From: partha@mse.ogi.edu (R. Parthasarathy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Are Aryans natives of India?
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:30:43 GMT
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute, Material Science & Engineering

Deepak says:

>>In article <BuAn1F.J74@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca
(C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) says:

>>         It's true Sanskrit has a considerable literature but so does an
>>         equally ancient language with matching richness, namely Tamil. All
>>         the modern Indian languages I believe are more closely based on
>>         Tamil syntax than Sanskrit ( please correct me if I am wrong).
>>         Since syntax is a more deeply related to the inner life-current
>>         of a language it might not be incorrect to say almost all
>>         Indian languages have a deeper connection to Tamil than to
>>         Sanskrit although there is a heavy borrowing of Indo-Aryan words
>>         in Hindi and other such languages. I might be able to show that
>>         there were still numerous native ( which appears to be
>>         Tamil/Dravidian) words left in tact in Hindi-Bengali-Marathi-
>>         Oriya-Punjabi-Gujarathi...etc. inspite of the influx of Indo-Aryan
>>         words if time permits on another occasion.
>

>This is interesting, because recently a debate ensued (ref:
>Girish Bonde posted Subhash Kak's research articles) about whether
>Aryans came from outside or were original natives of India who
>spread from inside out. In any case, given Aryan influence on
>indus vally civilization and the attempts by Kak etc to connect
>Vedic era with indus vally civilization. My question is where does
>Tamil/Dravidian language/culture fit into this ? This is a significant
>aspect of the whole picture because BJP ruled UP and MP states have
>already introduced in their history books: that Aryans were original
>natives of India. Are we seeing another north/south problem here ?
>
>
>regards..          Deepak
>

It has been an interesting topic about the theories on Aryans. According
to historian Romila Thapar, the term Aryan to denote a set of people
is a misnomer. Aryan refers to a linguistic group according to her.
Therefore, they must be referred to as "Aryan speaking people" rather
than Aryans. However, over a period of time, it has become a common
practice to call these people Aryans.

There are several points one can think of that support the migration 
of such people into the Indian sub-continent. Getting evidences through
archeology is going to be near to impossible, since it has been a traditional
practice to cremate the dead rather than bury them.

The points that I remember after having read through a number of books
related to this topic are as follows:

(1) Migration to or invasion on the Indian sub-continent from central asian 
steppes has been an age old phenomenon, until a couple of centuries ago. The 
known history records the arrival of Yuei Chih (Kusanas), Shakas, Huns,
Timur, Turks, Mughals etc.. All these people have invaded through the use
of efficient military tactics and the use of horses. Harsh climates which
frequent the regions of central asia drove people to greener pastures
at different times.

(2) Vedas which symbolize the Aryans, were not in a written form for a long
time. The Indus valley civilization has clear evidence of usage of a script.
Aryan culture, as seen from evidences was a rural one. Indus valley culture
was urban. Aryan speaking people must have invaded these places in hordes
and destroyed most of them, pretty much the same way as Genghis Khan's hordes
wiped out existing civilizations. The Mongols didn't believe in  urban life
until they themselves got absorbed into it over generations. May be the
Aryan speaking people were invading barbarians who wiped out an existing
culture and over generations, settled down while absorbing a few native 
aspects. May be the Vedic culture evolved after that.

(3) There is hardly any evidence to prove that the Aryan speaking people
worshipped idols (I have not come across any article on this so far. However,
I am open to corrections if provided). In the Indus valley remnants, there
have been sufficient artifacts that depict the worship of figures - mother
goddess, the bull, a lingam shaped object etc.. The aryan Gods, viz.. Indra,
Mithra, Varuna etc.. have been mentioned in other cultures in the middle
east that existed several millennia ago (eg. the Hittites). 

(4) Horse was a very important animal among Vedic aryans because of the
power it provided in battles. Hence the frequent mention of horse sacrifice
in their scriptures.

(5) Mention of dark skinned, "ugly looking", thick lipped people in some
of their scriptures (I don't remember the text now) shows that these
people were different from the people of the land they invaded.

(6) Mention of prayers for victory over "Dasas" and "Panis" who were
seen as different people.

(7) Linguistic similarity between their language and the European ones.
Dravidian languages are very distinct from them. However, let me be
humble in saying that I am no linguistic expert at this time.

(8) Fire is a very important thing in colder climates. When Zarathurstra
formed his religion he gave tremendous importance to fire. In order to
sustain fire in cold regions where wood is scarce, cow dung becomes an
alternate source. Also the meat from the cow, its milk, its skin etc..
became very important for survival. Hence so much of impoprtance placed
on the cow. 

(9) Gods like Vishnu, Shiva took prominance in Hindu mythology much later.

(10) Mention of geographical locations in the Vedas - Rg Veda does not
refer to the river Ganga much. 

(11) Soma drinking has not been proved to be a popular practice in
southern India where the "native cultures" are said to be pushed down to.
I don't know if plants for making soma grow in the sub-continent regions 
much.

(12) Vedas seem to have become an important aspect of life among these
people after settling at the Punjab region. The sections which migrated
towards the Iranian plateau don't seem to have followed Vedic rituals
eventhough they had worshipped Indra, Mithra, Varuna, Athithi, Aswin etc..
(This I found in a book written by an Iranian general about history of
Persia). Yama in Vedic religion was called Jamshed by their Persian
counterparts. In fact the two sections seem to have gone the opposite way.
Asuras came to be associated with evil beings in Vedic religion while 
they became demi-gods and divine for the Iranians (Ahura Mazda was the
Lord in Zorashtrianism. Ahura = Asura, Sindh = Hindh, Soma = Hoama etc..)

There are several more points one can think of which direct the theories
towards a continued migration of Aryan speaking people from central asia
towards the sub-continent. Whether they came in one flock or trickled
over a period of time I have no idea. 

I was watching a Chinese movie in which the hairstyle looks similar to
that of orthodox brahmins (Most of the head shaved, except for a portion
on the rear which is tied). May be this was an ancient practice in regions
close to China and central asia.

Layers and layers of migration have almost made things very difficult
to study for historians, linguists and archeologists.

I consider the spreading of Aryan speaking people from the sub-continent
only a speculation.

Partha sarathy
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil