BBC accepts that AIT is flawed

[Random Boy]

There have been two major theories about the early development of early south Asian traditions.
1.The Aryan migration thesis that the Indus Valley groups calling themselves 'Aryans' (noble ones) migrated into the sub-continent and became the dominant cultural force. Hinduism, on this view, derives from their religion recorded in the Veda along with elements of the indigenous traditions they encountered.
2.The cultural transformation thesis that Aryan culture is a development of the Indus Valley culture. On this view there were no Aryan migrations (or invasion) and the Indus valley culture was an Aryan or vedic culture.
There are two sources of knowledge about this ancient period - language and archaeology - and we can make two comments about them. Firstly, the language of vedic culture was vedic Sanskrit, which is related to other languages in the Indo-European language group. This suggests that Indo-European speakers had a common linguistic origin known by scholars as Proto-Indo-European.
Secondly, there does seem to be archaeological continuity in the subcontinent from the Neolithic period. The history of this period is therefore complex. One of the key problems is that no horse remains have been found in the Indus Valley but in the Veda the horse sacrifice is central. The debate is ongoing.
BBC - Religions - Hinduism

Major Case against AIT
The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.

Later research, it is argued, has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely.

Some historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It’s now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.

The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism.

Dangers of the theory

Opponents of the Aryan invasion theory claim that it denies the Indian origin of India’s predominant culture, and gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere.

They say that it even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India’s culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.

The theory was not just wrong, some say, but included unacceptably racist ideas:
◾it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures
◾it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism
◾it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences
◾it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders
◾it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith
◾it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes
◾it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system
◾it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj
◾it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier
◾it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture

 

[livingdead]

@Random Boy .. are you aryan wolf by any chance.. he had interest in such aryan sh*t...

 

[Random Boy]

@Random Boy .. are you aryan wolf by any chance.. he had interest in such aryan sh*t...

every Indian should have a interest in it. didnt you read what i posted. the AIT denigrates Indian civilisation, culture, People etc. it is very dangerous and racist theory by Whites against Indians. Psychological Warfare. Every Indian should denie it, Indian Schools shouldnt teach it etc. It is not only wrong but also very dangerous and racist.

 

[livingdead]

every Indian should have a interest in it. didnt you read what i posted. the AIT denigrates Indian civilisation, culture, People etc. it is very dangerous and racist theory by Whites against Indians. Psychological Warfare. Every Indian should denie it, Indian Schools shouldnt teach it etc. It is not only wrong but also very dangerous and racist.

Most Indians are not into aryan stuff, its the iranians who think they are aryan (which might be true). There is no psychological warfare going on now, India is for Indians, whether we originated in central asia or africa, makes no difference to us.
Its a matter of science, not politics.

 

[Random Boy]

Most Indians are not into aryan stuff, its the iranians who think they are aryan (which might be true). There is no psychological warfare going on now, India is for Indians, whether we originated in central asia or africa, makes no difference to us.
Its a matter of science, not politics.

it is not about if Indians are "aryans" as in "superior hitler race" but about ancient roots of Indian civilisation and Indian culture. basically it says Indians are incapable People and only Progress with outside/White influence and that Whites are superior and built Indian civilisation and gave Indians their Religion. Indians shouldnt take that. Indians should write their own history, and it is a matter of science but im sure the AIT is wrong. there is many evidence that it is wrong definitely in the way it gets promoted.

 

[livingdead]

it is not about if Indians are "aryans" as in "superior hitler race" but about ancient roots of Indian civilisation and Indian culture. basically it says Indians are incapable People and only Progress with outside/White influence and that Whites are superior and built Indian civilisation and gave Indians their Religion. Indians shouldnt take that. Indians should write their own history, and it is a matter of science but im sure the AIT is wrong. there is many evidence that it is wrong definitely in the way it gets promoted.

well we are in control of our own destiny. I am against revision of history for political purpose. Some Indians think there was no aryan migration, but they have an agenda (usually right wing).

I still believe there has been quite bit migration to north India, early hindu scripture point to that too. For example the oldest veda talk a lot about horses( not at all about cows who are considered holy currently). Horses are not indegenous to India.

Vedas talk about a liquor that king of god 'indra' drinks, called 'soma'. Its still called soma in border region of a central asian country (i forgot the name).

Then there are genetic proof showing north indian linkage to central asia. (Not europe).

I dont care if more research is done and we find out we all are from china. Human story is full of such migration, am not bothered.

 

[Random Boy]

well we are in control of our own destiny. I am against revision of history for political purpose. Some Indians think there was no aryan migration, but they have an agenda (usually right wing).

I still believe there has been quite bit migration to north India, early hindu scripture point to that too. For example the oldest veda talk a lot about horses( not at all about cows who are considered holy currently). Horses are not indegenous to India.

Vedas talk about a liquor that king of god 'indra' drinks, called 'soma'. Its still called soma in border region of a central asian country (i forgot the name).

Then there are genetic proof showing north indian linkage to central asia. (Not europe).

I dont care if more research is done and we find out we all are from china. Human story is full of such migration, am not bothered.

Horse and Chariot

The issue of the horse has become the main line of demarcation for the invasionists/ migrationists. It has become a one-issue argument used to neutralize any other data. They see Vedic/Aryan culture as a movement of horse-riding people into India from Central Asia. They point out the development of a horse culture at an earlier period in Central Asia and the lack of horse remains in ancient India. They equate the Aryans with the horse and chariot and Harappa with a non-horse, non-chariot and hence non-Vedic culture. Such a simplistic equation has many flaws and ignores the many other issues. It overlooks that Vedic culture was essentially a rishi-king culture, not a horse/nomad culture.

First, one should note that horses and chariots spread throughout the ancient world from Egypt and China. It was not accompanied by a radical change of culture, language or population for an entire subcontinent as has been proposed for ancient India. Ancient Egypt and China took on horses and chariots without any break in the continuity of their civilizations. Certainly, ancient India, the largest urban civilization of its time in the world, could have taken on a new horse/chariot culture without having to change everything else as well. Therefore, even if horses or chariots came into India from the outside at some point in time, this is no reason to assume that the language and culture of the region had to change as well.

Second, a study of horse anatomy shows that there were two types of horses in the ancient world that we still find today. There is a south Asian and Arabian type that has seventeen ribs and a West and Central Asian horse that has eighteen ribs. The Rig Vedic horse, as described in the Ashvamedha or horse-sacrifice of the Rig Veda[2] has thirty-four ribs (seventeen times two for the right and left side). This shows that the Rig Vedic horse did not come from Central Asia but was the South Asian breed. The Rig Vedic horse is born of the ocean,[3] which also indicates southern connections. The Yajur Veda ends with an invocation of the Divine horse that has the ocean as its belly (samudra udaram, TS VII.5.25). The Brihadarayaka Upanishad identifies the day and night as the two greatnesses of the horse rooted in the eastern and western oceans (BU I.1.2).

Some scholars have argued that there are not enough horse remains or horse seals to show that the horse was as significant in the Harappan era as it appears to be in Vedic literature. In this regard, we see that the unicorn is a common Harappan image. Should we then imagine that unicorns were common animals of the time? Harappan seals contain many mythical, composite and multiheaded animals. The Rig Veda also has such mythic and composite images like the Vedic bull with four horns, three feet, two heads and seven hands (RV IV.58.3). Clearly, the Harappan seals are not an anatomical record of existent animal species!

Horse bones have now been found in Harappan and pre-Harappan sites in India, not only in the north and west but also in the south and east, showing that the horse was known to the Harappan people, though it was probably mainly the south Asian horse. At the same time, the horse evidence required to prove the Aryan invasion/migration theory is also lacking. We do not find any significant evidence of horses coming into India around 1500 BCE in the form of horse remains, horse encampments or horse images. If the Aryans came with the horse around 1500 BCE, such remains would be dramatic. There is no archaeological trail of horse bones into India around 1500 BCE. If the horse were indigenous to India, on the other hand, there would not be dramatic horse remains at one level as opposed to another. So far there are no dramatic horse finds at any level. Even in the Bactria and Margian Archaeological Complex, which is supposed to be horse rich and a staging area of successive Indo-Aryan migrations/invasions into India, not a single horse bone has been found yet. This means that other areas supposedly rich in horses do not exhibit significant horse remains either.

