Solid Evidence Debunking Aryan Invasion

April 7, 2001

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 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 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,

Mittani 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 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

destroyed 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.