|
sadhya deshat AIT verses anti AIT debate gajat aahe!!
indus valley ppl khare kon?? arya ki dravid ki donhi!! vedanchi rachana nakki kadhi jhali before 3500BC ki aftyer 1500BC...
i hope u will post ur info here
\
|
namaskar mandali,
ha vishay baghun mala kahi mhanave se vatle.
aaj AIT la kahi aadhaar nahi aahe. parantu, AMT mhanje Aryan Migration Theory la bharpur pashchatya archeologists cha pathimba aahe.
parantu aadhi eka goshti cha khulasa kelach pahije. arya kon aani dravid kon? aaplyaatlya kahi mandali ne gaud saraswat brahmnanbaddal aiklech asel.
gaud va dravid mhanjech uttar-dakshin ashi vibhajane aahet. arya hi bhaugolik padwi nasun samajik padwi aahe, parantu, dravid hi bhaugolik padwi aahe.
yachach artha asa ki, uttar bharatat rahanyarya lokana gaud va dakshin bharatat rahanyarya lokana dravid ase mhanat.
mag he arya kon? arya mhanje vedik prathan che acharan karanare. aryan madhye chatur vibhajane hoti,
brahman, rajanya, vaishya va shudra. hi sagli mandali arya ashi manli jaat.
kahi lok vedik pratha palat nasat, tyana pariah ase nemnyat aale. chandala, pisacha, rakshas, dashyu, pani, hee sagli mandali mhanje jyani vedik practices follow kelya nahit ashi.
ata prashna asa udbhavato. ki mag tvacha varnat uttar bharatat va dakshin bharatat antar ka?
va vedan madhye, dashyu yana krushna varna ase kaa mhatle gele aahe?
|
ShaileshKM : dhaav, dhaav ! tujhi hya charche madhye sakt garaj aahe bagh :)
|
ManDaLi,
hya vishayavar bharpur vaachan kele asale tari views ghyayala harkat naahi. i have an article with me, which i would like to copy below for your information. i actually have several articles defeating the AIT. I have copied one of them for your reference.
khoop sahi article aahe. mala David Frawley chy views patataat.
kalave,
-ashutosh
/b The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India
By David Frawley /b
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 occurred 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 occurred 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 literature 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 cities of their own and being protected by cities up to 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 conqueror 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 nomad. 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 intermediate 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 incidentally 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 give 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 Gujarat 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 Gujarat in 2000 BC was composed of two or more groups, the more dominant 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 continuity of the same group of people who traditionally considered themselves to be Aryans.
There are many points in fact that proves 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 Rajasthan 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 homeland.
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.
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 conquered 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, coming down from Central Asia. However, the 'Rig Veda' itself has nearly 100 references to ocean (samudra), as well as dozens of references 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 not mean ocean why was it translated as such? It is therefore without 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 appears 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 indigenous pottery, not an introduction of invaders.
Painted Grey Ware culture represents an indigenous cultural development 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 at least 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 mountain 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 IndoEuropeans 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 civilization 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 archeologically 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 fundamental restructuring of indigenous society. The Indo-Aryan invasion as an academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe reflected the cultural milieu of the period. Linguistic data were used to validate the concept that in turn was used to interpret archeological and anthropological 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 IndoEuropeans in Greece as early as 6000 BC. He also suggests such a possible 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 'coming of the Indo-Europeans.
When Wheeler speaks of 'the Aryan invasion of the land of the 7 rivers, the Punjab', he has no warranty 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 particularly 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 millennium BC has the merit of harmonizing symmetrically with the theory for the origin of the IndoEuropean 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 civilization.
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 invasion 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 they reflect the pre-Indus period in India, when the Saraswati river was more prominent.
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 centuries 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 implications 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 religion 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 participated 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 fantasies 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 sphere 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 approach has not been questioned more, particularly by Hindus. Even though Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda saraswati, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Aurobindo 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 interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history done by Hindus aimed at converting 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 criticisms 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 misinterpretation of their own culture, it will undoubtedly 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 intellectual 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.
|
mitraa....
malaa kaahee AIT varatee thesis nahi karaayachaa aahe. anyway, parantu attaa sadhyaa manleli theory mhaNaje AMT, Aryan Migration Theory.
