the aryan invasion theory is no longer accepted. and not just by
the hindutva historians, but leftist historians like romilla thapar
too. she refuted this way back in the 70's, or maybe 60's. the chief reason being that the indus valley sites do not show any sign of destruction associated with invasions.
I also this that is very probable. It is evident from the complexity of the vedic scriptures in comparion to the Shaivist scriptures that the Aryans were intellectually superior to the dravidians at that point of time. Also during their long descent from the North, only the fittest specimen of the Aryans could survive. The act of pushing the dravidians to the south could have been something like pushing the American Indians towards the West...... only in case of the Aryans it, i guess, was dont at a much slower pace.
though you could be right, the exact mechanism how the dravidians were replaced is still not universally accepted. though it is believed the indus valley was probably dravidian, the evidence is not clinching. the indus valley did have phallic worship, but is it that tradition that survived as shaivism? phallic worship is common in many ancient tradition.
As far as I know, the Indus valley civilisation was not pioneered by the Aryans..... they were some non-Aryan people. Agreed there are few evidences of Dravidians in the Indus valley, but the evidence that there was a third race other than Aryans and Dravidians in the Valley is next to nothing. Again, if a third race was actually existed, then I guess the genetic analysis of north indians should have brought it to notice.
regards!
syamanta --------------------------------
Saurav Pathak saurav at sas.upenn.edu wrote:
i am interested in these issues. some of my comments are given below:
S Saikia said on AssamNet:
+ Let us start out with the basics: were the Aryan Hindus the natives of + India? Contemporary research shows us that Shaivism of the Dravidians, not + Hinduism, was the oldest religion in India. The Dravidian family of + languages is quite different and almost as old as Aryan Sanskrit. A + Dravidian language,Brahui, is still spoken in the Indus Valley Area + (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran etc) and this shows that once the Dravidians + and their language were spread all over India. First proposed by Max Muller + and now widely accepted, the theory of Aryan invasion states that the + Aryans *INVADED* India about 3,000-4,000 years ago which led to the + de-capitation of ancient Dravidian culture and religion.
the aryan invasion theory is no longer accepted. and not just by
the hindutva historians, but leftist historians like romilla thapar
too. she refuted this way back in the 70's, or maybe 60's. the chief reason being that the indus valley sites do not show any sign of destruction associated with invasions.
this the hindutva historians have taken to mean that there was no
immigration at all. for purely ideological reasons, of course. the others in fact believe that there was a west to east migration not in a single army but in waves. this is based on linguistic and
other arguments.
+ The Vedic Hinduism + was brought by these Aryans and spread all over through assimilations (and + perhaps forced conversions) as a result of which, the Dravidians were + pushed southwards by the Aryan onslaught. I will give just one + demonstration of the forceful imposition of Hinduism on the Dravidians. The + Aryans originated from the Inner Asian Steppes in the Northand came South + to India through Afghanistan and West to Europe. Their caste system was + already developed and in use at that time. But comparing the caste system + in Europe with that in India, we see that while there are three castes in + Europe, there are FOUR castes in India. The Latin society had the Flavians, + Milites and Plebins, which were respectively the Brahmins, Kshatriyas and + Vaishyas of India. When they came to India, they found the Dravidians and + were perplexed as how to classify them. So they just formed another caste: + the sudras; and put all the new converts into that caste. While the other + three castes are called twice-born, the fourth caste is called �once-born� + and a galnce at the texts of ancient customs is enough to prove that the + Sudras were heavily discriminated against. The fourth caste thus + necessarily represents the enslaved and subjugated indigenous Dravidians.
though you could be right, the exact mechanism how the dravidians were replaced is still not universally accepted. though it is believed the indus valley was probably dravidian, the evidence is not clinching. the indus valley did have phallic worship, but is it that tradition that survived as shaivism? phallic worship is common in many ancient tradition.
+ + So if anyone has the right to claim India as their own, it is not the + Hindus but the original Shaiva races and the Dravidians. The Aryans who + brought the Vedic Hindu religion with them were basically a nomadic race + who ultimately settled in India.....
there are some conjectures today that the dravidians are themselves
immigrants from north africa. there are evidence that the first
inhabitants came into the indian peninsula along the western coast
aeons ago (after human originated in africa). there existed the people who were generally classified as nishadas, who were not dravidians, and who are descendents of the older immigrants. they are today called the adivasis (the first inhabitants).
so, even though i do not challenge your central thesis, i differ in some of the details. i find this "journey of man" very fascinating and thus my comments.
-- saurav
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and more. http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_customize
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
