika' which are used extensively in vedas. IVC script is actually pre sanskrit script.
  2. Worshiping of idols, trees, animals, snakes and animal sacrifices to please gods are found to be common in two civilizations.
  3. yoga postures found in vedas and pictures of god in same position found in ruins of IVC are similar.
  4. Love for jewellery, bathing in large pool etc.. are still practiced in india today gives weight age to cultural continuance.
  5. 2500 archaeological sites of IVC have no literature associated with them which implies ivc transferred their knowledge orally, this form of passing knowledge from one generation to another orally was started more than 10,000 years ago in India.



Short comings of Aryan invasion theory:
  1. No aryan homeland outside india was found and also not mentioned in vedas.
  2. 3000B.C was period Rig Veda belonged not 1200 B.C as previously predicted according to latest findings. So, Rig veda the basic literature of aryans could not have been present 1800 years before the aryans invaded india. therefore giving light to the cultural continuance of IVC and erroneous theory of aryan invasion.
  3. Rig veda also talks about saraswati river, drying of river and continuance of civilization southwards towards indi-gangetic plain. 
  4. Satellite image shows ruins of ancient river bed across IVC cities known to be the same saraswati river mentioned in Rig veda which dried up the same time aryans occupied the indo-ganetic plain. This can be taken as conclusive evidence of IVC being migrated to Indo-gangetic plain which later came to be known as aryan civilization. 
  5. Max Muller who proposed 'aryan invasion theory' himself acknowledged that indian literature has unique place in history which contradicts his theory that states indian literature was imported by aryans from their homeland in europe.
  6. Sanskrit is actually mother of all european languages but the opposite is being spread by vested interests.
  7. Indus valley civilization  was the most advanced civilization at that time, it had some of the largest cities in the world at that time and is referred as urban civilization. An advanced civilization being destroyed by a tribe from europe is hard to digest.
  8. there are genetic similarities present between today's indians and  Indus valley civilization people.
  9. Misinterpretation and Knowingly ignoring the similarities between IVC and aryan civilization to establishing european supremacy.




31 comments:

  1. Well written. Check Scientific evidences as well in support of it. http://serveveda.org/?p=171

    ReplyDelete
  2. An article with interesting insights...

    Could have been much better if supported by sources... but then its not meant to be a wikipedia article...

    It suggested not to make extraordinary such as "Sanskrit is actually mother of all european languages but the opposite is being spread by vested interests." when it cannot be supported by some extraordinary evidence... Even a few minutes of browsing through the net will convince anyone that Sanskrit is just among many other ancient languages, the closes of them being Old Persian which finally became Avesta... One can of course argue that this is a propaganda tactic of the Western scholars, but then most of these conclusions are accepted by the Indian scholars as well unless he/she is a Hindu fundamentalist.

    With regard to Point 7 of the Short comings of Aryan invasion theory, Indus Valley Civilisation was never discovered until the 1920s. So the Aryans were considered a superior race of people who conquered those territories and introduced a superior culture to the indigenous people of India. But after its discovery it has been proved and accepted by most scholars, Indian and Western that Aryans were semi-nomadic tribes who started occupying the region by Late Harappan Period. Whether the region was conquered or they peacefully co-existed is a question which still remains. But one can always be sure that the Western scholars are never trying to misinterpret facts and are trying to establish European supremacy. Yes, they were trying to do so about a century ago. No, they are not anymore through the Aryan supremacy theory.

    So I think your article would have been much more relevant had it been written in the late 1920s.

    Niranjan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you yourself are accepting that they were trying to manipulate facts century ago and aryan invasion theory was i think around that period...

      and if both are different civilization then how come there genetics are same ????
      To get more clarity refer to Dr Gyaneshwer Chaubey's research on genetics of IVC and Aryan Civilization.

      Hope you would find my post relevant now :)

      Delete
  3. Go to Wikipedia and see for your self what it says about sanskrit language

    "Most European languages have their roots in Sanskrit. Many English words have Sanskrit origins.It is regarded to be one of the most scientific langauages." - Wikipedia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was not denying your theory of Aryans being indigenous people of India, I was denying your view that Western scholars are trying to use Aryan invasion theory to establish Western supremacy. It is true that they were using it about a century ago, but they are not anymore. Although Aryan invasion theory is still a widely accepted theory, the Western scholars have accepted the fact that if at all it is true, the indigenous civilisation which existed at the time of invasion was much more advanced and civilised compared to the semi-nomadic Aryan tribes.

      I repeat it is difficult to accept such an extraordinary claim about Sanskrit when it cannot be verified by extraordinary evidence. The quoted line with reference to the thesis of Prof. Dean Brown is largely based on spiritual and metaphysical aspects rather than on linguistic aspects. Moreover what he says is that Sanskrit is derived from a Proto Indo European language which seems to be the same language from which other European languages have derived and not that Sanskrit itself is that Proto Indo European language.

      Niranjan

      Delete
    2. "For 10,000 Years people of India have been passing their vedic knowledge verbally" - BBC Documentry

      Delete
    3. If you believe Aryan invasion theory is wrong then how your saying semi-nomadic Aryan tribes exists ????