Moreover, there are many equus bones found in ancient India, particularly the onager (Equus hemionus), which is native to Kachchh in Gujarat. There is evidence that the onager was used to draw chariots or battle cars in ancient Sumeria and was later replaced by the stronger and faster horse. The same thing probably occurred in India. It is also likely that the Vedic people did not discriminate between the different equus animals as strictly as we do the true horse from other breeds. This means that the Rig Vedic horse (ashva) could have, at least in the beginning, been an onager, which explains its oceanic connections as its native region of Kachchh is along the sea in what would have been the delta of the Sarasvati river.

Other scholars have noted that the Rig Veda knows of a light spoked-wheel chariot that did not appear in the Middle East until around 2000 BCE, suggesting it must be later than this period. They point out the lack of chariot remains in Harappan sites. Countering this view, the spoked-wheel is a common Harappan writing symbol. So there is evidence that the spoked wheel chariot had considerable antiquity in Harappan India.[4]

Genetic Information

Genetics is offering us important new information, both in regard to human and animal populations. India’s climate, flora and fauna are closely related to those of Southeast Asia, much more so than to Central Asia or the Middle East. In particular, Indian cattle (Bos Indicus) are domesticated versions of the wild cattle of Southeast Asia known as the Banteng (Bos Banteng or Bos Javanicus, a close relative of the Indian bison or gaur).

The Indian cow is an indigenous breed going back tens of thousands of years and not an offshoot of the Central and West Asian cow. Cattle husbandry is an independent development in India, not brought in from the west. Cattle genetics is even more detrimental to the migration theories because unlike invaders, migrants would always travel with their cattle and horses. Cattle genetics does not show this. As both the ancient Indian cow and horse reflect native breeds, one can no longer propose that the invading Aryans brought them in. That the invading Aryans left their cows and horses behind and adapted those of the indigenous Indians would be a rather silly proposition.

An examination of human skeletal remains also does not show any discontinuity from 1900-800 BCE, the period of the proposed Aryan entrance into India. In a recent article, Hemphill et al[5] state that there are two discontinuities in the area in so far as the human remains are concerned. One occurred between 6000-4500 BCE and the other occurred between 800-200 BCE. In the intervening period, there is a general biological continuity, notwithstanding a limited interaction with the populations from the west that has always occurred to some degree.

Human populations in India show the persistence of the same main population groups back to the pre-Harappan period and before. There is no evidence of an intrusion of new populations from West Asia that altered the genetics of humans in India at the time of the proposed Aryan intrusion. The skeletal record shows that in most ways the Indian population is quite unique. As a result, one thing can safely be asserted: Indians are ancient inhabitants of India and Southeast Asia (or Greater India) and not recent immigrants. Their literature should also belong to them.
Myth of Aryan Invasion Update, Center for Vedic Studies USA, Dr Dawid Frawley

- Ad genetics. It is commanly accepted that there are two Basic genetic components in india of which the various ethnic Groups are made up ANI+ASI but the admixture date of those two components is uncertain according to some but to some the admixture and diversity in india is ancient much before the suppossed aryan Immigration or Invasion. the ANI is closer to West Asia and Europe and rather found in Northern India and high castes true, but the common roots with westerneuroasia are ancient and it was much before vedic civilisation and harappa etc.
search for the News article "Indians not descendants of Aryan new study Shows"

Also the mind about AIT changed much, now the most proposed scenerio is not a Invasion anymore but a Immigration and they accepted flaws in their thinking they had before. But it is still widely used and believed by various racists. They say Indians who are against AIT are right wing and have a Agenda but Whites who Claim to invented civilisation in india are not racist and have a Agenda? It is a fight between two world views, the world view of west, materialistic and imperialistic and greedy and a more eastern view which honours ancestors and culture of india.

more Research should be done, im not against it, fair Research also involving Indian experts etc. not a whitecentric and biased Research like done by the former british colonial empire

 

[Random Boy]

The Aryan Invasion Theory is False - Genetic Evidence
•No trace of “demographic disruption” in the North-West of the subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE; this negates the possibility of any massive intrusion, by so-called Indo-Aryans or other populations, during that period.
•Deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.”
•Haplogroup U, being common to North Indian and “Caucasoid” populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of the haplogroup M, another marker frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence of an invasion: in reality, haplogroup M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%, across most Indian population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. Tribal populations have higher frequencies of haplogroup M than caste populations.”
- U.S. anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill.



•Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’ — that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.
- U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.



•There is a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.
- Scientists Susanta Roychoudhury and thirteen others studying 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups.



•mtDNA haplogroup “M” common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is “inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness’ of Indians.” This shows, once again, that “the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene.” U haplogroup frequency 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia. “Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits.” In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought.
•If one were to extend methodology used to suggest an Aryan invasion based on Y-Dna statistics to populations of Eastern and Southern India, one would be led to an exactly opposite result: “the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe.” The authors do not defend this thesis, but simply guard against “misleading interpretations” based on limited samples and faulty methodology.
•The Chenchu tribe is genetically close to several castes, there is a “lack of clear distinction between Indian castes and tribes.


- Twenty authors headed by Kivisild - Archaeogenetics of Europe - 2000.



•â€œLanguage families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the linguistically defined groups in India should be considered more ‘autochthonous’ than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent.”


- Mait Metspalu and fifteen co-authors analyzing 796 Indian and 436 Iranian mtDNAs. 2001.



•Geneticist Toomas Kivisild led a study (2003) in which comparisons of the diversity of R1a1 (R-M17) haplogroup in Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Central Asian, Czech and Estonian populations. The study showed that the diversity of R1a1 in India, Pakistan, and Iran, is higher than in Czechs (40%), and Estonians[12].
•Kivisild came to the conclusion that "southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup": "Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup".[12]
•â€œGiven the geographic spread and STR diversities of sister clades R1 and R2, the latter of which is restricted to India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern central Asia, it is possible that southern and western Asia were the source for R1 and R1a differentiation. ”


- Kivilsid - 2003




•Based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations, it announced in its very title how its findings revealed a “Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists,” i.e. of the Indo-Aryans, and stated its general agreement with the previous study. For instance, the authors rejected the identification of some Y-DNA genetic markers with an “Indo-European expansion,” an identification they called “convenient but incorrect ... overly simplistic.” To them, the subcontinent’s genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: “The influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. ... There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages.”
•â€œDravidian” authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization rejected indirectly, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus....” They found, in conclusion, “overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.”
•The frequencies of R2 seems to mirror the frequencies of R1a (i.e. both lineages are strong and weak in the same social and linguistic subgroups). This may indicate that both R1a and R2 moved into India at roughly the same time or co-habited, although more research is needed. R2 is very rare in Europe.


Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill. - 2006.




•â€œThe sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward.”
•â€œThe Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family.”
•â€œSouthern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions.” As a result, “it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the caste and tribal pools,” a conclusion that directly clashes with the Aryan invasion theory which purports that male European Aryans chased tribal adivasis and aboriginals down south.


Sanghamitra Sahoo, T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap. - 2006.




•When Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the North-West of the Indian peninsula. In particular, one migration started around 50,000 BP towards the Middle East and Western Europe: “indeed, nearly all Europeans — and by extension, many Americans — can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia.”


-LluÃ*s Quintana-Murci,Vincent Macaulay,Stephen Oppenheimer,Michael Petraglia,and their associates



•â€œFor me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17(Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a, associated with the male Aryan invasion theory) and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.”


-Stephen Oppenheimer



•A (2009) study headed by geneticist Swarkar Sharma, collated information for 2809 Indians (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes). The results showed "no consistent pattern of the exclusive presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to distinguish the higher-most caste, Brahmins, from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and tribals". Brahmins from West Bengal showed the highest frequency (72.22%) of Y-haplogroups R1a1* hinting that it may have been a founder lineage for this caste group. The authors found it significant that the Saharia tribe of Madhya Pradesh had not only 28.07% R1a1, but also 22.8% R1a*, out of 57 people, with such a high percentage of R1a* never having been found before. Based on STR variance the estimated age of R1a* in India was 18,478 years, and for R1a1 it was 13,768 years.
•In its conclusions the study proposed "the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins" as well as "the origin of R1a1* ... in the Indian subcontinent".
•S. Sharma, argued for an Indian origin of R1a1 lineage among Brahmins, by pointing out the highest incidence of R1a*, ancestral clade to R1a1, among Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) and Saharias, an Indian tribe.
- Sharma et al 2009



•"This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide."
•"There is no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India."

