D
Deleted member 25190
DESHI BASARA
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2023
- Posts
- 791
- Reputation
- 681
To debunk the Out of India Theory (hereinafter, OIT), you need to understand what is the scholarly view of Indo-Aryan migrations. To oversimplify, there is a hypothised homeland of "Aryans" (which is not the Aryans that Hitler states) known as the "Urheimat". This homeland is a hypothesis not because it did not exist, but because we don't know where it is. It is commonly accepted to be the pontic steppe, which started after the Horse was first domesticated around 5200 BCE ( Anthony, David W. 2007). These people after domesticating the horses started moving in a lot of directions, one of which is south, towards India and Iran as well as west towards the Europe.
These people, also known as the "Proto-Indo Europeans" (hereinafter PIE) carried their language and culture all around Asia and Europe. These people were pastoralists who moved all around Asia and Europe for a variety of reasons, the most accepted of which is climate change. In short, there was an event called the 4.2 kiloyear event which was, as the name suggests, 4.2 kiloyears from now. This event created climate change which made the steppe colder and also created aridification around the globe, which resulted in the decline of Bronze Age civilizations like the Indus Valley Civilization, Mesopotamian Civilization as well as Egyptian civilization. ( Staubwasser, M.; et al., 2003) . So the first point, is why the Aryans started to move. Climate change as well as their pastoralist nature, hence they were not averse to moving.
These people brought their genes, their culture, their language and their way of life down south (only for our discussion, they moved westwards also, but we are not concerned by that for now). So technically, Sanskrit (or the ancestor thereof) as well as the Vedic Aryan culture came from the outside of the Indian subcontinent. You can understand why the nationalists refuse to accept this.
So what are the evidences of such a migration?
1. Linguistic evidence:
The best way to know how a culture changes is to look at the language that they speak. Let me start with an example. In hindi, the word for father is " पिता ", we know it came from the Sanskrit "पितृ ". But then again, we find similar words for "Father" in other languages. Father in English, Vater in German, Pader in Farsi. How is that possible? Indians and Greeks didn't have significant contact before Alexander, so how do we speak similar languages?
To answer this question, we employ a comparative analysis of language. We start from the languages that we speak right now and start to move towards the ancestors of that language. When we have reconstructed all that, we can come to a conclusion, that all the Indo European languages (hellenic, Indo Iranian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian) started from a common ancestor known as the "Proto Indo European" language, this language is still being reconstructed.
First argument of an OIT proponent: All these languages started from Sanskrit. This is not true because Sanskrit and other PIE languages have a common ancestor. Quite like the theory of evolution. The language changes simply do not signify that Sanskrit was the mother of PIE languages.
2. Archaeology:
The oldest nucleus of PIE people could have been the Samara culture, but there is already debate about it (6000-5000 BCE), but we can certainly see the similarities between the Yamnaya culture (3600-2300 BCE) and Vedic culture. Yamnaya culture is also called the Pit Grave Culture. This can be called the nucleus of the PIE culture. From this particular area, the Indo European (hereinafter, IE) languages spread west, south and east, starting from 4,000 BCE. These languages and culture was mostly patriarchal, that means, mostly men moved, along with their culture. (David Anthony, 2007).
So the Yamnaya people, who were located north of the Black sea. These people moved east and created Sinthasta Culture (2200-1800 BCE). This is the place where Indo Iranian (the progenitor of Sanskrit and Persian/Farsi) was spoken. (Anthony, 2007). This culture then developed into the Andronovo Culture (2000-900BCE) which interacted with the Bactria Margiana Culture (BMAC) [timeline: 2400-1600 BCE]. This is where the group split indo the Indo-Aryans (which later became the vedic culture) and the Iranian (they became, well, Iranians). The migration in India was in waves and it was not an invasion! These groups were genetically diverse and they spread their culture everywhere.
This is the route of the migration.
3. Genetics:
This will conclusively destroy all claims of OIT. India has two genetic components, first is the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) which is made up of Middle Easterners, Central Asians and Europeans and Ancestral South Indian (ASI) which is completely distinct from each other. Today, indians are a mixture of both. Endogamy started after 4200-1900 BP (before present) so, we are a mixture of ANI/ASI. Dravidian/Aryan on the basis of genes just does not exist. Period. Recommended Reading and source of this info.