Yaachi kaaraNe. Harappa madhye ghoDyanche seals saapaDat naahit, parantu Rgvedaat ashva haa shabda go[cow] yaa shabdaa pekshaa adhik vaaparNyaat yeto.
Tarihi, aaple vichaar maanDlyaa baddal dhanyavaad.
|
Aryan invasion theory (or the Aryan migration theory)represents one of the great intellectual blunders in the history of
scholarship. This was supplemented and sustained by shoddy scholarship as evidenced by Witzel's own blunders in Sanskrit grammar and his confusion in the horse debate. A major theory cannot be built on negative
evidence. It is time to give up this theory and this methodology and rebuild history on a solid foundation of positive evidence and multidisciplinary
research.
tevha... onkar.. arre AMT kay aani AIT kay sagala ekach re... shevati history chi vaatach laavali aahe na?? glass- half full kay aani half empty kay ... sagala barobarach aahe na?? tasach aahe he.
anyways...
David Frawley chi pustaka' vaach milali tar. Also, Dr. Dinesh AGrawal hyancha thesis vaachlaas tar khoop insights miltil.
aso. baakichi mandali zhopali ka??
- ashutosh
|
mandaLi,
mala asa vatatay ki ha debate farach lopsided ani half-baked knowledge var hotoy. I do not mean to insult any of you by saying this, so plz don't misunderstand. pan he sagalach thodasa 'hatti ani sat andhaLe' ya goshtisarakha hotay, because not everyone is aware of the basic issues. As I belong the same field, I would like to state where this issue stands academically and what are the available facts.
Ashutosh: khalil majkurat personal teekecha uddesh ajibat nahi.
1. This issue, since its inception, has always been a politicized one. Britishers did use it for their own gains and the national historians did refute it to counter them and their efforts to demean our history. But this does not mean that all the Britishers were like that or all our national historians were always right. Its more than 50 years that we have our independence and we have developed our disciplines of archaeology and history quite well. We no longer walk on the earlier paths blindly, we have very capable scholars, someime even better than the western world. So we all need to come out of our colonial paranoia, isn't it? What is happening now is that in the wake of neo-hindu consciousness, the old issue is again been used as a political weapon. Nothing new!
2.Basically, AIT (migration is NOT invasion. they are two drastically DIFFERENT things) itself is no more an issue in the serious scholarship of Indian history now. So there is no need to flag the dead horse. This is because the fact that 'invasion' (mhanaje yuddha, vinash, ityadi) did not take place has been accepted by all the sensible archaeologists. There are no archaeological evidence of invasion anywhere in the Harappan civilization. Mortimer Wheeler, who excavated Mohenjodaro and at one point of time thought that the bunch of human skeletons in there indicated massacre by Aryans, did say then that for this 'Indra stands convict'. But the later evidence indicated that these bodies belonged to different periods and, therefore, accepted his error publicly and reverted his own stand. Harappan civilization came to end due to interplay of various adverse factors, except that of someone's invasion. The actual problem now is that what are the antecedents of the Aryans who appear on the Indian scene rather suddenly in around 1500 BC. It has been acknowledged by the archaeologists that their discipline cannot solve this riddle about the Aryan origin alone. This is because according to the linguists, the term Arya in the vedas denotes a person who speaks the aryan language and NOT any physical attributes. So it is almost impossible to trace them archaeologically. Only historical linguistics can help us here. And knowing Sanskrit doesn't necessarily mean understanding the historical linguistics. Linguistics is an altogether diiferent scientific discipline.
3.What has happened in the ancient Indian history is that we have two different strands of evidence: literature and archaeology. Archaeology tells us that the first urbanization, of the Harappan civilization, was succeded by deurbanization and emergence of settled village cultures all over the subcontinent, which later evolved in towns and cities and finally into the Mauryan empire (3rd cent BC). All this took almost 1200 years and the evidence for this 'in between' phase is quite well documented.
What the literature, i.e. Vedas, indicates is that the Vedas are a product of an oral tradition, compiled (not created) somewhere around 1500 BC to 700 BC (from Rgveda to Brahmanas, upanishadas, etc). It is very difficult to decide the creation period for each verse as they come from oral tradition. Whatever people might like to believe, we can not stretch the dates of compilation of Rgveda before 1500 BC, let alone that of Yajurveda.
Unfortunately, these two strands of evidence cannot always be correlated due to the lack of exactly parallel corroborating evidence.
What we can very clearly see in Rgveda (assuming that you have read it with an open mind) is a very vibrant agro-pastoral society with newly emerging social stratification (three varnas: vish, rajanya and brahmaNa). The social structure seems to be getting more complex and evolved in the later Vedic literature.
4.The Rgvedic aryans do not have memory of migrating here from some other place, true, but this need not be the only criterian to decide their homeland. The fact remains that the existence of proto-IndoAryan/IndoEuropean languages is noted from Iran to Turkey, of Hittites, Kassites and Mittanis. It is not as simple to say that all migrated from India only, because linguistic evidence shows movement of these languages from other way and we cannot totally disregard this by saying that it is false and prejudiced. What generally happens about such pastoral nomads is they might not have our (quite modern) notions of national, here Indian, boundaries. Poor souls! The process of community diffusion and seeking and settling for new pastures (migration) is quite common for them. We do not as yet know where the original stock of these communities might have come from. People would like to associate the grand harappan civilization or the preceding pre-harappan cultures with the Rgvedic Aryans but sadly we do not have any concrete evidence. Harappans did neither know iron nor horse, whatever 'David Frawley, Dinesh Agrawal and Associates' may say! The supposed horse bones from the Harappan sites are that of wild ass (scientific name is: Equus hemionus) found in Kutch which is morphologically very close to horse (Equus caballus). Horse comes to India somewhere around 1200 BC. First in the northwestern India, the Gandhara region, and then to the subcintinent. Horse was first domesticated in the central asia, from where it spread everywhere else in the world as the archaeozoological evidence shows.
The worship of fire is not the monopoly of any religious system in the world. All the premodern or primitive societies worldover worship natural elements. And yeah, although cattle bones are found everywhere in the Harappan sites and later on, DO NOTE THAT THIS IS BECAUSE BEEF CONSISTED THE MAJOR PART OF THEIR DIET. (am afraid this makes rather a jarring note in the "hindu" version of history. These bones carry cut & burn marks, indicating that meat was roasted/bolied, bones cut and spliced for marrow, before eating.) Interested people might read Witzel and Farmer's article about the debated/fraudulent horse seals in the previous issues of "Frontline". And yes, whatever Frawley and his group may say, Witzel's knowledge of sanskrit grammar is not to be doubted. He knows what he is talking about.
Moreover, Harappan script has not been deciphered becoz we do not know the language they were using, let alone the phonetic value of each symbol. Whatever claims one might make, common sense can enable us to see that we cannot decipher it unless we have some bilingual and biscriptual writing. (for more, see Witzel and Farmer..). So, there is not even a wildest connection between the Brahmi script (300 BC) and the Harappan script, which almost disappeared after 1400 BC.
Actually what seems to be the case from the available info is that the later vedic communities existed in India after 1500 BC, for which the archaeology shows us a series of village settlements and rural cultures. These must have been in some way related, although we do not have any conclusive evidence as yet. And considering the factor of 'relativity', our notions, of king, kingdom and the grand wars, of today might be far different than what those communities understood from the same words. Their perception of world was different, and probably on much a smaller scale, than us!
6. It's a lie when these people talk about how Britishers ignored Puranas, etc. Many were politically motivated, no doubt, but many were the pioneering scholars and made original and path-braking contributions. What a study needs is not a religious or anti-religious scholar, but one with scientific objectivity irrespective of personal biases. e.g. It was a Britisher called Pargiter who first painstakingly prepared a list of geneologies (mhanaje vamshavaLis) of kings mentioned in Puranas and tried to put them in some time frame and treated it as a historical evidence. (Unfortunately, even the 'hindu' historians of today use his work extensively and haven't been able to improve on it.) It has to be understood that literature like Vedas, Puranas, Mahabharata are not written as 'histories'. They originate from an oral source, have many layered socio-politico-religious purposes, with material added, deleted, modified for many centuries. We cannot take these as a single homogeneous evidence. It's a very complex task to examine, analyses and pick bits and pieces of evidencee from these. he yeragabaLyache kaam nohe.
