Professional Documents
Culture Documents
There Is No Scientific Basis For The Aryan Invasion Theory: Historical Notes
There Is No Scientific Basis For The Aryan Invasion Theory: Historical Notes
The evidences that scientists, with background in physical sciences, must consider in order to form a profes-
sional opinion on the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) are examined. These evidences are from astronomy,
mathematics and metallurgy. The criteria for scientists to support AIT are proposed as four questions that
must be addressed satisfactorily. On these grounds, we establish that there is no scientific basis for AIT.
Nineteenth century European scholars pretation of verses on ekāstaka in Tait- AIT unless these references are consis-
proposed the Aryan Invasion Theory tirīya Saṃhita (TS) and Pañcaviṃśa tently interpreted to 800 BC.
(AIT) based on the close similarities Brāhmaṇa (PB) to 3000 BC for the last
between Sanskrit and European langua- 80 years. That is, for the first time we
ges1–3. The oldest text, Ṛg Veda, was have shown that the Western Sanskrit Calendrical schemes in the Vedic
dated to about 1500 BC. Later Vedic scholars who proposed AIT have contra- period
texts, Saṃhitas and Brāhmaṇas, were ac- dicted it themselves.
cordingly dated to 1000–800 BC. AIT has The conclusions in ref. 14 have severe Both, TS and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (SB)
always been controversial and many implications for the few scientists, with have two luni-solar calendrical schemes.
scholars from the 19th century onwards expertise in astronomy, who support In the early period, SB 4.3.1.14–19, SB
have opposed it1–3. AIT continues to be AIT. Their support is no longer tenable 8.2–8.7, TS 4.4.11, etc. lunar months
dominant among Western Sanskrit scho- with Sanskrit scholars themselves inter- were named Tapas, Tapasya (Śiśira rtu),
lars and others who rely on their author- preting some references to 3000 BC. Madhu, Mādhava (Vasanta rtu), etc. and
ity. No evidence has been found in the In this note, we consider a broader ended on full moon. In the later period,
last 150 years for any invasion. Accord- view of the evidences to establish the in KB 19.3 and SB 11.1.1.7, lunar
ing to Klostermaier1 (p. 21) ‘The AIT is criteria, which are based on physical sci- months were named after naksatras, e.g.
based purely on linguistic conjectures ences, necessary to form a professional Phālguna, Chaitra (Śiśira rtu), etc. and
which are unsubstantiated.’ To overcome opinion on AIT. Such criteria need to ended on new moon. They are discussed
the lack of evidence for an invasion, the consider evidences from astronomy, in detail in ref. 14.
Aryan Migration Theory (AMT), with mathematics and metallurgy. An older scheme is mentioned in Tait-
similar dates, has been proposed. tirīya Brāhmaṇa TB 3.10 on Sāvitra-
Most archaeologists1–5 do not support cayana15,16 with month names Aruna,
AIT. Based on geological and remote Evidences from astronomy Arunaraja, etc. and a year of three sea-
sensing studies6–9, scholars have identi- sons (Agni, Sūrya and Chandramā rtu).
fied evidences for a river in northwest Astronomical references in Saṃhita Abhyankar15 has given several evidences
India that dried before 1500 BC with the and Brāhmana texts that this scheme was prevalent in the Ṛg
River Saraswati mentioned in Vedic texts Vedic period. We provide additional evi-
and thereby contradicted AIT. Genetic The key astronomical references in the dences in support of this conclusion,
studies mostly do not support AIT10,11. Saṃhita and Brāhmaṇa texts consistently though not his date which is not relevant
Evidence on horse remains con- lead to 3000 BC (ref. 14). Six referen- to the discussion. TB 3.10 (TB 3.10.9)
tested2,12,13. ces – Pūrva Phalguni full moon marking refers to Ṛg Veda RV 1.164 (ref. 16) and
Scientists have interpreted astronomi- new year, Kŗttikā on true east, Rohinī both refer to a year of three seasons. In
cal references in Vedic texts to high marking equinox, Kauśītaki Brāhmana contrast, Saṃhita and Brāhmana texts
chronology that oppose AIT since 1890s. (KB) verse KB 19.3, the origin of Mahā- refer to a year of 5/6 seasons with names
We have recently presented a compre- śivarātri and verses on ekāstaka – have Śiśira, Vasanta, etc. and not Agni, Sūrya,
hensive analysis of the references in the been dated to 3000 BC. The last three are etc. TB 3.10.11 attributes Sāvitra-cayana
Saṃhitas and Brāhmaṇas and shown14 independent references to three different to Bharadvāja in the past tense clearly
that they consistently lead to dates days all of which point to the new year implying that the ritual and the calendri-
around 3000 BC. We have also examined beginning at winter solstice after amānta cal scheme are both ancient memories in
the interpretations of Western Sanskrit Māgha new moon (3000 BC), making it a TB. .
scholars of the same references and robust conclusion. It is virtually impossi- Thus, from Ṛg Veda to Vedānga
showed that they give dates ranging from ble to reinterpret the above references to Jyotisa (VJ) four calendars were succes-
3000 BC to 800 BC to AD 1200. They cor- 800 BC. Importantly, some references sively prevalent in the Vedic period. The
roborate Klostermaier’s1 (p. 25) view have always (i.e. for more than 150 names of the first two months of the year
that ‘Traditionally trained philologists, years) been considered to be contempo- changed from (1) Aruna, Arunaraja (RV)
that is, grammarians, are generally not rary, and not ancient memories, by all to (2) Tapas, Tapasya (early Brāhmanas)
able to understand technical language scholars, including Western Sanskrit to (3) Phālguna, Chaitra (late Brāhmanas)
and the scientific information contained scholars. For these reasons, astronomical to (4) Māgha, Phālguna (VJ). The
in the texts they study.’ Importantly, they references disprove AIT. Hence, there current calendar has been in vogue for
have been unaware of their correct inter- can be no scientific basis in support of 1700 years. The VJ calendar was in