Is there something called an Indus Valley Hinduism?

[Sine Nomine]

@Joe Shearer have you ever thought about,what type of invasion that was?
My assumption is that it was kind of which, due to trump is trying to build a wall because a string of wars would have definitely found place in records or folklores for sure.That definitely was an economic tribal migration from West of Amu Darya to the banks of Indus,tribes may have been expelled due to losing war or lack of resources.

 

[Placemat]

Now here we have a series of posts that are frankly regressive. The focus is on the old fall-back position about the golden-haired, blue-eyed barbarians who fought their way into India and defeated the locals in every battle. This was introduced by the British, and retro-fitted into every invaders' myth of origin.

True.. I was just pushing back on some lazy conclusions. The story of human civilization is complex and there is a tendency among historians to have a black or white answer to questions. We need to accept that it is what it is and we may never be able to find out the exact origin of people be sure at any poibt in times past there would have been intermingling of genes habits and culturea.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer have you ever thought about,what type of invasion that was?
My assumption is that it was kind of which, due to trump is trying to build a wall because a string of wars would have definitely found place in records or folklores for sure.That definitely was an economic tribal migration from West of Amu Darya to the banks of Indus,tribes may have been expelled due to losing war or lack of resources.

I really need to get to know you better; this is nothing less than brilliant.

First, no doubt this is what happened. There are records of wars, but I suspect that two things* are happening in those accounts. One is that those wars were nowhere near the scale on which other wars of migration were waged. Let me name some to serve as examples.

The oldest ones that we know about were the Medes descending on the Assyrians (the Neo-Assyrians, actually); I am not counting those wars that led to little or no movement of people, and perhaps the Assyrians defeating Babylon did not lead to much movement, whereas the Medes moved into their present habitation as a result of their conquest.

Then came the Greeks coming into Hellas, wave after wave, ending with the Dorians. We do not know much about the Celts and the Germans at that time; our knowledge of the invasions of the Germanic tribes into Roman territory is of a much later stage.

Later still, around the turn of the millennium, after Alexander had irrevocably broken the power of the Iranians to withstand attack from the nomads on their frontiers, the Scythians burst into Bactria, Sogdiana (already a mixed province with a significant Scythian presence) and Gandhara; subsequently, in their second move, they moved into parts of Parthia, and into the old Arachosia and Gedrosia; the name Sakasthan, or Seistan dates from that millennial movement. Close behind them, of course, almost as a wave of the same, there were the Kushanas. The earlier theories thought that they were the Tokharians from the desert oases, driven, in turn, before the Xiong Nu, as the Chinese record, but now it is thought that they might well have been Scythians themselves dwelling deeper in the steppes. The last in this series were the Epthalites, the White Huns, who may or may not have been a part of the dreaded Huns themselves.

Another such movement was that of the Germanic tribes, between 100 to 300 years after these events, who entered Rome in tribal waves, led by the Goths, eastern and western, followed by the Vandals, the Franks, the Suevi, the Helvetii, the Angles and the Saxons (into Britain) and finally, the Lombards.

The Arabs followed a bare 3 centuries after, moving into their borders with Persia, but also penetrating in smaller groups deep into what was later Khwarizm.

Finally, with the formation of the Turks, they came into the lands of the Persian and Eastern Roman Empires, and made a permanent presence in what was Anatolia.

This is a broad brush picture; what is important is that in almost all cases, the percentage of the incoming population was typically less than 10% of the population that they entered.

As far as the Indo-Aryan speaking people were concerned, from all the evidence that does NOT exist, it is tempting to suppose that they entered not through warfare on the scale described above, but a much smaller level. Now, do we have records of that? a movement due to reasons other than wars of conquest?

Actually, we do.

Apparently there was a schism in the Indo-Iranian speaking original agglomerated tribes. Those who came into India worshipped the Deva, saw the Asura as the opponents of the Devas; those who stayed back, and later became Zoroastrian, worshipped Ahura, and hated the Daeva. There may also have been economic reasons; these were pastoral people, and the availability of meadows and pastures to feed their cattle was a major factor.

What about actual wars? Well, records of those also exist. That is what I was referring to, above*.

The Rg Veda is a series of paeans to different gods, but Indra is great among them, the leader of the divine war-band and inspiration to these incoming people in their battles against the settlements of the Dasyu. Not, as Mortimer Wheeler mistakenly thought, the cities of the IVC; instead, these might at best have been large stockaded villages, barely reaching the size of a small or medium town, and vulnerable to the attacks of smallish tribes with war-bands in the hundreds, not in the thousands. Looking at the much later struggles of the Saxons against the Northmen gives us a scale for these operations.

Second, leaving aside the matter of wars and battles, genetic studies show us the very limited numbers of migrants who came in and their very limited genetic impact on either ANI or ASI.

More later; I suspect I have already earned the hatred of those who really don't like to read more than a paragraph.

True.. I was just pushing back on some lazy conclusions. The story of human civilization is complex and there is a tendency among historians to have a black or white answer to questions. We need to accept that it is what it is and we may never be able to find out the exact origin of people be sure at any poibt in times past there would have been intermingling of genes habits and culturea.

Read the post above yours. He's gone straight to the heart of the matter!

 

[Tea addict]

Now here we have a series of posts that are frankly regressive. The focus is on the old fall-back position about the golden-haired, blue-eyed barbarians who fought their way into India and defeated the locals in every battle. This was introduced by the British, and retro-fitted into every invaders' myth of origin.

Sir I was replying to multiple regressive post in that post and hence my post came out that way. I agree I have no love for ethnicities as I believe that DNA and stuff is not what makes a human, his thoughts do. A banana on my table share 70% of same DNA as me, Neanderthals who have been extinnts for 25000-30000 years have 97-98% same DNA as me.. so that's why I don't have any love for " Pakistani Rajputs" . I just joined that thrrad because they brought "indian hindu rajputs" first.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Friend are you a Tamil out of interest? Even as Iyer myself, I do much love and venerate the Vaishnavite temples in my great state...they go full out with the regality and splendour of their liturgical and worship process (I for one know thiruppavai by heart....also each weekend my dad always play M.S recording of vishnu sahasranam). They are some of the biggest temples in TN after all too...they concentrate more than spread out.

I wish. No, I'm a Malayali. But I do know some Tamil guys who were kind enough to share some aspects about the practices there.

 

[faithfulguy]

@Joe Shearer have you ever thought about,what type of invasion that was?
My assumption is that it was kind of which, due to trump is trying to build a wall because a string of wars would have definitely found place in records or folklores for sure.That definitely was an economic tribal migration from West of Amu Darya to the banks of Indus,tribes may have been expelled due to losing war or lack of resources.

It’s important to distinguish between pre history and history when we examine ancient migration. The invasions or migrations into India are prehistoric events that based on archaeology, human anthropology, linguistics and more recently,genetics. But no matter how much they tell us, they are still scientific assumptions, not historical evidence.

For this reason, many people still believe that Indo -Aryan language spread out from India. And ancient Indians migrated to Europe. Now, in my humble opinion, most of these views are hogwash based on scientific evidences. But they are still only my opinions. They are not as solid as written evidence that define history with valid historiography.

Secondly, since we have divergent views, no matter how invalid, on the migration to India. How much detail can we decide that cause of migration. Without written record, we are doing a great job to determine out of India theory is wrong. And the migration was into India and its likely in small waves and maybe none violent.But to look beyond it and start citing other historical events as hypothesis to what might have happen thatcause the migration would be a big stretch.

 

[Zibago]

There is a thought that this inchoate religious consciousness to which our only clues are the statues (statuettes?) and seals with native animals, if religious at all, was merged with the Vedic religion of the immigrants who brought in the Aryan language, and it remained intact in that mingled form in the Indus Valley.

Could be the case maybe the animist Aryans adopted a new concept of worship stone idols and incorporated some native customs into their own

My paraphrasing it for the convenience of the reader does not in any way mean that I support this theory.

Ofcourse all we know of this strange but developed civilization wrt the time it flourished is murky at best all we can do is speculate and compare with civilizations we now know of
Maybe they worshiped their kings like the Egyptians or ancestors who knows

 

[HariPrasad]

What Indian heritage? What was India back then?

Greatest civilization ever existed on planet.

 

[Sine Nomine]

It’s important to distinguish between pre history and history when we examine ancient migration. The invasions or migrations into India are prehistoric events that based on archaeology, human anthropology, linguistics and more recently,genetics. But no matter how much they tell us, they are still scientific assumptions, not historical evidence.

For this reason, many people still believe that Indo -Aryan language spread out from India. And ancient Indians migrated to Europe. Now, in my humble opinion, most of these views are hogwash based on scientific evidences. But they are still only my opinions. They are not as solid as written evidence that define history with valid historiography.

Secondly, since we have divergent views, no matter how invalid, on the migration to India. How much detail can we decide that cause of migration. Without written record, we are doing a great job to determine out of India theory is wrong. And the migration was into India and its likely in small waves and maybe none violent.But to look beyond it and start citing other historical events as hypothesis to what might have happen thatcause the migration would be a big stretch.

These are all assumptions at best and we pick what suites our narrative.But there is something behind these mass migrations,that we must know.

I just joined that thrrad because they brought "indian hindu rajputs" first.

Rajputs are Rajputs,Hindu or Muslim they share same bloodline.
Millions in Pakistan haven't came from sky,we can hold same view which you hold.

 

[faithfulguy]

Greatest civilization ever existed on planet.

Are you claiming that ancient Indians had planes, nuclear weapons and warp drive?

 

[scorpionx]

If we look at the Rg Veda, it wont take long to realise, that Hinduism evolved; from the earliest mandalas to the comparatively newer ones, there is a gigantic difference in understanding about 'God'. From the primordial forces of nature, more and more emphasis were put on a concept of one supreme entity, that itself rather flourished in the Upanishads as pure consciousness, something the Buddhists love to call pure mind.
Six schools of philosophies sprouted from the vedas, based on different interpretations of it. What we call Hinduism today, is more or less a collection of all these six and their innumerable offshoots.
Unfortunately, our understanding so far about IVC is so vague till today we can not with firm conviction say what exact religious belief they practised. My own opinion would be, rather than calling it Hinduism (which would be too early to say), we better look at other religious belief systems in the contemporary civilizations. It is more likely that IVC's religious belief must had more similarity with the prevalent belief system of the contemporary world, rather than what we call Hinduism today.

 

[Chhatrapati]

I'll attempt to answer this I see attempt by Mr. Nilofar Abbasi, dubious at best with half knowledge on what he knows.

Nilofar Abbasi asks "What is the difference between Hinduism in Pakistan vs Hinduism in India".

The difference is so stark, that they might as well be two different religions. The difference is that Pakistani Hindus still practice authentic Vedic beliefs, whereas Indian Hindus practice Puranic Hinduism or Brahminsm. The difference between the two is quite significant and historical and even violent.

This I have already explained, both Indian Hindus and Pakistani Hindus, whoever is left following Dharma, practice the same. If not you're free to prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to know different practices.

~ Early Vedic period ~
The Vedic religion was formed during the Vedic civilization, which developed in the Indus Valley following the collapse of the Harappan (Indus Valley) Civilization in around ~1500 BC. During this collapsing period, the Aryan people migrated into the Indus Valley between 1800 BC to 1000 BC, and along with them came their distinctive religious traditions and practices which appears to have syncretised (fused) with native Indus (Harappan) beliefs. This essentially gave rise to Vedic civilization (Vedic tribes, Vedic religion and Vedic Sanskrit).

On one side the author says, Indus valley civilization collapsed, then says, they synthesized with the migrating Aryavartis. Anyway, a lot is not known about the time yet. Vedas weren't written during that time, so an accurate cronology of the age of Veda is still unknown. It was an oral tradition for a brief period. Besides there is nothing in Vedas that indicates it's time frame.

~ Indus Vedic faith ~
The Indus Vedic faith is still prevalent today among most Pakistani Hindus and the Kalash. From information gathered in the Rig Veda, Vedic society during this period was pastoral and centered in the Indus Valley in a few dozen kingdoms such as the Sindhu, Kashmira, Gandhara and Kamboja to name a few.

Sorry who? These are kingdom sometimes span as much as 500 years in their existence. Also, carefully missing out Panchala, Videha, Kuru, to name a few.

The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets in Saptha Sindhu (Punjab) tell of a society which starkly differs from what we know as "Hinduism" today. For example, the Vedic people ate beef, buried their dead, and had no idols and no caste system. In fact, the Vedas forbade idolatry and the term “varna” (caste) is nowhere to be found.

The dubious part. One god no idolatory, ate beef, buried the dead.
One god, which is a self contradictory, then why worship Indra, Mitra, Varuna if it advocates monotheism. (It does, in a way, but not by forbidding anything).

Ate beef, yes they probably ate beef, but forbidding meat especially cow meat came way later when the sacredness was associated based on an ongoing practice of consuming it's milk after mothers milk. So, they thought killing cow is same as killing your own mother. This feeling cemented strong and then there was epics associated with it when coming to the epics.

Third, buried dead. It is believed that Human body is made of five elements, Earth, Air, Water, Fire and energy(life). Now, the Rig veda give a detailed explanation on how to burn the body of a departed person.
Rigveda 10.16 Agni, consume him not entirely, afflict him, not scatter, burn his skin not his body, when you have rendered him, send him to his fathers, ..... goes on to say how the body is turned to ashes, using woods/earth, then to water, ultimately the air to the plants, or the organism.

In reality, there wasn't a one single practice, but burning is considered as pure, because of the belief that fire is pure, it cleanse all the impurities without getting impured, unlike water, air or soil. Hence people prefer to be burned.

“There is no evidence in the Vedas for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system,” Joel Brereton, a professor of Sanskrit and Religious studies, states.

Vedas are hymns, they are not poems. These hymns are chanted for the good of the public/self. These are not philosophies or stories directions. So, one must be ignorant to think it has details on social customs, or caste system. Imagine someone chanting a hymn on caste system or how one should lead a life.

“The Vedic society was neither organized on the basis of social division of labour nor on that of differences in wealth,” Ram Sharan Sharma, an eminent historian and academic of Ancient and early Medieval India, states. “… [it] was primarily organized on the basis of kin, tribe and lineage.”

True that. But this cotnradicts with the previous comment made, that, there wasn't a social division. There was, Mlecchas who were outcasts i.e, those who had completely different structure to Vedas.

The Vedic gods mentioned in the Vedas are also starkly different what we consider “modern Hindu gods” today. The Vedic gods are the most important differentiating factor – they were mainly adopted from the Bactria-Margiana Culture, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism) and local Harappan beliefs.

Vedic gods also include Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Saraswati.

These Vedic gods included:

Mitra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Mithra”)

Varuna (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Ahura Mazda”)

Indra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Verethraghna”)

Sorya (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Hvare-Khshaeta”)

Agni or Matarisvan (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Atar”)

Soma (borrowed from the Bactria-Margiana culture)

I can find equivalent gods like Thor, a Norse god, who is very similar to Indra. With strikingly similar characteristics. Should I say, it's adopted from here? These are just theories with etymological similarities, their characteristics are so different.

If anything, the Vedic people were more culturally and religiously related to the Avestan Iranians in the west than the Gangetic Dravidians in the east. Most strikingly, Vedic society made a strong point to differentiate themselves (Sindhu and Sapta Sindhu) from others, particularly the region east of the Indus which was the Ganges plain and Deccan. The people living in that region were referred to by the Vedics as "Dasyas". Keep this in mind for later.

Etymological similarities, they don't have any similarities in practice, Avestans had a completely different text than sanskrit. Their beliefs the fundamental of all is they advocate Monotheism. Mitra is not a god and Mitrha in Veda sounds completely different.

Internecine military conflicts between these various Vedic tribes was very common and as such the Indus Valley did not have one powerful Vedic kingdom to wield the warring tribes into one organized kingdom. Most notable of such conflicts was the Battle of Ten Kings, which took place on the banks of the River Ravi in ~1300 BC and was fought between the Bharatas tribe and a confederation of ten tribes which included the Alinas (from Nuristan), Anu (from upper Punjab), Bhrigus (from Punjab), Bhalanas (from Bolan), Druhyus (from Swat), Matsya (from Cholistan), Parsu (from western Balochistan), Purus (from Thar) and Panis (from Sibi). The Bharatas emerged victorious, yet the constant threat of war forced many Vedic tribes to consider migrating out of the Indus. The Bharatas and Purus were among the first to do so.

Meh! This may be true, but then again, I haven't completely read the vedas (translation of course). It is very complicated that, translation are subject to a lot of interpretations.

~ Late Vedic period & Ganges migration ~
Up until 1100 BC, the Ganges plain had remained out of bounds to Vedic tribes because of thick forest cover as well as local resistance from its native Gangetic inhabitants (the Dravidians). After 1100 BC, the use of iron axes and ploughs became widespread and thus forests could be cleared with ease. By 800 BC, Vedic society had transitioned from semi-nomadic life to settled agriculture and now tribes had a choice to remain in the Indus or migrate. The majority stayed such as the Sindhu and Kashmira, while others such as the Bharatas and Purus, migrated east towards the Ganges plain.

The word Dravida has no mention in any of the Vedas, this term came some 4000 years later the composition of Vedas. Also, there are no mention of Gangetic tribes. By the late vedic periods, these had become Kingdoms.
By that time, agriculture wasn't new. It diversed from mere farming to healing techniques. Including details of surgical equipment and several spells for healing, etc... which doesn't look too nomadic to me.

But given the amount of logical errors as a whole. This is tolerable.

As these migrating tribes migrated and settled in the Ganges plain, they began breaking Vedic norms. They attempted to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order against the native Dravidians, but were unsuccessful. Within a few generations, the minority Vedic tribes had been completely usurped by the indigenous culture and faith. Their original Vedic faith, gods and customs were completely abandoned in favour of the indigenous Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs. Their original Vedic social order (as explained above) was replaced with the preexisting caste system. Through religious manipulation, the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges were made to surrender whatever little political rule they had acquired and and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient servants (Sudra caste) of their Dravidian masters. In another version of history, it is claimed that the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges plain successfully entrenched themselves into the ruling order, by adopting Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs, while subjecting the original native Dravidian population to the Sudra caste, though this seems highly unlikely. Regardless of who ruled who and who Brahmins really are (Vedic immigrants or native Gangetic Dravidians), the fact remains is that they abandoned Vedic faith and customs.

This is where it gets into a complete joke.

~ Puranic Hinduism/Brahminism vs Indus Vedic ~
None of the Dravidian and Gangetic gods such as Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma are mentioned in Rig Veda hymns nor do they appear in Vedic texts,

Brahma, Vishnu Rig Veda 1.154, Shiva (Rudra) are mentioned in different Vedas, their purpose is exactly as mentioned in Vedas and continued onto the epics.

Avestan texts or Hittite tablets. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharata and Varna Ashram Dharma of Manu refer to the Indus Vedics as 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'. These texts forbade Brahmans from even visiting the Indus Valley (Vahika-desa). Mahabharata texts also depict Dravidian gods like Krishna clashing with and defeating Vedic gods like Indra. Similarly, the Rig Veda contains taboos and injunctions against the Ganges plain and Deccan which Vedics referred to as "Dasya-varta" and regularly sung praises of Indra (god of thunderbolt) destroying "'Dasya-purahs' or cities in the Ganges plain and Deccan.

[/QUOTE]
Mlechas are anyone who is not part of vedic group. This is authors on creation towards the end, his conclusions are getting comical. And no, Krishna is no dravidian god, nor Aryan god. Not going any further, this has crossed the threshold of fallacy.

~ Clash of ideologies ~
Both Indus Vedic and Gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' between the two, indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the Indus did not accept the Gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture, Brahmanical caste ideology or the Puranas. Vice versa, the Puranic Hindus did not accept Vedic culture or beliefs either.

Pass

~ End result ~
Eventually by 500 BC, Persian rule took over much of the Indus Valley and Zoroastrianism began to spread and influence Vedic beliefs. Similarly under Greek and Macedonian rule, the Indus Vedics would be influenced by Paganism (Hellenism) and later under the Ashoka would eventually begin adopting Buddhism. On the flip side, the Ganges plain and Deccan did not have this outside influence, and hence Puranic Hinduism/Brahmanism would become the dominant form of Hinduism, while the Vedic faith would slowly fade away.

I want to know, these Zoroastrian kings who ruled Indus Valley and their influence on Vedas. Must be something new. @padamchen ? On the contrary, the introduction of Buddhism, has caused the decline of vedic beliefs for a brief period.

~ Pakistani Hinduism ~
Most Hindus in Pakistan still incorporate some aspect of the Vedic faith. This can be proven from the gods that are worshiped among the different communities of Hindus in Pakistan:

- In Sindh, the most revered god among Sindhi Hindus is Jhulelal (Ishta-Deva). They regard Jhulelal to be a incarnation of Varuna, an early Vedic god who was adopted from the Iranian Avestan deity Ahura Mazda.

A non Vedic diety, who most probably is a sage. And the connection with Avestan is cannot be confirmed.

- In Kashmir, Pandits worship a Vedic god known as Kheer Bhawani.

Yes, Bhawani is wife of Shiva.

- In KP, the Kalash tribe (although not Hindus) revere an Indra-like figure as the central part of their religion. Indra was adopted by the Vedic culture originally from the Zoroastrian deity Verethraghna.

Vedic culture is still prevalent among the Hindus in Pakistan and the Kalash. A large percentage of Hindus in Pakistan are non vegetarian and some Hindu clans in Pakistan bury their dead. In Hyderabad you can find the famous graveyard of Thakur Jaati Hindus. Laal Chand Raybari, the first Pakistani Hindu soldier to be martyred, was buried rather than cremated.

You can find such graveyards here too. Lord Ram and a vast number of people did a water burial. Krishna ended up on the earth. The list goes on and on. These are no conclusive proofs of anything.

At the same time, there is also a small population of Hindus in Pakistan who worship mainstream Hindu gods, similar to those found in India. However, this Hindu population arrived in Sindh and Punjab during the British Raj after 1857, mainly from places like Delhi, Bengal, eastern Rajasthan and southern Gujarat. During British rule, Brahmanism experianced a revival. They were chosen by the British to rule the colony, and were educated in English and placed in British government offices throughout the colony. The British also passed laws supporting and aiding Brahmanism. The British also created a myth that Brahmans were Aryans and a superior race, which oddly enough is still believed to this day, despite the fact that Aryans migrated into the Indus Valley and fused culturally with the remaining Harappans. How Aryans ended up in the Ganges is anyone's guess...yet the myth prevails.

~Indian Hinduism~
In comparison, Hinduism in India can also be defined by the gods which are revered and worshiped. These include Shiva, Karthikeya, Ganesha, Shakti (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Meenakshi) and Hanuman - all these gods were originally from Dravidian/South Indian culture, which were worshipped by them long before the Vedic faith had even been established. Vishnu is a god of the Ganges culture. The Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Varuna and others are not mainstream at all among Indian Hindus, as they are among most Hindus in Pakistan.

@Nilgiri you want to add something to this quote. I have no clue on where to start, this is incorrent in a lot of levels. I think, this you and them have been debunked long before. Whether the author read this or not.

 

[Sine Nomine]

I really need to get to know you better; this is nothing less than brilliant.

First, no doubt this is what happened. There are records of wars, but I suspect that two things* are happening in those accounts. One is that those wars were nowhere near the scale on which other wars of migration were waged. Let me name some to serve as examples.

The oldest ones that we know about were the Medes descending on the Assyrians (the Neo-Assyrians, actually); I am not counting those wars that led to little or no movement of people, and perhaps the Assyrians defeating Babylon did not lead to much movement, whereas the Medes moved into their present habitation as a result of their conquest.