7.You all might have been thinking what I have so much against David Frawley. The thing is that I have read his books and listened to his academic talks as well. Everytime you confront him with some solid evidence, he would dodge the question or start the rhetoric of political agenda, but not answer the querry. What all of us have time and again realised that he is a big fraud and really doesn't know most of the time what he is talking about. (I am sorry if this sounds too harsh a judgement! Many of you will think that I am saying this just becoz of the politics and lobbies in the academics, but it is not so. I do not belong to any group/lobby.)He is a scholar of sanskrit and is not an archaeologist or a historian, and his ignorence of even the basics, the current status of theories, data analysis & methdology of history and archaeology certainly reflects in his writings and general arguments. I do not comment on his knowledge of Sanskrit as I do not belong to the discipline. But the issue is:
DON'T YOU ALL REALIZE, AND FIND IT INSULTING, THAT WHEN HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE PASSIVE TENDENCIES OF INDIAN SCHOLARSHIP AND THEIR BEING BLIND FOLLOWERS OF WESTERNERS, HE IS JUST DISMISSING ALL OF OUR INTELLECTUAL CAPACITIES, THE PAINSTAKING AND OFTEN REALLY GOOD WORK OUR SCHOLARS HAVE DONE AND ARE DOING, WITH A SINGLE STROKE OF HIS PEN? Have we reached to such an abyss that we need to get evaluated from self-proclaimed scholars from the west? And why do the so-called heralders of our glorious culture and history need to validate their claims of glory from spurious 'firangi' scholars? and to mention their names unfailingly at any debate? ITS A BIG SHAME!
What Frawley and others are doing is nothing but playing on our sentiments. The real scholarship is not this.
and last but not the least, does it really matter whether the Aryans 'came in' or originated here only? ya muddyavarun apalya saunskrutik varashyache mahatva kami kimva jast honar ahe ka? mhanaje agadi arya kunihi asale tari te apale poorvaj rahanarach ahet. tyane apalya asmitela kahi badha yeNar ahe asa mala kahi vatat nahi. I think we all need to give it a calm and rational thought before getting hyper-sentimental about the whole issue.
communist ani hinduttvavadi, doghehi itihasachi vaat lavatach ahet, pan apan kiti fashi padayacha te apalyavarach avalamboon ahe, nahi ka? This is what really matters.....
|
varada, mala tujhya goshti patlya.... arthaat.. sagalya nahi barachshya ... digest karayala vel laagel. :)
mala kivva konalahi Indian Scholars madhye confidence nahi asa nahi...
mala vatata' - history has been changed to suit different motives, and that all the history that we learn in our school years is either fake or tweaked version and not the original (true) history as it is supposed to be.
I think the reason why we have such discussion groups is to make different views available to people, knowing very well that they can take and infer per their perceptions.
he barobar aahe ka nahi?
maajha mat fakt evadhach aahe ki kharya goshti sagalyanna kalalya pahijet.
anyways....
aso...
varada, be assured that i do not get offended/insulted/ vagere, vagere,... Rather, I love when I get diff. views on the subject.
Hoping to get feedbacks like this one in the future too.
btw, tu(aapan) kay kartos/ kartes/ kartaat??? profile var tichki maarli tar kahich kalala naahi.
:)
|
:)
tuza mhanana barobar ahe ashutosh. lokanpudhe sagalya goshti yayalach pahije. prashna apali mata ekamakanvar ladaNyacha nahiye tar 'nirogi charcha' karanyacha ahe. aani hitguj var asha chhan charcha karata yetat mhanun tar mi evadha spashta lihila.. malahi vegavegali arguments aikayala avadatat karan maze vichar jast jast crystalize hot jatat.
khara sangu? khudda tya vishayatach asalyavar, you somehow assume that all this knowledge/info is very basic and people know it. itar lokanparyant pochavayache kashtach koni ghet nahi mag!
ani mazyabaddal sanganyasarakha farasa kahi nahiye. mi trained archaeologist ahe. pan sadhya academics madhe nahiye, bakiche udyog karate. (tya udyogat he asa lokanche fukat/tyanni na vicharalela asatanahi 'prabodhan' vagaire karana pan chalu asata!) ;)
|
Mandali,
thoDe bolayache hote mhaNun aalo hoto.
paN ashutoshane sagaLech uttam manDale aahe. :-)
|
vardaÊ tuJaI mhNaNao pTto. sagaLo jaNa gaRiht Qartat ik p`%yaokalaaca yaa ivaYayaacaI maaihtI Aaho. pNa malaa ivaXaoYa kahI maaihtI naahI ³varcao 2 prsprivarÜQaI laoK saÜDUna´.
KalaIla p`Xna sagaL\yaa maaihtgaaraMsaazI Aahot.
1´ ihMdU Qamaa-caa }gama kuzo JaalaaÆ
2´ vaodaMcaa kalaKMD ksaa zrvalaa gaolaaÆ
3´ Aaya- kuzUna AalaoÆ to ihMdusqaanaat yaoNyaapuvaI- kuzo rhtÆ [qao yaoNyaapuvaI- %yaaMcaI saMsaÌtI kXaI hÜtIÆ ³vaodat saaMigatlyaap`maaNao hÜtI kaÆ´
4´ jagaatIla savaa-t jaunaI saMsaÌtI kÜNatIÆ
(atIla kahI gaÜYTI lahanapNaIcyaa ithasaacyaa pustkat AsatIla pNa malaa Aazvat naahIt.
|
varada aani samuvai : doghanna maajhe dhanyavaad.
pausveda: majha mat jara biased zhaala asel pan mala vatata ki aapan je history(itihaas) madhye shiklo tyaat kiti khara aani kiti khota aahe he saangna maajhya vichaar shaktichya baaher aahe.
aani tu vicharlelya kuthlahi prashnacha ullekh aaplya itihaasachya pustakan madhye kadhich navhata.
aapla itihaas itaka 'politically tweaked' asel hyachi kalpana kunala hoti?
anyways...
aata aaplya hataat aahe tevdha aapan karuya...
bolu nantar,
|
Mitraho,
Aarya Persia kivva Iran madhun aale ase mhaNata yeil, vaiyyattik mahiti pramaNe.
Rgvedachya BrahmaNaspati sooktaat saraswati nadi la 'harasvati' ase mhaTle aahe. Harasvati ase Saraswati la Persian lok mhaNat. Sindhu la Hindu. Soma la Homa. ashi hoti persian lokaanchi uccharpaddhati.
Respect!
Rgveda madhye kahi thikaNi harasvati, va kahi thikaNi sarasvati ase mhaTle aahe.
I think that a long time ago, the Indian and the Iranian civilisations were the same. Which means that Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran were all a part of India.
|
Vedanche dating comparative Philology ya shastrachya adharane kele ahe. Nakki process kay ahe te check karun sangte.
|
Khara mhanaje apalyala purava, archaeological ani linguistic donhihi, asa sangato ki sumare 2000 BC nantar west asia, Turkey ya bhagat - ani sadharan 1500 BC chya aasapas Bharatat - Proto-Indo-Aryan (PIA- vedic sanskritchya adhichi) bhasha bolanare lok disatat, e.g. Hittites, Mittanis, Kassites, Arya, etc.. he lok ya kalakhandamadhe achanak sarvatra adhalayala lagatat. Middle east ani Turkey madhe tar te saral saral akramak (HooNansarakhe) mhanunach yetat, mhanajech tithalya nagari sanskrutinshi tyanche sangharsha hotat, ani ekamekanmadhehi.
ek interesting purava: Turkey madhe Bogaz Kui navachya thikani sapadalelya eka shilalekhat Hittites ani Mittani ya tolyanmadhe taha zalyachi nond ahe. ani ha taha Indra, Varuna ani Nasatya (Ashwinikumar) yanna sakshi thevun kela gelela ahe.