      And i do believe Sanskrit has its roots from another ancient language but that doesn't mean we have to strip Sanskrit of its influence to other languages

      Delete
    4. All languages around world are inspired by some other language and even IVC Language which is not decoded yet has many sanskrit symbols (which many believe to be pre-sanskrit text)but the point i am making is that the intensity of sanskrit words in european languages.

      Now for example English is derived from some ancient language and americans use english in americanised form but still Uk english is called mother of US english. Maybe after many centuries US enlgish may take its own distinct form but Uk english will always be called mother of US english.

      Delete
    5. I never said Aryan migration theory is wrong. Neither am I saying it is right. I have not stated my opinion on the Aryan invasion theory. All I was trying to say was that according to the modern form of Aryan migration theory, the Aryans were semi-nomadic tribes who started occupying the area in which Indus Valley Civilisation flourished. It has been proven that the Indus Valley Civilisation was a much advanced civilisation as compared to the semi-nomadic tribes, if at all they existed. Hence the Western scholars no longer use the Aryan migratino theory to establish Western supremacy.

      I completely understand your second reply regarding Sanskrit. But I think it is premature to make such extraordinary claims as stated in Point 6 of Short comings of Aryan invasion theory. You can always state something something similar to this reply.

      All I wish to convey is that your article seems opinionated.

      Niranjan

      Delete
    6. He he im not opinionated but just supporting my argument but if you call that opinionated then even your opinionated.

      I reviewed evidence and put them together and made a conclusion.

      you are blindly believing the theory, if you believe Aryans were semi-nomadic tribes who started occupying the area in which Indus Valley Civilization flourished. Then how come both civilization have genetic similarities..???

      i am trying put the truth out and you call me opinionated.

      Delete
  4. Hmm... It seems you got enraged by my comment about your article being opinionated. I assume by doing so I wasn't able to effectively convey what I was trying to say. Hence I think I was wrong in doing so.

    I never said I believe in the Aryan migration theory, which I think was clear when I said "I have not stated my opinion on the Aryan invasion theory" in my previous reply. The term "Aryan semi-nomadic tribes" was used by scholars who proposed the Aryan migration theory. I never said I believe in them. I just said using this theory the Western scholars can no longer try to establish Western supremacy.

    Niranjan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its really funny you once say that it is proved IVC is advanced than Aryan civilization and then in next half of your sentence you doubt the existence of aryan's.

      Delete
    2. im not enraged but excited with the debate thats going on between us :)

      Delete
  5. It is nice to hear that you are not enraged and are finding things funny in my comments.

    I said it is proved that the Indus Valley Civilisation is advanced than the Aryan civlisation, if it all the Aryans were a separate tribe ie if at all they existed. By Aryan civilisation I meant the "semi-nomadic tribes" being referred to by the scholars who support the Aryan migration theory.

    All I was trying establish (right from my first reply) was that Western scholars can no longer use such a theory to establish Western supremacy as you had mentioned in your article (Point 9 of shortcomings of Aryan invasion theory). To establish this fact, I had stated the fundamental idea behind the Aryan migration theory. Later I said the fundamental idea behind this theory can longer serve as a tool to establish Western supremacy.That was all I was trying to establish along with the other part about Sanskrit. Questions such as whether I believe in this theory or not and whether this theory is correct or not are not relevant to the fact I am trying to establish. Such questions seem to be the ones which were bothering you right from your first reply. I hope thats clear enough.

    Niranjan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can you believe it is proved when you your self doubt its existence ????

      Your just guessing but not proving and aryan invasion theory is almost century old theory being still followed where Europeans wanted to establish their supremacy over India when they came to know that we had an advanced civilization (IVC)than theirs.

      Delete
    2. I guess I am back to square one. I will explain to you in detail. There is a theory A, according to which there was a civilisation called B and tribes called C. We know for sure that B existed. Now we don't know for sure whether C existed or not. We don't know for sure whether C were the same as B. But what we do know is that if at all C existed, as per the evidence, B were a much advanced civlisation as compared to the postulated C. If C did not exist and were just the same as B, then well and good. But since B was advanced than the postulated C, (postulated in bold face) we know that even people who believe in theory A cannot say they are related to the people of C and that they are superior to people who inhabited the area of B.

      Now let A be the Aryan migration theory. Let B be the Indus Valley civilisation and C be the Aryan semi-nomadic tribes.

      Niranjan

      Delete
    3. He he its so funny to hear your argument...
      Who taught you history ???
      You doubt the existence aryan civilization ??? its waste for me to proceed further then...

      Anyways what i am trying to say is that both civilization existed and are one and the same.

      Delete
    4. I'm happy you realised that it is a waste of time to proceed.

      I am glad you are entertained by my arguments. I would not blame any of my history teachers for what I write. They were all experts in their field. I assure you that I take complete responsibility for my arguments. If you find any fault in my argument, that is my fault alone.

      On a final note, I clarify that I said I'm not sure about the existence of Aryans as separate tribes (again as separate tribes in bold face) and not Aryan civilisation.itself. If you had read my reply carefully you would have understood that. Yes, Aryan civlisation did exist.