Then came the Greeks coming into Hellas, wave after wave, ending with the Dorians. We do not know much about the Celts and the Germans at that time; our knowledge of the invasions of the Germanic tribes into Roman territory is of a much later stage.

Later still, around the turn of the millennium, after Alexander had irrevocably broken the power of the Iranians to withstand attack from the nomads on their frontiers, the Scythians burst into Bactria, Sogdiana (already a mixed province with a significant Scythian presence) and Gandhara; subsequently, in their second move, they moved into parts of Parthia, and into the old Arachosia and Gedrosia; the name Sakasthan, or Seistan dates from that millennial movement. Close behind them, of course, almost as a wave of the same, there were the Kushanas. The earlier theories thought that they were the Tokharians from the desert oases, driven, in turn, before the Xiong Nu, as the Chinese record, but now it is thought that they might well have been Scythians themselves dwelling deeper in the steppes. The last in this series were the Epthalites, the White Huns, who may or may not have been a part of the dreaded Huns themselves.

Another such movement was that of the Germanic tribes, between 100 to 300 years after these events, who entered Rome in tribal waves, led by the Goths, eastern and western, followed by the Vandals, the Franks, the Suevi, the Helvetii, the Angles and the Saxons (into Britain) and finally, the Lombards.

The Arabs followed a bare 3 centuries after, moving into their borders with Persia, but also penetrating in smaller groups deep into what was later Khwarizm.

Finally, with the formation of the Turks, they came into the lands of the Persian and Eastern Roman Empires, and made a permanent presence in what was Anatolia.

This is a broad brush picture; what is important is that in almost all cases, the percentage of the incoming population was typically less than 10% of the population that they entered.

As far as the Indo-Aryan speaking people were concerned, from all the evidence that does NOT exist, it is tempting to suppose that they entered not through warfare on the scale described above, but a much smaller level. Now, do we have records of that? a movement due to reasons other than wars of conquest?

Actually, we do.

Apparently there was a schism in the Indo-Iranian speaking original agglomerated tribes. Those who came into India worshipped the Deva, saw the Asura as the opponents of the Devas; those who stayed back, and later became Zoroastrian, worshipped Ahura, and hated the Daeva. There may also have been economic reasons; these were pastoral people, and the availability of meadows and pastures to feed their cattle was a major factor.

What about actual wars? Well, records of those also exist. That is what I was referring to, above*.

The Rg Veda is a series of paeans to different gods, but Indra is great among them, the leader of the divine war-band and inspiration to these incoming people in their battles against the settlements of the Dasyu. Not, as Mortimer Wheeler mistakenly thought, the cities of the IVC; instead, these might at best have been large stockaded villages, barely reaching the size of a small or medium town, and vulnerable to the attacks of smallish tribes with war-bands in the hundreds, not in the thousands. Looking at the much later struggles of the Saxons against the Northmen gives us a scale for these operations.

Kudos, Summed it very well.
There are lot and lot of theories and many are near the real matter.

 

[Tea addict]

Rajputs are Rajputs,Hindu or Muslim they share same bloodline.
Millions in Pakistan haven't came from sky,we can hold same view which you hold

You are free to hold whatever belief you want , just like me. I find simple, hardworking and honest northeastern people has more in common with me than "Pakistani Rajputs". Same with Jaat in my region.I only joined those people in conversation because they tried to prove how pure and orginal Rajputs they are while taking a piss on Rajputs of Rajputana . Out of the three communities mentioned there,only jaats have some kind of ethnic love which goes beyond religion.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Non sense thread based on assumption that Indus was Hindu.

You are so right. By 'they' you mean the residents of the Indus Valley Civilisation; inasmuch that is concerned, you are perfectly correct. Even the statues and seals with native animals have no clear links to religion; there is no evidence that they were in use in religion.

We need to examine the basic argument for a distinction between the Hinduism of the Indus Valley and the Hinduism of the Ganges Valley. A summary follows.

You are full of contradictions. There is no Indus valley version of Hinduism as oppose to Ganges valley one. Because Indus was never Hindu to begin with.

Your thrust of argument is clearly trying to link Hinduism with IVC.

Na. Take a hike mate.