tar muddyachi goshta ashi ki sanshodhakancha asa kayas ahe ki kadhi tari ya sarva lokanche ekach ugam sthan asave. ani kadachit central asia madhe asave ase kahinche mat ahe karan ghoda pratham 'domesticate' zala to central asiatach. ani ya lokanchya astitvachya khunanbarobarach ghoda middle east, bharat ityadi pradeshat milayala lagato. arthat ajunahi aryanchya mulasthanache goodh poornapane ukalale ahe ase nahi, pan tyatalya tyat ha kayas kinchit shakya vatato. Karan Central asia has always been a land of pastoral nomads, who have always been venturing out of their region throughout the history..
historical linguistics nusar bhashechi hi ji kahi bhaugolik movement ahe tya pramane jari Irani PIA lokankadun vedic sanskrit ne barech kahi ghetale asale tari kahi development svatantra ahe. vedanchya puravyavarun apalyala asa lakshat yeta ki 1500 BC chya aaspas he lok panjab, Haryana ya pradeshat rahat hote. Uttar vedic kalat, mhanaje sadharan 1000 BC nantar matra gangechya khoryat jast vasti zali.
aitihasikdrushtya Pakistan ani Afghanistan (Gandhar, Balhik) he nehamich bharatiya upakhandache, ani paryayane bharatiya sanskrutiche bhag hote. These regions basically acted as frontiers, both geographical as well as cultural. But same cannot be said about Iran. Iran has always been a different geographical and cultural zone. Iran cha itihas ha apalyapeksha vegalach rahila ani tyanchya sanskrutuchi vatachalahi svatantra zali. teva I don't think we can ever say that it was a part of India.
aapala, ani Hittites, Mittani ityadi lokanche nate mhanaje Australians ani Americans che ahe tasech kahise... :)
ho, ani Rgvedat haraswati yeta ki nahi te nakki athavat nahiye. check karun sangen.
|
vardaÊ maaihtIba_la Qanyavaad.
kuNaalaa yaa saMdBaa-tIla web-sites maaiht AsatIla tr saaMgaa.
|
VARADA
mee ase mhanat nahi aahe ki iran is a part of india. mee mhanat aahe ki iran va bharatachi saunskruti sarakhi hoti. tyaa karanan mulech paarshi lokaana bharataat settle honyaas faar saa traas jhaalaa naahi.
avesta va rug vedanmadhil saamya sthapit karnyaat aalele aahe. puratan pahlavi va rugvedi saunskrut madhye faar saa farak naahi aahe.
aho, 400 AD paryant tyaanchi bhaasha saunskrut saarkhihoti, parantu tyaa nantar,arab lokani ghaan keli.
bolayacha muddaa asaa ki pershian saunskruti hi vedic saunskruti barobar vadhali, parantu islam chya chaaye khali tee lupta jhaali.
mala khaatri aahe ki iran madhye utkhannan kele tar aapanaas kode sodavita yeil...
|
brahmvarta... i agree with vardaa
iran haa wegalaach bhaag hota aahe...sanskrutii sarakhi hoti ka naahi he saangane kathiin aahe. rugwed kaalin sanskrut aani pahalawii bhashaa sarkyaa hotyaa karan tyaa so called aryan languages aahet.
parantu iran aani bharat hyaanii barech share kele aahe. bharataacha north west mhanaje pakistan baluchistan haa baraach kaal iranian kings chyaa chatraa khali hota ..tyaach pramaane IE bhashyanchya agodar wa aryan lok yayachyaa agodar don clutures madhe barech samya hote pan he saamya agadii messopotemian aani indus valley hyaanii sudhha kahi pramaanaat share kele hote.
parantu he don pradesh bhinna ganale aahet. aani tyaamule iran bharataacha bhag aahe ha wichar farach sankuchit watto.
AIT mhanaje aryan "invastion" hya theorymadhiil bariichashi hawaa gelyaat jamaa aahe mhanaje hii theory jawal jawal sagalyyanii naakaaralii aahe pan arya he baaheruun aale hyaa theorylaa barech sabal purawe milat aahet...
paN kaahi prashnaanchi uttare malaahi shodhun milali naahi..
aryanchyaa agamanaa adhi mhaanje 2000BC paryant INDUS valley culture hote te lupt jhale..tyanchii shahare os padalii
1> mag jawal jawal kahi milllion loke geli kuthe?