      I understood what you are trying to say. It is just that my arguments and proposals were independant of whether these civlisations were the same or different.

      Niranjan

      Delete
    5. arey yaar im sorry if you felt i was rude :)

      Delete
    6. Thank you for your concern. I did not think you were rude at all.

      Niranjan

      Delete
  6. Hey shashank and niranjan I went through your arguments/discussion and, I really liked the way you both told the facts about these two very important civilization.

    I too, believe that Aryans were the next to Indus valley people and not outsiders.

    ReplyDelete
  7. please find all my six papers

    The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus myths
    I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper shows why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths

    Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers. We hope other scholars take up the exercise of reconstructing the languages of the Indus Valley civilization!

    The older papers were written taking the assumptions of the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct.

    Part one

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One

    Part Two very,very important!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two

    (These comprise the complete and comprehensive solution to the Aryan problem)

    for those who have trouble reading part two in the above link use the link below: part one http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One part two (very important) http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)

    Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)

    Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India

    Before mature phase of Indus valley civilization (before 2600 BC)

    - There are some potters marks but none qualify as full writing

    Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC)

    1. The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper)



    http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final

    2. The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past)



    http://www.scribd.com/doc/111707419/Sujay-Indus-Reintroducing-Lost-Manuscript-Hypothesis

    Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC)

    1. Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-and-origin-of-Brahmi

    Sujay Rao Mandavilli

    ReplyDelete
  8. Appreciation for nice Updates, I found something new and folks can get useful info about BEST ONLINE TRAINING

    ReplyDelete
  9. Whole Aryan theory was a created myth by Eurocentric westerners and have no archaeological basis in fact its a forgotten theory now. Aryan was a word and not a race.. arya means the cultured.. even women used to call their husbands "Arya".. Europeans created this idiotic theory of Invasion and its long gone now. There was never any Aryan-Dravidian division, its all ancient Indian civilization.

    ReplyDelete
  10. in spite of all new research the old Marxist historian are still ranting their separate Aryan,Dravidian theory in history books and misguiding students about their culture..

    ReplyDelete
  11. Set aside this research_vesearch> just think logicvally> In the indus valley civilziation (Mohenjodaro) we sound a Seal of "A DANCING GIRL"> Now< tell me is her facial futures resembles the Aryans? No at all but dravadian features she has> All the head of the priest which the archelogists found at the site also not resembling aryans (North indians but dravadians> HENCE< just accept that the inhabitants of Indus valley civilziation were the dravadians> The aryans were basicall outsiders who came to indus and in a confrontation< the original inhabitants had to move southward and settled across south> But some of the dravaidians stayed back in north india (just like many muslims stayed back in india during partition) and the aryans named them Shudras present day Dalit> One can easily notice the dravadian features among the many dalits of northern india!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Set aside this research, _vesearch> just think logically. In the Indus valley civilization (Mohenjo-Daro) we found a Seal of "A DANCING GIRL". Now, tell me from which angle is her facial futures resembles the Aryans? Not at all ! but she has Dravidian features. All the heads of the priest and man, which the archeologists found at the site also not resembling Aryans (North Indians but Dravidians. HENCE, just accept that the inhabitants of Indus valley civilization were the Dravidians> The Aryans were basically outsiders who came to Indus valley and in a following confrontation, the original inhabitants gradually had to move southward and settled across south.
    But some of the Dravidians stayed back in north India (just like many Muslims stayed back in India during partition) and the Aryans named them Shudras, apresent day Dalit, That is why, one can easily notice the Dravidian features among many dalits of northern India!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Set aside this research, _vesearch> just think logically. In the Indus valley civilization (Mohenjo-Daro) we found a Seal of "A DANCING GIRL". Now, tell me from which angle is her facial futures resembles the Aryans? Not at all ! but she has Dravidian features. All the heads of the priest and man, which the archeologists found at the site also not resembling Aryans (North Indians but Dravidians. HENCE, just accept that the inhabitants of Indus valley civilization were the Dravidians> The Aryans were basically outsiders who came to Indus valley and in a following confrontation, the original inhabitants gradually had to move southward and settled across south.
    But some of the Dravidians stayed back in north India (just like many Muslims stayed back in India during partition) and the Aryans named them Shudras, apresent day Dalit, That is why, one can easily notice the Dravidian features among many dalits of northern India!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Set aside this research_vesearch> just think logicvally> In the indus valley civilziation (Mohenjodaro) we sound a Seal of "A DANCING GIRL"> Now< tell me is her facial futures resembles the Aryans? No at all but dravadian features she has> All the head of the priest which the archelogists found at the site also not resembling aryans (North indians but dravadians> HENCE< just accept that the inhabitants of Indus valley civilziation were the dravadians> The aryans were basicall outsiders who came to indus and in a confrontation< the original inhabitants had to move southward and settled across south> But some of the dravaidians stayed back in north india (just like many muslims stayed back in india during partition) and the aryans named them Shudras present day Dalit> One can easily notice the dravadian features among the many dalits of northern india!!!

    ReplyDelete