Since the beginning of Indology, the Aryan problem has engaged the attention of numerous scholars and though there was more or less unanimity among European philologists as to the nature of the language, its affinities with the major European language, the original home of the “Aryans” in Europe and “Aryan” culture and its date, brought out the inherent absurdities and self-contradictions in these theories. These absurdities can be disproved by using the new age of astronomical studies by finding the astronomical parallels contained in the Samhitas, also this will help in understanding the anxiety of European scientists from the 1800s and 1900s who tried to influence racial migration through colonialism.
The claim of Western Indologists on invasion theory begins with linguistic sources, where Schlegel‘s theory differentiates inflexional languages, including Sanskrit, by illustrating that it cannot be derived solely from animal sounds, and he also distinguishes it as a superficial language due to its complex structures. Based on this theory Whitney equates Sanskrit with other languages based on the stages of cultural development. He says the existence of Aryan languages in Mesolithic Europe, the most prominent of these ideas dates the Aryans’ origins to Southeastern Europe. Positional languages like Chinese, Burmese, and Sudanese symbolise the familial stage of civilization, agglutinative languages like Turkish, Swahili, and Korean the nomadic stage, and flexional languages the sophisticated political stage of Western Europeans. And concluded that the Vedic Sanskrit was thought to have been spoken by the ‘pastoral nomadic Aryans’.
But on the other hand, Prof. SS Sastri demonstrated both the above viewpoints as manifestly incompatible and concluded that language is not a relevant criterion in determining the cultural development of any society. He went on to say that conclusive proof is morphological in character and that any attempt at vocabulary comparison must be backed up by regular sound correlations. Dr. Srikanta Sastri went on elucidating the meaning of the Sanskrit word ‘arya’ by analysing its etymological meaning. Which explains the term “ri,” which means “to go” or “to migrate,” is also the source of the word Arya. As a result, the term “Aryan” was originally used to refer to “people of the land,” “workers of the land,” and hence agriculturalists. Over time, this term grew to connote talent, then nobleness, and, unfortunately, it was later assigned to a specific group of individuals with a racial connotation. He explained that the first component of the term ‘agricultural,’ ‘Agri,’ comes from the old Proto-Sanskrit root ‘ag-,’ which means “to go, to move, to act, to drag or pull as in pulling a plough, or drawing a waggon, or even ’tilling the soil by pulling a plough”. The source of the name Arya is ‘Ag,’ from which the Sanskrit word ‘ajras’ (plain, open country, plot) is derived. The root of the words “area” and “acre” – cultivated land, ‘akker’ (Dutch), ‘Acker’ (German), ‘agros’ (Greek), ‘ager’ (Latin), and ‘cer’ (Old English) all imply “field” or “tract of land.” Linguistic similarities are not conclusive evidence of “Aryan invasion.” The Vedic Sanskrit language has the most vocables of any other Aryan language. Even though there has been inter-racial contact for millennia, these are preserved in Sanskritic languages in various parts of India. However, if the pre-Vedic Aryan language was spoken in various parts of Europe and Asia where the Aryans had settled before coming to India, how come only a few vocables are left in the present-day speech of those parts (as AIT suggests), while the majority of them are found in the far-flung places of ultimate settlement and racial admixture in India. On the contrary, this disparity can easily be explained if the pre-Vedic was the language of the homeland of Aryans and the other Aryan languages came into existence as a result of the contact between migrating Aryans and non-Aryan elements outside India and Persia.
The earliest phase of Rigvedic culture is Neolithic as is evident from the use of stone, bone, and wood implements in the sacrifices (before 8,000 BCE). Aryans themselves regarded Sapta-Sindhu as their original home – devakrita-yoni or devanirmita-desa/Brahmavarta bound by Drashadvati and Sarasvati (Rigveda. 3.23.4). For centuries, migrating races have looked back to their homeland. After eight hundred years, the Parsis in India recall their origins. Even though they had lost their whereabouts, the ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians knew their respective homelands. If the Vedic Aryans arrived from outside, they must have lived in Sapta-Sindhu for so long before the Vedic period that they had lost all knowledge of their previous residence. Prof. Sastri conclusively claimed that the Indo-Hatti, Mittani, and other peoples are descendants of Indo-Aryans who migrated west as early as 3000 BCE (Because the Sarasvati River in the Brahmavarta region completely dried up.), if not earlier. Hereafter Vedic Gods in the Boghaz Koi inscription and Mitannian records were found from the Vedanga Jyotishya records of earlier aryans in the Sapta-Sindhu region(1,400 BCE).
The sacrificial rituals had long been established before the compilation of the samhitas. They represent fertility cults that cannot be attributed to any non-Aryan influence (Sastri 1941). We can deduce from his findings that the most common materials used for ritual vessels were wood, bone, and stone, with metal being used only infrequently. This emphasizes the Vedic period’s historicity. Prof. Wakankar’s (Wakankar 2008) research further supports the theory that the cave paintings at Bhimbetka are related to the Ashvamedha ritual (yaaga).
Navaneeth Joshi 