•The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally upper and lower castes and tribal groups. "The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society."
•"Impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different."
•The present-day Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations - the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI).
•"The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,'' said Thangarajan. He added, "At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India."
•The study also helps understand why the incidence of genetic diseases among Indians is different from the rest of the world. Singh said that 70% of Indians were burdened with genetic disorders and the study could help answer why certain conditions restricted themselves to one population. For instance, breast cancer among Parsi women, motor neuron diseases among residents of Tirupati and Chittoor, or sickle cell anaemia among certain tribes in central India and the North-East can now be understood better, said researchers.
•The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world.

 

[Random Boy]

in light of These evidence new theories and concepts of why Indians speak indo-european should be considered
Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory: Bharatiya Languages



The Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian) Languages

S. Kalyanaraman and Mayuresh Kelkar (October 2005)



Abstract. This monograph proposes an alternative Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya Languages, to study evolution of languages in Bharatam, and replaces the invasionist model of Indo-European Linguistics (IEL). A paradigm shift in language studies of Bharat (India) is suggested, starting with the identification of bharatam janam, a phrase used by Vis’vamitra Gathina in the Rigveda (vis’vamitrasya raks.ati brahmedam bharatam janam ‘this mantra of Vis’vamitra will protect the nation of Bharata people’, RV 3.53.12). This calls for a study of mleccha, vra_tya, jaati in ancient bharatam, from Paleolithic times, exemplified by Nahali > Nagari. [Mleccha (Meluhha) is the language of dvi_pava_sinah, early metal workers and artisans (karma_ra, kamar), the speakers living along coastlines of the Indian Ocean Rim and in doabs -- overlapping river-basins between two rivers -- who created the maritime-riverine civilizations.] Many conclusions can be derived from a study of bharatiya savants who have contributed to language studies. The corpus of grammars and texts available in all parts of Bharatam is just stunning, as our pitr.-s have delved deep into the subject of bhasha. We have to re-discover their contributions and use the bharatiya research method (a triad composed of s'ruti-tantrayukti-anubhuti, which should replace the constrictive Hegelian dialectic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis) to progress the studies further to unravel the linguistic area of circa 3000 BCE. A linguistic area is defined as an area where many languages/dialects interact and absorb one another's features as their own. In such a setting, the categories such as non-agglutinative, agglutinative become meaningless. There is intense interaction among the so-called munda, dravidian and indo-aryan families of languages. Instead of invasionist models proposed by IEL, we should expound on a Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory. The Veda arrives on the scene with such profundity of thought, that at least a score centuries should have been involved in a Proto-Vedic (mleccha + samskr.tam) evolving into Vedic and later Samskr.tam, differentiating further as Prakrits (Dravidian, Munda, Apabhrams’a). Languages do change but they also conserve. IEL is an ideology and it is unfalsifiable, hence not science. The IEL method of drawing upon genetic theories is also unacceptable because languages do not follow biological change laws. Languages evolve and semantic expansion occurs due to interchanges in a social contract. Sangam literature (cf. Patir-r-uppattu) refers to cera vel.ir kings descent from 49 generations from Dwaraka (Tuvarai mentioned in Patirruppattu, cf. Bibliography), may be after its submergence mentioned in Mahabharata mausala parvan. There was an excellent article by Prof. KV Sharma on the subject citing Sangam literary sources in Adyar Bulletin. One view is that Vedic civilization had its maritime roots in Tamil-Southeast Asian hindumahasagar rim before settling on sarasvati - sindhu doab basin. The monograph advocates a radical departure from the methods of IEL. What is suggested is a continuation of the earlier language studies by bharatiya savants, so as to delineate the Proto-Vedic Continuity and, to contribute to a better understanding of the I in the IE. Such an exercise is likely to provide answers to the interactions between Sarasvati civilization and the European civilizations and the corresponding interactions among Bharatiya and European languages taking into account the geological fact that Bharat was not subjected to glaciation, unlike most parts of Europe (which renders the problem of European languages and expansion of farming and relocations of people, a complex exercise differentiating pre-glaciation and post-glaciation periods).(Adams, John, and Marcelle Otte, 1999).






The Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian) Languages



S. Kalyanaraman and Mayuresh Kelkar

(October 2005, Yugabda 5106, Deepavali)



Summary: To avoid the pitfalls of invasionist hypotheses to explain language changes, a Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory for Bharatiya languages is postulated. This will be tested on the Indo- in the Indo-European, that is Bharatiya (Indian) languages, which are clubbed in the hyphenated compound, ‘Indo-European’ languages.



Bharatam janam is the phrase used by vis’vamitra gathina in the Rigveda. The objective of this monograph is to study the languages of bharatam janam in a historical and cultural perspective. The Rig Veda is such a profound document that many centuries of evolution of language should have occurred before the Vedic mantra-s were perceived (dras.t.a). It is, therefore, suggested that there was a Proto-Vedic language which needs to be unraveled through language studies.



The authors submit that it should be possible to delineate the languages/dialects spoken by bharatam janam from Proto-Vedic times. This will be attempted by denying the usefulness of methods used by Indo-European Linguistics (IEL) that are unfalsifiable, ideologically driven conjectures. . Was Proto Indo European ever spoken? Who knows? This is an unfalsifiable statement in IEL. Many unfalsifiable statements found among proponents and supporters of IEL are presented as quotable quotes in this monograph. An array of genetic-language relationship studies from mostly genetic journals to highlight the slippery nature of the attempts being made to match a scientific, genetic discipline with unfalsifiable categorizations provided by IEL studies. Many IEL assumptions are treated as “evidence” in these articles appearing in “scientific” journals.



The monograph is organized in two parts and the following sections, highlighting the limitations of IEL and the imperative of study of evolution of Bharatiya languages now spoken by more than one billion people living in Bharat, that is India.



Part 1: Limitations of IEL
1.‘Love’ of Sanskrit as a camouflage for evangelism
2.Unfalsifiable Teach Yourself PIE
3.Indeterminate laryngeals
4.Aryan race ideology
5.Eurocentrism
6.A fading discipline hangs on to slippery genes

Part 2: Bharatiya Language Studies
7.Studies needed to delineate the Indo- in Indo-European
8.Study of Prakrits from Paleolithic times
9.The Proto-Vedic Continiuty Theory of Bharatiya Languages



Appendix 1 provides a dialectic on How to study bhasha? S’abda as Brahman in bharatiya tradition of language studies (s’iksha).



Appendix 2 discusses concordances between Post-Vedic and Avestan



[The term Bhartiya as used in this monograph refers to people of ‘Greater India’ comprising the modern nations of Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangaldesh, Bhutan and S’rilanka; language contacts evidenced in Afghanistan, Iran, Mesopotamia and in Indian Ocean Rim states (for e.g., Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand).]

 

[Srinivas]

@Random Boy nice thread

 

[Srinivas]

Also the mind about AIT changed much, now the most proposed scenerio is not a Invasion anymore but a Immigration and they accepted flaws in their thinking they had before. But it is still widely used and believed by various racists. They say Indians who are against AIT are right wing and have a Agenda but Whites who Claim to invented civilisation in india are not racist and have a Agenda? It is a fight between two world views, the world view of west, materialistic and imperialistic and greedy and a more eastern view which honours ancestors and culture of india.
more Research should be done, im not against it, fair Research also involving Indian experts etc. not a whitecentric and biased Research like done by the former british colonial empire

This is the real point

@Joe Shearer @Bang Galore

 

[INDIC]

This is the real point

@Joe Shearer @Bang Galore

The new theory I read that there were two dominent races in North and South. Northern one spreading from India into west Asia. Over the centuries two of them mixed well across the centuries and in present what's remaining is two language families.

 

[Srinivas]

The new theory I read that there were two dominent races in North and South. Northern one spreading from India into west Asia. Over the centuries two of them mixed well across the centuries and in present what's remaining is two language families.

North Indians and South Indians arrived here at around 40000 years and 60000 years respectively, After that some mixing happened between them, through out centuries.

 

[INDIC]

North Indians and South Indians arrived here at around 40000 years and 60000 years respectively, After that some mixing happened between them, through out centuries.

Morover North was always invaded since the time of Iranian and Greek invasion bringing new settlers in the North. Later came Kushans or Huns and many more.

 

[Srinivas]

Morover North was always invaded since the time of Iranian and Greek invasion bringing new settlers in the North. Later came Kushans or Huns and many more.

Before the invasions began it is migrations that did small changes in the demography.