The background covered in the previous post was a further exposition of just how spurious and racist the Aryan invasion theory was and it also to put
into context the Indo-Europeans which the racist European scholars did not want to concede were from India. Aryan Invasion theory could also be called
the anything-but-India theory.
As we saw in part 1 there is absolutely no evidence that an Aryan invasion took place or the softer version of the theory - Aryan migration. On the
contrary the archaeological evidence, the indigenous records of India, astronomical evidence, the descriptions in the Vedas all converge to form a
consistent, comprehensive account of Indian history showing unequivocally the Indus valley civilisation to be post-Vedic and there being no schism
between Indo-Aryans and so-called Dravidians. Showing Indian history to be continious and no foreign invasions to have taken place.
All this research has come into light in recent scholarship has actually had an impact on European scholarship. Aryan Invasion theory is no longer
considered credible in the West today, like many racist 19th century theories. However, the West still do not want to let go of it and hang onto it in
some form. Michael Witzel, the founder of “Aryan Migration theory” now contests that the Indo-Aryans actually originated in Persia and co-existed
with the Indo-Iranians. Later, they broke of from the Indo-Iranians and migrated into India and peacefully commingled with the Indus people. This has
become the dominant Western scholarship view and is supported by prestigious institutes like Harvard.
However, just like with the Aryan invasion there, there is once again no evidence this actually happened. It is once again based on speculation, again
using dubious linguistic theories like AIT does. Aryan Migration proponents have been debating with Indigenous Indo-Aryan proponents and not been able
to establish their theories and stand on far weaker ground when it comes to archeological evidence.
The main basis of AIT and AMT is based on the linguistic centre of gravity theory
The theory states that the origin of a language family must
be closer to where most of the family members can be found. In India you can only find one branch: Indo-Aryan and most of the branches are found in
Central Asia which means the homeland is in Central Asia or nearer Europe.This is a bogus theory, because if we used it to trace the origins of where
English originated, we would find the origins of English nowhere near England.
English spread around the world due to the colonial activities of the British‘s maritime empire. In the same way I contend that India’s Sanskrit
language spread due to the colonial activities of India’s maritime empire in 3000BCE and prior.
Sir William Jones was the first to note that Sanskrit was the oldest, most complex and most developed language in the world:
Sir William Jones, speaking to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta (now Kolkata) on February 2, 1786, said:
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more
exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could
possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung
from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists
In order of complexity Vedic Sanskrit is the most complex, the next most complex is classical Sanskrit, the closest sister language Avestan of
Iranian-Aryans is the next most complex. As you move into Central Asia the language begins to increasingly lose complexity.
Normally, language evolves in complexity and not devolves. If you compare Old English to Middle English to Modern English you will see complexity is
evolving not devolving. In the case of Indo-European languages we have the reverse: Oldest(Vedic Sanskrit) and youngest(Greek and Latin) and the
oldest and largest amount of literature we find in the Indo-European group is Sanskrit.
If we compare variants of English today we will find the most perfect form of English is Modern English(RP) spoken by the educated in England. The
English we find spoken in countries outside of England are less-perfect. The largest and oldest amount of English literature is found in England. In
other words we can clearly see that England is the origin of English. Therefore it follows that as Sanskrit being the oldest, most perfect
Indo-European language and has the largest amount of literature that it is the origin of Indo-European. The linguistic stability of Sanskrit suggests
it was developed by a stable culture in one place over thousands of years, completely contradicting the notion that Aryans were nomadic.
In other words there isn’t barely anything going for Aryan Invasion theory or Aryan migration theory. They contradict all the scientific evidence we
have, whether that be linguistic and archaeological evidence, India’s own historical records, textual and astronomical evidence. Nothing at all
supports them . The most obvious evidence against them is the Indians have absolutely no memory of a invasion or migration, so why even propose
Indians came from elsewhere?
And the evidence we do have strongly supports Indigenous Indo-Aryan theories
A review of the evidence
India’s recorded genealogies go back 10,000 years. Every tradition of India records a huge tradition going back very far. India’s highly developed
philosophical and scientific culture did not just materialise out of thin air.
Vedic and Puranic genealogies
The Vedic and Puranic genealogies indicate a great antiquity of Vedic culture. The Puranas themselves state that these lists are incomplete.
In Arrian's Indica, Megasthenes is quoted as stating that the Indians counted from Shiva (Dionysos) to Chandragupta Maurya (Sandracottus) "a hundred
and fifty-three kings over six thousand and forty-three years." The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (4.6.), ca. 8th century BC, mentions 57 links in the
Guru-Parampara ("succession of teachers"). This would mean that this Guru-Parampara would go back about 1400 years, although the accuracy of this
list is disputed. as student-teacher generations do not correspond to normal father-son generations of 20/30 years. The list of kings in
Kalhana's Rajatarangini goes back to the 31st century BC.
Remember Part 2) Revising Indian chronology and dating the Historical Buddha? The Western records are out by 1200 years due to mistaking Chandragupta
Gupta for Chandragupta Mauraya.
The Indus valley civililsation already has most of the features that are ascribed to later or post-Vedic society. In other words it is already Vedic,
in fact post-vedic.
The proposed destroyed cities of the Indus Valley have proved to be a myth, with no real evidence of any destruction by invaders. There is no
evidence of Aryan ethnic types, Aryan horses, Aryan cows or anything Aryan leaving any trail into India in ancient times. There is no Aryan culture in
ancient India apart from the indigenous culture of the region that exhibits fire altars, Brahma bulls, figures in meditation and Yoga postures,
swastikas, chakras, pippal leafs and other symbols quite in harmony with later Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, traditions that called themselves
The Indian texts record precise configurations of consetllations which date back 10,000 years:
The Rig Veda describes the geography of India and rivers that had dried up and become mere canals by 4000BCE and stopped flowing by 2000BCE which we
know for certain through satellite imagery. The Rig Veda describes sea-faring for commercial purposes just as we know the Indus people did.
We have already discussed the first major point of natural history relative to ancient India in the earlier sections of the book. The development
of agriculture and urban civilization in ancient India was based upon the geology of the Sarasvati River, which arose as a mighty river towards the
later period of the last Ice Age over 10,000 years ago, and lost its perennial flow, owing to the later climate changes and the melting of the main
glaciers in the 2200-1500 BCE era. This Vedic-Sarasvati culture, relative to its geology, lasted from around 10,000-2000 BCE, when the Sarasvati was
the dominant river in North India. This perennial great Sarasvati defines the main period of the development of Vedic culture, Vedic kingdoms and the
late Vedic era, when the Sarasvati began to decline. This is roughly the period from the older Rigvedic Hymns to the later four Vedas, Brahmanas and
early Upanishads, though it is likely that the existent texts which we have were not entirely finalized until the end of this period
[edit on 1-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]