2> jar indus valley chaa map nbaghitalaat tar don shakyataa aahet ek gangeche khore dusare sindhuche..mag ase asataanaa gangechyaa khoryaat indus related wasaahatii ka adhalat naahit?
3> maharashtraat Indus valley jawal jawal 1900BC chya natar pan hotii (daayaamaabaaD) tyani southwords migration kele kaa?
4> indus aryan sythesis ha hypothesis kitpat yogyaa ahe?
arya bharattat baaherun aale kadaachit tyanchi bhashaa /sanskrutti) gheun mag tyaa purwiichyaa saskrutiiche traces wegale karu shakato ka?
jar konaalaa hyaa baddalachi anakhi mahiti asel tar post karaawii
|
vardaa
ajun kaahi mahtwaachaa prashN
1> ved aryanchech granth aahe hyaalaa kitpat puraawe aahet? ved compilation of rihms aahe. aaNi he compilation under 3 strong influences jhale ka? first foremost aryan's(DEVAlaa manaNaare) second DASAs (asuraalaa manNaare) and indus ppl ( all village societies existed prior to aryans(so called arya dravid synthesis)
note: as per what i have read...devas ( indra worshippers) have no "nagaras(cities)" DASA's ( so called asurs have some kind of nagaraas(most circular strikingly similar to mentioned in tripurari story )
and of course indus ppl having very high sense of sanitation and regulation of society (nearly 2000 years of experiance) not to mention their architectural abilities. and complex society!!
2> imagin u living in 2000 old civilization which has mentained high standards of living for nearly 2000 years have developed their own mathematics culture gods can this culture be forgotten in mearly 500-900 years??????? when substantial population remains from the same stock(dont tell me aryans change the demography of this land!!!)
3> u have refooted in abouve posting any possibility of brahmi being derived from indus...
i have seen its strong relation with western (especialy tha and sa)semetic languages and not to menation some signs of brahmii do appear in indus signs(may be coincidence)..and i dont denie it but the very fact what u said scholarship is open to thought doesn't it apply here???
(after all we devised decimal system and we used base 16 or 8 system in our currency which is vary much debateble has its origin in indus who were counting base 8!! we still say 16 annas = 1ruppes and still dont we call 50 paise 8 annaas??????? whats the harm of some one arduously trying to pursure the indus origin of brahmi??
3> and just for curiosity whend does cremation started and does it started due to aryans??? or it was here in india B4 that
regards
|
Dekhnyaa, Varada, Brahmavarta, Peshwa tumche saglyanche inputs wachun chhan watla.
He sagla wacheparyant mala hi kahihi mahit navta yatla.
hi sagle uladhal uttar bhartaatch zaleli diste,
saraswati, sindhu nadyanchya jawal. Pan dakshin bhartaat je dravidian lok hote tyancha kaay zala? Vedanmadhe kinwa hindu sanskriti madhe tyancha aryanchya comparison madhe kaay sthan aahe?
prashna wishayala sodun watla tar ignore kara!
|
indradhahu
dakshi?NE kadiil culture he tambra pashaaN culture hote sadharaN so called arya bharattat yeun settle jhalyaa paryant
tya nanatar sadhaaraN kahi shatakaanii he aryan culture dakshInet pasarale (chu bhu dya ghyaa)
aaNi dravidaanbaddal mhaNAshil tar
sagalech dravid aahet :-) dravidaanche pan north indian dravids and sout indian darvids ashi wibhaGNii aahe ase mala nukatech samajale (again alpdyaan)
bharataat pramhukyaane je wanshik gaT paaDale jaataat te bhashechyaa aadhare na kii physical structure jar physical baghitale tar only 2 groups
1> mongolides
2> caucasian
i dont know about nigroids present in ancient india...
bhashechyaa aadhare paDanaare gat
1> austeric : he indo burmeses kinwa austerik bhashaa bolataat
2> dravids : dravidian bhashaa kinwa PRO ELAMITEs bhashaa bolaNaare( marathii has substantial pro elamite color ..again chu bhu dya ghya)
3> aryans: aal IE languages.
|
|
|