This undeniable, peer reviewed research paper proves :
By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and southeast Asia. Following the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, they mixed with people in the southeast to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who spread via Central Asia after 4000 years ago to form the other main ancestral population. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the unique shared features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages. Link to the paper.
Narsmihan studies prove that there was indeed a migration from north to south in the indian subcontinent.
Yamnaya culture, from where the "Aryan gene" (r1a) originates from.
4. Literary evidence:
When you compare the texts of Rig Veda and Zend Avesta, you can find the cultural similarities. Asuras of Rig Vedas became ""Ahura" in Zoroastrianism with flipped roles. Long story short, Asuras are the good guys in Zoroastrian faith, their supreme god is called "Ahura Mazda", whereas the opposite is the case in Rig Veda. The same can be observed in other myths as well. Another name of Ahura Mazda is "Varuna" which is a prominent Rigvedic diety. These similarities are not possible unless they came from the same source.
Similarities between Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit.
Find below, the arguments from OIT proponents and the debunking of the said evidence.
A. Rig Veda makes a mention of Saraswati (Ghagghar Hakra) when it was a great big river some 7000-9000 years ago.Saraswati became seasonal later, how did Rig Vedic people write about Saraswati when it was in full force? -> Saraswati is bound to remain a mystery given how less writing survives from the Vedic era, yet let me make an attempt to put the Saraswati question in context. Saraswati, according started to decline around 3000 BCE. Which should be contemporaneous with the Indus valley civilisation, more specifically, the Early Harappan Phase which lasted from 3300-2600 BCE. Now the problem with Saraswati arises when we take Rig Veda as the reference document for accurately dating itself. At 3000 BCE, in the Sapta Sindhu region, Sanskrit was not being used. We know this for a fact because we find no remnants of Sanskrit in the Indus Valley seals or other items there.
Another issue that comes up is about the horses. Horses were not a thing in Asia minor till around 1800-1700 BCE. Rig Veda mentions horses extensively. We find no irrefutable proof of horses in the Indus Valley. I have seen the seals and most of the publically available items with my own two eyes. There are no horses to be found there. Other cattle are found, just not horses. . The problem with dating rig Veda pre-1800BCE is that the horse question remains unsolved. How can a civilization that did not see horses write so much about horses?
These two points should be kept in mind when you try to date the rig Veda pre-1500-1300 BCE. How can these logical inconsistencies be answered?
If the Vedic people were around in the Sapta Sindhu region in 3000 BCE, we would find evidence, but we find none.
B. Astronomical evidence: In short: it is pseudoscience. Astronomical evidence cannot be taken on face value when other material evidence is against it. Plain and simple.
C. Yamnaya people were not white, hence they were indian: There is a misconception that all central asian people looked white 500 years ago. This is just completely false. This is a peer reviewed study done by an indian scientist who reconstructed people who lived in Europe 7000 years ago, which would be around 500 BCE. Those people had dark skin and blue eyes.During the 84th annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, it was concluded that when it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European's skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency.
Europe was not always white. Yamnaya people were brown, and that does not imply that Indians went out.
D. These accounts were written by racist Britishers: There is some truth to it. The British were racists who gave the Aryan INVASION theory. Various Indian scholars have also concluded that there was no invasion, but migration in small waves. This is an outdated theory which no one accepts.
E. Chariots found in Sinauli is conclusive proof of chariots being indigenous to India: Chariots are vehicles that are used in war. They are lightweight horse hauled and spoked wheeled vehicles used to haul soldiers and supplies. The vehicles found in sinauli are not horse-driven chariots, but are solid wheeled carts. These vehicles are impractical in a war, and hence, do not fall within the category of Chariots.
First sinauli is not a Vedic site conclusively. It is a late Harrapan, Ochre Colored Pottery/ Copper hoard site. SK Manjul, the director of excavations at sinauli had also stated that these are most probably not hauled by horses, but instead by other bovines. Research paper by Asko Parpola debunking the Sinauli myth
Picture of cart found in Sinauli.
F. Horse paintings at Bhimbetka in MP which date back to 10,000-20,000 years BP: Bhimbetka is archaeologically layered. It was inhabited from the Indian Mesolithic Era (~10,000 BP) to the medieval ages. Horse paintings found in Bhimbetka were created during periods VI and VII which are medieval. These paintings themselves can be dated by comparing the style as well as the material used in the painting. The colours used by the cave dwellers were prepared by combining black manganese oxides, red hematite and charcoal. This puts the horse paintings around the medieval era. Source: Mathpal, Yashodhar (1984). Prehistoric Painting Of Bhimbetka. Abhinav Publications
These people, also known as the "Proto-Indo Europeans" (hereinafter PIE) carried their language and culture all around Asia and Europe. These people were pastoralists who moved all around Asia and Europe for a variety of reasons, the most accepted of which is climate change. In short, there was an event called the 4.2 kiloyear event which was, as the name suggests, 4.2 kiloyears from now. This event created climate change which made the steppe colder and also created aridification around the globe, which resulted in the decline of Bronze Age civilizations like the Indus Valley Civilization, Mesopotamian Civilization as well as Egyptian civilization. ( Staubwasser, M.; et al., 2003) . So the first point, is why the Aryans started to move. Climate change as well as their pastoralist nature, hence they were not averse to moving.
These people brought their genes, their culture, their language and their way of life down south (only for our discussion, they moved westwards also, but we are not concerned by that for now). So technically, Sanskrit (or the ancestor thereof) as well as the Vedic Aryan culture came from the outside of the Indian subcontinent. You can understand why the nationalists refuse to accept this.
So what are the evidences of such a migration?
1. Linguistic evidence:
The best way to know how a culture changes is to look at the language that they speak. Let me start with an example. In hindi, the word for father is " पिता ", we know it came from the Sanskrit "पितृ ". But then again, we find similar words for "Father" in other languages. Father in English, Vater in German, Pader in Farsi. How is that possible? Indians and Greeks didn't have significant contact before Alexander, so how do we speak similar languages?
To answer this question, we employ a comparative analysis of language. We start from the languages that we speak right now and start to move towards the ancestors of that language. When we have reconstructed all that, we can come to a conclusion, that all the Indo European languages (hellenic, Indo Iranian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian) started from a common ancestor known as the "Proto Indo European" language, this language is still being reconstructed.
First argument of an OIT proponent: All these languages started from Sanskrit. This is not true because Sanskrit and other PIE languages have a common ancestor. Quite like the theory of evolution. The language changes simply do not signify that Sanskrit was the mother of PIE languages.
2. Archaeology:
The oldest nucleus of PIE people could have been the Samara culture, but there is already debate about it (6000-5000 BCE), but we can certainly see the similarities between the Yamnaya culture (3600-2300 BCE) and Vedic culture. Yamnaya culture is also called the Pit Grave Culture. This can be called the nucleus of the PIE culture. From this particular area, the Indo European (hereinafter, IE) languages spread west, south and east, starting from 4,000 BCE. These languages and culture was mostly patriarchal, that means, mostly men moved, along with their culture. (David Anthony, 2007).
So the Yamnaya people, who were located north of the Black sea. These people moved east and created Sinthasta Culture (2200-1800 BCE). This is the place where Indo Iranian (the progenitor of Sanskrit and Persian/Farsi) was spoken. (Anthony, 2007). This culture then developed into the Andronovo Culture (2000-900BCE) which interacted with the Bactria Margiana Culture (BMAC) [timeline: 2400-1600 BCE]. This is where the group split indo the Indo-Aryans (which later became the vedic culture) and the Iranian (they became, well, Iranians). The migration in India was in waves and it was not an invasion! These groups were genetically diverse and they spread their culture everywhere.
This is the route of the migration.
3. Genetics:
This will conclusively destroy all claims of OIT. India has two genetic components, first is the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) which is made up of Middle Easterners, Central Asians and Europeans and Ancestral South Indian (ASI) which is completely distinct from each other. Today, indians are a mixture of both. Endogamy started after 4200-1900 BP (before present) so, we are a mixture of ANI/ASI. Dravidian/Aryan on the basis of genes just does not exist. Period. Recommended Reading and source of this info.
This undeniable, peer reviewed research paper proves :
By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and southeast Asia. Following the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, they mixed with people in the southeast to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who spread via Central Asia after 4000 years ago to form the other main ancestral population. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the unique shared features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages. Link to the paper.
Narsmihan studies prove that there was indeed a migration from north to south in the indian subcontinent.
Yamnaya culture, from where the "Aryan gene" (r1a) originates from.
4. Literary evidence:
When you compare the texts of Rig Veda and Zend Avesta, you can find the cultural similarities. Asuras of Rig Vedas became ""Ahura" in Zoroastrianism with flipped roles. Long story short, Asuras are the good guys in Zoroastrian faith, their supreme god is called "Ahura Mazda", whereas the opposite is the case in Rig Veda. The same can be observed in other myths as well. Another name of Ahura Mazda is "Varuna" which is a prominent Rigvedic diety. These similarities are not possible unless they came from the same source.
Similarities between Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit.
Find below, the arguments from OIT proponents and the debunking of the said evidence.
A. Rig Veda makes a mention of Saraswati (Ghagghar Hakra) when it was a great big river some 7000-9000 years ago.Saraswati became seasonal later, how did Rig Vedic people write about Saraswati when it was in full force? -> Saraswati is bound to remain a mystery given how less writing survives from the Vedic era, yet let me make an attempt to put the Saraswati question in context. Saraswati, according started to decline around 3000 BCE. Which should be contemporaneous with the Indus valley civilisation, more specifically, the Early Harappan Phase which lasted from 3300-2600 BCE. Now the problem with Saraswati arises when we take Rig Veda as the reference document for accurately dating itself. At 3000 BCE, in the Sapta Sindhu region, Sanskrit was not being used. We know this for a fact because we find no remnants of Sanskrit in the Indus Valley seals or other items there.
Another issue that comes up is about the horses. Horses were not a thing in Asia minor till around 1800-1700 BCE. Rig Veda mentions horses extensively. We find no irrefutable proof of horses in the Indus Valley. I have seen the seals and most of the publically available items with my own two eyes. There are no horses to be found there. Other cattle are found, just not horses. . The problem with dating rig Veda pre-1800BCE is that the horse question remains unsolved. How can a civilization that did not see horses write so much about horses?
These two points should be kept in mind when you try to date the rig Veda pre-1500-1300 BCE. How can these logical inconsistencies be answered?
If the Vedic people were around in the Sapta Sindhu region in 3000 BCE, we would find evidence, but we find none.
B. Astronomical evidence: In short: it is pseudoscience. Astronomical evidence cannot be taken on face value when other material evidence is against it. Plain and simple.
C. Yamnaya people were not white, hence they were indian: There is a misconception that all central asian people looked white 500 years ago. This is just completely false. This is a peer reviewed study done by an indian scientist who reconstructed people who lived in Europe 7000 years ago, which would be around 500 BCE. Those people had dark skin and blue eyes.During the 84th annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, it was concluded that when it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European's skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency.
Europe was not always white. Yamnaya people were brown, and that does not imply that Indians went out.
D. These accounts were written by racist Britishers: There is some truth to it. The British were racists who gave the Aryan INVASION theory. Various Indian scholars have also concluded that there was no invasion, but migration in small waves. This is an outdated theory which no one accepts.
E. Chariots found in Sinauli is conclusive proof of chariots being indigenous to India: Chariots are vehicles that are used in war. They are lightweight horse hauled and spoked wheeled vehicles used to haul soldiers and supplies. The vehicles found in sinauli are not horse-driven chariots, but are solid wheeled carts. These vehicles are impractical in a war, and hence, do not fall within the category of Chariots.
First sinauli is not a Vedic site conclusively. It is a late Harrapan, Ochre Colored Pottery/ Copper hoard site. SK Manjul, the director of excavations at sinauli had also stated that these are most probably not hauled by horses, but instead by other bovines. Research paper by Asko Parpola debunking the Sinauli myth
Picture of cart found in Sinauli.
F. Horse paintings at Bhimbetka in MP which date back to 10,000-20,000 years BP: Bhimbetka is archaeologically layered. It was inhabited from the Indian Mesolithic Era (~10,000 BP) to the medieval ages. Horse paintings found in Bhimbetka were created during periods VI and VII which are medieval. These paintings themselves can be dated by comparing the style as well as the material used in the painting. The colours used by the cave dwellers were prepared by combining black manganese oxides, red hematite and charcoal. This puts the horse paintings around the medieval era. Source: Mathpal, Yashodhar (1984). Prehistoric Painting Of Bhimbetka. Abhinav Publications
Last edited:
