Who Were the Aryans of the Vedas?

The Vedas were written no earlier than 3400 YBP. The latest Vedas were written ~2500 YBP. So the Vedas were written between 2500-3400 YBP.

Who were these people, where did they live, and what was their society like? Let’s have a brief overview of the Vedic Aryans.

They spoke a language called Vedic Sanskrit that produced a large volume of literature.

They had a patrilineal society with the beginnings of a class structure with nobles, priests/poets and the rest of the people. These later evolved into the Indian castes. They were organized in clans, tribes and tribal unions. The tribes were led by chiefs often nominated from the highest nobles. They engage in continuous warfare with each other and with the non-Aryan dasyu, mostly over land, cattle and water rights. The Arya are semi-nomadic cattle herders who also herd sheep, goats and horses. They engage in some minor agriculture as a sideline, mostly growing barley. For sports and in battle they use horse-drawn chariots and also a sort of all-terrain vehicle called a vipatha that can move over rough terrain.

They have a complex religious pantheon, including Gods of nature such as a wind God, a fire God Agni, female water gods, a father god in heaven and a mother god on Earth, and a goddess of dawn.

There are also moral gods of law and order and the typical warrior god Indra. The gods keep everything moving smoothly in heaven and on Earth. All of these deities, though are under a supreme deity, which is an active positive force of truth, Rta, later to evolve into the Hindu concept of Dharma. This force pervades the entire universe and controls all behavior of the gods and men. Every year, the gods battle their adversaries – the Asura, and every year, the gods win, for now. This dualism was later used by Zoroaster to create his dualistic religion, Zoroastrianism.

All of the gods but especially Indra and Agni are worshipped in elaborate rituals. These ceremonies occur at specific times of years, are lorded over by priests, and are public rather than private. The gods are invited to the ceremony, and the gods seat themselves on the grass next to the sacred fires. People then offer the gods meat or grain cakes and the drink Soma along with alcoholic beverages. Skilled poet orators entertain the gods with bardic poetry. These men compose hymns, often after deep concentration but sometimes right on the spot, meant to praise the nobility and invite the gods. The rites of passage as such for men involve a period of study of traditional knowledge after which they roam the countryside searching for some cattle with which they and start their capital. As soon as cattle are acquired, they are fully admitted into adult society and allowed to marry.

262 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Cultural, Hinduism, Indic, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Irano-Armenian, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Literature, Religion, Sanskrit, Zoroastrianism

262 responses to “Who Were the Aryans of the Vedas?

  1. Dota-Player

    Good post, I just want to supplement it:

    “They had a patrilineal society with the beginnings of a class structure with nobles, priests/poets and the rest of the people. These later evolved into the Indian castes.””

    Pre Zorastrian Iran also had a caste system dominated by the priests followed by the administrators, artisans/craftsmen and peasants. Zorastor however, put an end to that bullshit system as is seen from the Avestan story of King Jamshid. Zorastrinism was in some ways a universal religion, and this application of a universal moral code enabled Persia to reach a level of civilization whose sophistication was never matched by India. Persians were (and still are) extremly civillized BECAUSE they were able to see and treat other human beings in the same way as they would treat others. The release of the Jews from Babylonian captivity is proof of that. Indian morality was inhibited by the caste system which encourages and legislates discrimination.

    Sorry to digress, this thread is about the vedic Aryans, not the caste system.

    • Vedic

      Ancient India had made way more contributions to math, science, medicine, and the sanskrit language is one of the most sophisticated languages ever (Sanskrit is older than Avestan).

      It is a known fact that the Muslims came to India and transferred their knowledge in math and medicine FROM India and took it to Persia. The Persians also came to India and translated copies of the Bhagavad Gita and Vedas into their language. Also, Greeks defeated the Persians but they could not defeat India.

      There is no denying that India has a lot of social corruption, over population, poverty and dirty cities but to compare Ancient Persia to Ancient India is like comparing a baby to it’s parents.

      • etype

        The notions you present here Vedic, are politically correct but historically incorrect. Alexander’s armies were small and divided by the time he reached Northern India, yet he conquered it against massive odds and created local alliances which later overran all of India.
        Furthermore, it is recorded by the ancient Indian scholars themselves, that their higher astronomy, mathematics and geometry was received from the Greeks.
        Of Muslims which Europeans continually hear of the sophistication of their mathematics, medicine, etc. etc. developed none of it themselves, but acquired it by their capture of European Constantinople, or Eastern Rome, and Alexandria, the other Greek colony.
        India received it’s higher civilization from the Aryans, from which Persia is one root. Stating that comparing Persia to Ancient India is like comparing a baby to it’s parents is like saying up is down and down is up.

        • Truth sayer

          Instead of giving history,here so much opinions on given on fake Aryan Invasion theory.
          How it could be when most authentic genetics and archaeology just very totally debunk it.
          I have given so much elaborate details from Rigveda and other archaeology which can verifiable but some people still delving last century pinions like fake Aryan Invasion theory etc.
          I dont know how these people still thinking that they can fool others!!
          Funny!
          I challenge those people of fake agenda to refute my details if possible!

        • Truth sayer

          How the given details confirm those Aryan Invasion theory which I dont know.
          Rigveda vouch Arya Vartha is origin of Aryans which is North India as Rigveda very clearly give geographical limits.
          All Vedic details are confirmed by modern archaeology and genetics.
          The details which given here so much foolish with no knowledge on Vedic texts details in Indra and Agni in Indian context.
          There are plenty of modern discoveries and other details which confirm those claim of Vedas whose claim of unchanged text, proved by the discovery dried Saraswathi river as exactly told in Rigveda.
          Nobody cant fool the people for long time!

        • etype

          because Truth Sayer, it is mostly a fool’s game. You imply that we have the original Vedic records in the original language. We do not. What we have has been redacted a thousand times and the originals are a distant echo. There are no records extant from the period. It is believed with good evidence that the Rigveda’s were not even written down until the 10th century Gupta period. Therefore other assertions aside…we can not assume that they are in the original language, and cannot assume they haven’t been altered to fit contemporary preconceptions in hundreds of ways. As to the river you mentioned, we have no way of knowing if the river is in the Indus Valley, Lithuania or Ecuador. Nor are any dates other than conjecture and hypothesis.
          The Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranic are myths, therefor arguing a point using them as documents is folly and prove nothing.
          Better to use our energy to build our kingdom here and now, and appreciate the Vedas for it’s wisdom. Surely this is it’s purpose.

        • Xera

          Muslims gaining ALL their knowledge from constantinipole? Eh I have a hard time believing that, it was the Arabs alone that came up with the idea of guns, howitzers, using gun powder alone which the European later on perfected.

        • Jaipal

          Etype said: “Alexander’s armies were small and divided by the time he reached Northern India, yet he conquered it against massive odds and created local alliances which later overran all of India”.

          Etype, it seems you do not know any history. Alexander had a large army along with
          mercenaries from the conquered Persian empire. There is no way that he could have been
          lacking in manpower. The Indian forces that he fought against were that of small republics!
          After his battle with Porus, much of the Greek forces were decimated and demoralization
          set in among the Greeks which is why they mutinied and wanted to go home! Really,
          that is what the Greek historians themselves say! They were also afraid of the might of
          the Indian Nanda empire that was ruling Northern India at the time.
          So you are mistaken. Alexander did NOT conquer present day Northern India at all!

          He created local alliances which later overran all of India?? Oh really?
          You are wrong again. The Nandas deterred the Greeks from marching due to their
          imperial strenght. Their successors, Mauryan Empire, within 2-3 years defeated the
          Macedonians and eliminated them from what is present day Pakistan. They also
          repulsed a Seleucid attack by Seleucus Nicator the first!

        • etype

          Jaipal:
          What you say regarding Alexander is very interesting, but to my knowledge completely contradicts everything known about Alexander. Plutarch records the massive desertions before the battle of Hydaspes and states the size of the first of Magadha’s army as just under 300.000 while Alexander’s army was 20000 infantry and two thousand horse.
          As for the rest of what you claim, please provide sources.

        • Truth sayer

          ” The title Yavanesvara then meant literally “lord of
          the Greeks,”
          How!
          Get it from the Sanskrit Verses.Yavana referred different time different people.Do you know!!
          Iam very much laughing to know that you people dont know anything on Vedic text except some stories written by some western egoist simply by knowing reading ability in Sanskrit and then translating the meaning!
          I will enlighten over the facts.
          If possible, know more details from translation of Vedic pundits from India.

        • etype

          Your response is what the Greeks call ‘Ad Hominum’…which is regarded as persuasion through fallacy, and not the saying of truth.

        • Jaipal

          Etype said: “Furthermore, it is recorded by the ancient Indian scholars themselves, that their higher astronomy, mathematics and geometry was received from the Greeks.”

          This is pure nonsense. Nowhere have any Ancient Indian scholar made such a claim.
          Ancient Indian sciences were derived from the Vedas and understood within a Vedic
          frame of reference and context. The earliest Indian works on Geometry for example
          go back to about 1000 BC-800 BC called the Sulba Sutras. Same goes with other sciences
          like Surgery etc. All this long before any actual contact between Indians and Greeks.

        • Jaipal

          Etype said: “India received it’s higher civilization from the Aryans, from which Persia is one root. Stating that comparing Persia to Ancient India is like comparing a baby to it’s parents is like saying up is down and down is up.”

          India did not receive its higher civilization from the outside as you imagine. Indian
          civilization is a purely Indian accomplishment of its own. It is purely indigenous.
          The Indo-Europeans were only from India. Here is the proof:

          The Indo-Iranian Homeland: http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch6.htm

          The Indo-European Homeland: http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch7.htm

        • Jaipal

          Etype said: “You imply that we have the original Vedic records in the original language. We do not. What we have has been redacted a thousand times and the originals are a distant echo. There are no records extant from the period. It is believed with good evidence that the Rigveda’s were not even written down until the 10th century Gupta period. Therefore other assertions aside…we can not assume that they are in the original language, and cannot assume they haven’t been altered to fit contemporary preconceptions in hundreds of ways. As to the river you mentioned, we have no way of knowing if the river is in the Indus Valley, Lithuania or Ecuador. ”
          (Quote)

          @Etype,
          The Vedas were composed in the same language that you see them in even today, namely
          Vedic Sanskrit! Which other language do you think they could have been in??
          If you assume that they were in some other language, then the burden of proof is on
          you to prove it! But you have not been able so far to tell us what that mystery language
          might have been! So your assumptions/claims don’t have much credibility.

          The Vedas were orally composed and transmitted ,and contrary to what you are claiming
          they have been preserved with such alacrity that even their long extinct Vedic accents
          are still known and preserved! That is the view of mainstream academics like Michael
          Witzel of Harvard University!

          Just because the Vedas were put down in writing at a later period does not automatically
          imply that they must be changed or modified over time. As I pointed out,
          the Vedic Indians made an elaborate system for its preservation and transmission
          across the generations. Just because its an old document does not mean that it is
          necessarily contaminated or adulterated simply because it comes from the hoary past!

          As for your historical blunder, the Gupta Empire/period was not in the 10th century
          but in the 4th-6th centuries!

        • Jaipal

          Etype said: “The Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranic are myths, therefor arguing a point using them as documents is folly and prove nothing.” (Quote)

          Where is the proof that the above sources you mentioned are “myth”.
          Just calling something mythological does not make it so in reality!
          Prove that they are myths, first! You haven’t done it yet!

        • Dota

          Etype

          Truth Sayer and Jaipal are both Hindutvadis and so you’re wasting your time arguing with them. Hindutva goes to extreme lengths in homogenizing the Aryans in an attempt to justify their petty cultural chauvinism. Jaipal has linked to the voice of dharma website as ‘proof.’ That’s like me claiming that Muhammad is the final prophet for mankind and then linking to Islamonline.com

        • Truth sayer

          Here some people showing their foolishness on hstory by branding me as Hindutvadi
          where did I write here on Hindutva.
          What a senseless comment!
          I request those people just read my comments sincerely which can be verifiable details instead of opinions as some body writing here as history.
          I also request them where my comments are false as per their expert details and how!
          Simply,by denying the details without any reliable proofs wont make anybody worthy in the eyes of the people of the open fora!
          Let them show their foolishness even in 21st century!!

          .

        • Dota

          “Hindutva goes to extreme lengths in homogenizing the Aryans ”

          I meant to say indigenizing the Aryans. I’m half asleep today.

        • Truth sayer

          Smart words like homogenization of Aryans wont make sense here unless or until which is and where is homogenization made by others in the name of Hindutva!
          You people instead of talking your opinions as history,better update your knowledge!!
          Else, refute it with your expert details where the fallacy is given!
          You people nothing to give worthy other than sheer humbug!

        • Vikram

          Can you cite some examples in support of “it is recorded by the ancient Indian scholars themselves, that their higher astronomy, mathematics and geometry was received from the Greeks.”
          Just do not say things to prove your point.

        • This is the first time I read that Alexander conquered whole of India. This is incorrect as indeed most of what is set out in the comments by etype.
          Dr Nat Khublall

      • How could the namads contribute to science? Is there any chapter in the Vedas referring to quantum physics or aerplanes? It was all a fabrication after the Indians came to know about western science with the establishment of colleges by the British. Pre-British period does not mention about this knowledge of science, surgery or aeroplanes. It’s all later fabrication.

        • india_LandofRapes

          No chapter in Veda’s refer to science, its another Hindu intellectual fraud, these cow urine drinkers were dancing naked and shitting across the streets

          They had no civilization, This is the reason why they are so interested in Creating their own version of history, Some stupid hindu bloggers are editing Wiki and calling themselves as Aryans , some even propose “Out of India theory”.

          Some hindu fanatics have ridiculous claims that Germans took original version of Veda’s and created stealth technology -Another lie.

          Some idiots even mention that entire Design of submarines,UFO,Anti gravity planes and they way to build such stuff is written clearly in Veda’s

          Its another lie, entire Rig veda describes about Extended rituals to please different gods, if you read Rig veda , it was written by people who lived in small Villages, where they domesticated Bull and Horse.

          Hindutva’s are degenerate scum, Today they call Aryabhatta as an Indian, thats another lie, there is no such nation called india before 1947.

          Worse these morons say Aryabhatta is not an Indian but he is a Hindu Brahmin.

          Hindutva’s are very dangerous , they may one day rewrite entire European history and will say-Hindus are forefathers of European civilization.

          British committed a great mistake by Giving nationhood to 2 Degenerate nations –“India” and ISRAEL.

          from the time of its Birth- Hindu india peddled with lies,Doctored version of History, fake pride,False bravado.

          India is worse than north korea, In India every one speaks the same lie, these illiterates were hopelessly brainwashed.

          Modern indians have no history,Almost all of them are immigrants-Even supreme court of india acknowledges this fact

          Hindus have no history, there is no such thing as Glorious hindu period. or hindu civilization.

          Barbaric hindu religion copied different greek myths and Zoroastrian myths and produced their own version of Stories.

          If veda’s contain, Anti gravity designs and Aircraft stealth engine design, why on earth -Idiot indians have to spend $5 billion in 2012 to buy french RAfale?

          These morons cannot even build toilets, let alone Submarines or Antigravity planes.

          Hinduism emerged in mid 1600, John marshall was the creator of Hindu religion -He combined all pagan worshippers under one umbrella.

          The history of Hinduism was written “John princep”.

          Almost everything about IVC or Hindus was written by British and germans

          Its germans and brits what gave these pagan Phallic worshippers a faith and history–India is a british invention, just like Modern ISRAEL

        • Vikram

          Your western prism will not allow you to see. For you most ancient civilization in the world was Atlantis and most sophisticated Greek. Then world went to sleep until Europeans conquered it.
          Few inventions which are being falsely claimed by Europeans but rather were already in Asian civilizations-
          Use of Geometry
          Numeral Zero
          Calculus (Not Newton but one Indian Mathematician in Gupta period already invented)
          Solar Spectrum: Europe got mesmerized when one scientist showed 7 colors of sunlight. Indian literature is full of poems and references for Sun GOD who comes on chariot with Seven horses. (Colors of Sunlight).
          Astronomy – Europeans churches were hanging people who suggested Earth rotates round the sun till as late as 13th century. Come and study Indian texts which will give you Astronomical positions in high sky which relates to 6000BC when calculated with modern computers.
          At last, remember like any growth curve, social growth also inclines, climaxes and comes downhill. Indians already lived their climax before Europe took off. You can be proud of period post 14th century. That does not mean you justify history before that in the same light. This was major drawback of early Indologists from Europe.

    • P

      Well if Zorastor put an end to all the bullshit & introduced his so called universal system on the so called civilised persians,how were they subjugated by Arabs & purged again & again till everyone of them had to leave their universal religion & adopt islam by force? Now they are mere slaves to a foriegn Arabic culture & no more..Indian on the other hand could never be subjugated completely by any other culture & it’s oldest culture,traditions & dharma, still survives after innumerable onslaughts over the aeons.

  2. Dota-Player

    oops slight grammar fail here: “Persians were (and still are) extremely civilized BECAUSE they were able to see and treat other human beings in the same way as they would treat others. ”

    what I wanted to say was

    Persians were (and still are) extremely civilized BECAUSE they were able to see and treat other human beings in the same way as they would treat their own people .

    • Wade in MO

      I’ve always like what I’ve heard about Persia. The american information campaign against Iran is just bullshit. The islamic republic might not be the best ofr of government, but they what can a country like the US who supported the Taliban complain about? Why doesn’t the US govt hate the saudis for their theocracy or *gasp* Israel for it’s? Why does the US government support pan-turkic fascist garbage if it is so good? Personally, I would like to see Iran as a greater power, particularly if they get rid of the Islamic Republic. Indians, however, I’m not the biggest fan of….and they stink.

    • Vedic

      The Hindu caste system was an equal system during the time of the Vedas. It wasn’t until later thaty is became barbaric.

      And before you go on, all societies had caste systems (even today class structures exist everywhere) with the exception of a few tribal egalitarian soceities (since they dont need class structures).

      I highly doubt Persians saw everyone equally. They had constant battles with foriengers. And the fact that Persians allowed those foriengers with open arms, attests to the fact that Iran is largely an Islamic nation with only remnants of Ancient Persian culture.

      I love Persians, but im sorry, i would have to say that Persians were more like “weak”

      • Vikram

        Hinduism is ridiculed for Caste system by other religions. However when it will come to racism and slavery, Christians will cleverly attribute to society. Christianity had major role in slavery when slaves were baptized before dumping on Europe bound ships. Hindu caste system was not based on light skinned Brahmins dominating over dark skinned Sudras as many early European scholars believed and spread rumors about. Rather vedic society was very flexible and there are more than one examples how person born in one particular caste chose to enter other caste due to his/her profession. Later it was distorted and there were many rebellions among Hindus from time to time.
        One such rebellion was Buddha. Please remember Buddha was born to rebel malpractices of Hinduism in 500BC.
        Christian churches could not condemn slavery till 1950s and 60s.
        To hit the last nail into this discussion, just ponder why Hindu India (leave upper casts who as per you enjoyed better place, but majority of lower caste) could not be converted after 250 years of brutal Muslim rule and 200 years of European Christian aggression.
        Because we had a greater religion and belief and ideas brought by Islamic or Christian invaders could not attract any attention.
        Only fringe societies ( who were not Hindu but mostly Buddhists or Tribes who had no religion) were converted by these.
        Sanatam Dharma is for ever!

  3. Dota-Player

    I doubt the anti-Persian retards in Iran’s government realize that Zoroaster was probably the greatest thing that ever happened to Iran.

    Most westerners who have visited Iran have had their stereotypes shattered and have loved their experiences there. Said westerners also love it in India, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why. Just for fun I googled mapped Mumbai (my old town) and was greeted with photos of buildings in disrepair with their paint peeling of. I did for the same for Shiraz in Iran and it was a really beautiful city. My great grandmother was Persian and was a shirazi, and I hope to visit someday.

  4. Truth sayer

    How fake stories has been written on Vedic Aryans and Vedic age here. Those mischievous westerners in the name of history, always try to twist the details.I dont think that they can fool the people of the world for long.

    Modern dried Sarasvati river discovery in 1996 exactly as per Rigveda pushed Rigvedic age atleast 6000BC or above.
    Here is the some of the details.
    Rigveda praises Sarasvati was mighty river and source of life for Aryans.
    This river dried completely in 1900BC as per isotopic scientific dating.
    This river was mighty only in 6000BC as said in Rigveda.The minimum time scale is 6000BC.
    How Rigveda praises Sarasvati river as follows.
    Rig Veda clearly mentions that the Sarasvati had its origin in the Himalaya and not in the Siwalik Hills. It clearly mention that the
    Ekachetaat Sarasvati Nadinaam Suchiryati Giribhya aa Samudrat. (RV :VII :95:2)
    his is conformed by the work of puri. The renowned glaciologist (Puri.1998 per commu.) The Rig Veda also informs us that when the Sarasvati was in spate the river was becoming uncontrollable and its current was the swiftest of the swifts. It further says that the velocity of the Sarasvati was so high that it broke the hill ranges and the river carried them ( as the flood load) down like lotus stems – see below:
    Iyam Shushmebhihibisakhaa Evaarujaatsaanu Girinam Tevishebhirumibhih Paravaathdhaneemavase Sruvruktibhihi Sarasvatimaa Vivaasemadhitibhihi. ( RV: 6:61:2)

    Yasya Ananto Ahutastveshashacharishnuranavah : Amashcharati roruvat (RV: 6:61:8)

    The flood water was also overflowing both the banks and the flood waters filled or say inundated the earth, that is the vast urea of the flood plain and the heaven that is the Himalayan region.

    Aaapashushi paarthivaanyuru rajo antariksham Sarasvati Nidaspaatu

    When in spate the might of river was sweeping away all the other waters and was mightiest among all the other rivers.

    Prayaa Mahimna Mahinsu Chikite Dhumnebhiranya Apasaampastma Rath eva Bruhati Vibhvane Krutopastutya Chikitushaa Sarasvati.(RV: 6:61:13)

    Now to know the might of the Sarasvati over all the other rivers here, it is essential to know the Sindhu Flood mechanism as it has also a long history of the floodings. The Imperial Gezeteer notes ( Enthovon 1909:164-65,167-168). “Before taming, upstream to the confluence with the five river including the Satlej, the ancient Satudri, the width of the Sindhu is about half a Km. When the river was on its peaks of the floods, the velocity of the flood discharge at the up treamwas 8 km. per hour and the flood discharge was about 250 cms. to 800 cms. per second. But downstream the confluence, the river Sindhu becomes mightier and larger and the Sindh where the gradient is very low the width of the river channel varies from one km. to one and half km. and during the flood of the high magnitude the width of the channel increases to two kms.

    However, in the flood of the high magnitude, the velocity in Sindh is about 12 km. per hour and the flood discharge increases to 27000 cms to 28000 cms. per second”. This behavior of the river Sindhu is recorded right from the ptolemy, the Greek auther of the Medieval writers. The records indicate that when in spate the Sindhu erodes new channels, meanders and suddenly shifts its water into the newly cut channels, recharges these lakes and the abandons channels and swings towards the west as the flood plain slopes towards the south- west. This comparison of the Sindhu with the Sarasvati also clearly shows that the how mightier Sarasvati could be when the shatudri – present Sutlej was its tributary and how moderate the Sindhu could be without Shatudri – Present Sutlej !

    Secondly, this overflowed water of the Sarasvati used to bring tremendous water and fertile silt for agriculture and faunal and floral wealth. Therefore, in praying the river, the Reg Veda described the Sarasvati as (Very important verse also)

    Ambitame Naditame Devitame Sarasvati Aprashastaa Eva Smasi Prashastim Amba Naskrudhi (RV 2: 16:41)
    It says that the Sarasvati was superior to all the other rivers, best of the mother rivers as the Sarasvati was the main source of the prosperity and survival and was the life line of the inhabitants residing over there on the flood plain. The Sarasvati was also best of the goddesses as it used to bring prosperity in tremendous. The text describes its flow white in complexion indicating it was a glacial fed river.
    The Rig Veda describes the Sarasvati as Saptathi and Sindhumaataa Aam Yat Saakam Yashaso Vavashaataa Sarasvati Saptathi Sindhumaataa (RV 7:36:6) This indicates including the Sarasvati, There were seven rivers. This shows that the river had six tributaries and disbutaries. The word Sindumaataa denotes two things. One, the Sarasvati was the mother of all the rivers, the disbutaries. Second, the river was abundance in water to feed – fill the ocean like a mother feeding her child.

    The Sarasvati being the mightiest river must have brought such a large volume of the water into the sea, the present Ranns of Kachch, the then sea, showing her might ever the sea. This statement of the Reg Veda is supported by the numerous deltas and the bets in the Great Rann of Kachchh. ( Malik et. al 1999 : 163-174).
    See the funny CONTRADICTION because of the real twisters of the true history.
    As per the Aryan Invasion theory Aryans invaded India between 1500BC to 2000BC and wrote their Vedas,basing this they fixing Vedic age.

    There is no reliable proof till date for Aryan Invasion theory.On the other hand,all the modern archeology and genetics debunk Aryan Invasion theory totally.
    This modern discoveries immaterial to any egoistic westerner,but old approximation on Aryans and Vedas quite suitable for spreading the lies.

    In their Vedas,Aryans are PRAISING already dried river that time(Because it is most satisfactorily proved by Isotopic salt analysis of the dried bed in Rajasthan(India) that the river dried COMPLETELY around 1900BC) as mighty river,mightier than other rivers and vital for their life,approving Sarasvati river is like mother to Aryans.
    I believe, Aryans are not so much idiotic!! to praise a non existed river as mighty and and mother like!!
    Aryan Invasion theory is the greatest fraud theory created by foolish egoistic people with evil motive!!
    The funny thing is these people still talking this outdated but debunked theory even now!!
    May be they are believing that repeating lies many times,they can convert lies into truth.But,it never happens!
    These people always fixing the age of Vedas basing this foolish theories.
    Vedas are maintained by Indians and those details should be explained by Indian cultural context by Indians only not by vested Europeans in their unrelated cultural context.

  5. Truth sayer

    Here is the proof that westerners know the truth from their own western astronomical experts of 18th century over the antiquity of Vedas.How they discarded it on flimsy grounds and suppressed the truth!!
    Here is the details!

    VEDAS:Vedas are the oldest attested Aryan Documents.Vedas are unchanged language Why?Vedas are most holiest texts for Vedic people.Vedic people followed ‘Shruthi’ (phonetic)system by which a small phonetic change also not allowed while chanting Vedas.This is followed still today.This kind of preservation of originality of Vedic texts from ancient times is unparalleled in the entire human history.
    We can say Vedas are simply tape recorder of what Vedic Aryan ancestors chanted many many thousands of years ago in all aspects.Being totally unchanged and every details in that preserved with utmost attention, the historic details given in them are very accurate to the extent it contained in them.

    The Vedic corpus being vast one of the earliest estimates of the date of the Vedas was at once among the most scientific. In 1790, the Scottish mathematician John Playfair demonstrated that the starting-date of the astronomical observations recorded in the tables still in use among Hindu astrologers (of which three copies had reached Europe between 1687 and 1787) had to be 4300 BC. His proposal was dismissed as absurd by some, but it was not refuted by any scientist. Playfair’s judicious use of astronomy was countered by John Bentley with a Scriptural argument which we now must consider invalid. In 1825, Bentley objected: “By his [= Playfair’s] attempt to uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against absolute facts, thereby supports all those horrid abuses and impositions found in them, under the pretended sanction of antiquity. Nay, his aim goes still deeper, for by the same means he endeavours to overturn the mosaic account& foundation of his Xtian religion.
    Bentley did not object to astronomy per se, in so far as it could be helpful in showing up the falsehood of Brahminical scriptures. However, it did precisely the reverse. Falsehood in this context could have meant that the Brahmins falsely claimed high antiquity for their texts by presenting as ancient astronomical observations recorded in Scripture what were in fact back-calculations from a much later age. But Playfair showed that this was impossible.

    Back-calculation of planetary positions is a highly complex affair requiring knowledge of a number of physical laws, universal constants and actual measurements of densities, diameters and distances. Though Brahminical astronomy was remarkably sophisticated for its time, it could only back-calculate planetary position of the presumed Vedic age with an inaccuracy margin of at least several degrees of arc. With our modern knowledge, it is easy to determine what the actual positions were.
    And what the results of back-calculations with the Brahminical formulae would have been, e.g.: “Aldebaran was therefore 40′ before the point of the vernal equinox, according to the Indian astronomy, in the year 3102 before Christ.[Modern astronomy] gives the longitude of that star 13′ from the vernal equinox at the time of Caliyougham agreeing within 53′ with the determination of the Indian astronomy.

    This agreement is the more remarkable, that the Brahmins, by their own rules for computing the motion of the fixed stars, could not have assigned this place to Aldebaran for the beginning of Caliyougham, had they calculated it from a modern observation. For as they make the motion of the fixed stars too great by more than 3” annually if they had calculated backward from 1491, they would have placed the fixed stars less advanced by 4 or 5 degree at their ancient epoch than they actually done What Hindu astronomical lore about ancient times cannot be based on later back-calculation, was also argued by Playfair’s contemporary, the French astronomer Jean-Sylvain Bailly: “The motions of the stars calculated by the Hindus before some 4500 years vary not even a single minute from the [modern] tables of Cassini and Meyer. The Indian tables give the same annual variation of the moon as that discovered by Tycho Brahe – a variation unknown to the school of Alexandria and also the Arabs.”

    Prof. N. S. Rajaram, a mathematician who has worked for NASA, comments: “fabricating astronomical data going back thousands of years calls for knowledge of Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the ability to solve differential equations.” Failing this advanced knowledge, the data in the Brahminical tables must be based on actual observation. Ergo,the Sanskrit-speaking Vedic seers were present in person to record astronomical observations and preserve them for a full 6,000 years: The observations on which the astronomy of India is founded, were made more than three thousand years before the Christian era. Two other elements of this astronomy, the equation of the sun’s centre and the obliquity of the ecliptic seem to point to a period still more remote!
    Western astronomers Vouch on the accuracy of the details of the Vedas.
    Already,Sarasvati river discovery validated the truth of Vedas being unchanged texts besides pushing the Rigvedic age to many thousand years back.
    This also once again confirms that.

    These experts details are least considered before the eyes of those egoistic twisters of the history.
    We are eager to see how long those going to try to fool people!!

  6. Truth sayer

    I have given genetic study details with name of the expert as on date
    * “This paper rewrites history… there is no north-south divide.”
    This first time, most elaborately conducted genetic study in India and released in 25th Sep2009.
    * “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) aka Aryans aka R1a people and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI) aka Dravidians
    * “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.

    Thangaraj and Singh at a press conference.(Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study – India – The Times of India)

    “Reconstructing Indian Population History”
    – David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price & Lalit Singh

    The important deductions from the above recent study.

    Dravidians occupied South India from ancient times and reached South India via South sea and Dravidians nowhere related to North India or Northern routes!

    Aryans were in India around 40,000 years and concentrated in North India.At some point of time the was admixing between the Aryans and Dravidians!.
    There is no more original or pure Dravidins in mainland India.

    The closest Dravidians are Ongees tribe of Andaman Nicobar Islands living there.

    Who are still living secure life but most primitive with uncultured life.
    So,ancient Dravidians had civilization and culture is myth and fraud!!
    Then why the safe and secure living pure Ongees Dravidians have no culture!!

    Aryans forced Dravidians to move South is greatest lie!!
    All Northern Indus culture found by long living Aryans in North India.This is already proved by archaeology.
    Those Sanskrit Vedic texts details which talks about thousands and thousands of years of details and it claim for antiquity is justified!!

  7. Asian Philosopher Om Tat Sat

    “Who Were the Aryans of the Vedas?”

    Nobody. The Vedas do not mention a people named “Aryans”.

  8. Truth sayer

    The problem with many western people is, they even dont know modern developments in genetics and recent archaeology on Aryans theory.
    Else,act as if they dont know anything on this.
    These people generally play so much humbug!
    They are very much interested to tell last century approximations and concocted stories on Aryans and interested only to give outdated disproved theories.
    Because,that suits their preconceived false agendas on Aryans and their egoistic belief that they can fool the world on history.
    But,truth cannot be pervaded by lies for long time.

    Europe has only ancient Greek history and texts.But.Vedic Corpus of literature is most ancient and huge.
    For example,the entire Greek literature not even 10% of Vedic literary Corpus which exclude thousands and thousands of manuscripts still sleeping in many libraries across India and the world to be deciphered..
    So,if Aryans migrated from the west or outside India,these western historical liars expect us to believe that those Indian Aryans got mysterious knowledge on touching the Indian soil to surpass the original Aryans of the west in literature and other accouterments.
    These people are really egoistic fraud people!

    • etype

      So now that India has received it’s entire modern civilization from the fraudulent West in mathematics, technology, industry, manufacturing, medicine, culture – everything.
      Now an Indian who would be chewing straw on a pile of cow mud instead of using the computer the West has given him ….wants to lecture the West on it’s fraudulent and egotistical anthropology to tell us he’s rewritten everything to show he’s really the best of the best! And we are the least!
      What an ingenious fellow! Cannot wait to read of more of superior Indian truth!

      • Truth sayer

        etype is talking like baby!What he can do if he dont know anything except cow!
        What way cow is worst then his understanding, I dont know!
        Indians are founders of the number system with decimal notation which very ancient.
        Arya Bhatta already invented and discussed the planets only circling around the sun in his book Arya Bhattiyam.
        Of course,brainwashed people know little on others.
        People believing even five hundred years before that the Earth is flat and even dont know decimal system with zero notion, now so much talking about their development!

        • etype

          (wtf?)
          ‘Truth sayer’; the Hindu reveres the cow so you calling me a ‘cow’ must be a compliment. Thanks for the reverence.
          It is true medieval Europe lost much of it’s classical knowledge for a period and replaced it with theology. But they recovered it over time, and went far beyond concepts such as the planets orbiting the sun. Perhaps you were unaware?

  9. Pingback: Turkey Contained ? - Page 18

  10. Andrew

    If “Establishment” Science has the balls to spend/get grant & taxpayer moneys on the Megalithic Bronze Age cities under several hundred feet of water offshore at many locations around the world from the aftermath of the post Ice Age melt & resultant rise in sea level of several hundred feet (& not cover it up) we may get an answer. Less costly than excavating the Southern Sahara Desert for the lost great Black African inland temperate trading empire Kingdoms covered by the encroaching Desert at the same time & their fleeing survivors to the ancient American cultures (Olmecs included) or to the stone age post-apocalyptic barbarism of The Congo.

      • Xera

        So when exactly did the evolution of modern day whites occur?

      • Xera

        But the evidence in the video shows this civilization existing 12,000 years ago that submerged underwater. How can the Aryans be “white”, when Northern Europeans like the Irish, Swedes etc only evolved in their own specific environments. Unless they were Tajik or Italian white, I guess what I meant to say as in White like Northern European American white, which the Aryans weren’t right?

        • etype

          The greatest number of linguistic precursive markers for the Aryan language that is shared throughout the globe and the greatest concentrated number of speakers of that language is German. However this is not to be discussed, as Nazi anthropology and Germans are to be repudiated as thoroughly as possible…even if this means twisting common sense…which is easy enough these days…witness the small-pox blanket myth, something so simple anyone should have been able to refute it…yet for some reason it ran around loose like a dog no one dared collar…even if the entire idea was completely, spuriously insane. Anthropology like most science, is filled with many of these myths that are demonstrably insane.
          The idea that science is a warehouse of verities and not something the state would notice might be good to bolster various spurious arguments for collective mind control is itself deluded.
          If there is any truth to the original findings, and need I remind you it was in Germany where the science of modern anthropology and anthropological linguistics originated and developed… later post-war jury rigged for British propaganda purposes. Then possibly the Aryans originated around the Baltic during a thermocline some 10.000 to 30.000 years ago.
          Recently excavations found Lithuanian settlements that contained bronze tools and evidence of textile clothing that were carbon dated to 40000 years old. However this totally uproots many favorite common theories, so you don’t hear much of it. But it is more certain than any opposing theory, despite the latter’s currency, that Europeans are older than 10000 years old, has more consistent evidence than any prevailing idea, whatever sanction our betters lay on it.

          On that topic, the evidence for the out-of-Africa theory is actually paper thin, the fossil record to support it could fit on a garden table…and does not account for the fact glaciers swept Europe and N Asia in this time period, and this may be why the oldest fossils are found in Africa to date….the African genesis theory is mostly supported mostly by group think and the fact that opposing theories sound a lot like Europeans who prefer logic to what the established state says is good for them to think.
          There is absolutely no reason for anyone to think that the Aryans were not much the same as todays European, other than what seems the knee jerk need to conform to common fallacy – such as Europeans evolved in isolation the last 10000 years.

        • Xera

          But I thought that the Persians, Armenians, Georgians, Italians, Greeks, were the ORIGINAL WHITES.

  11. etype

    Apologies to Jaipal and TruthSeeker; there are too many comments for me to respond to on the subject of.
    Jaipals history of Alexander’s conquest and retreat..I will say his account is completely unique. If he could provide sources we could argue better.
    As for my claims regarding India receiving it’s higher astronomy and mathematics…there are many sources such as “The Shape of AncientThought’, by T McEvilly, but there are others….such as the 6th century
    Indian astronomer and mathematician Varahamihira:

    ”The Greeks, though
    impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein,
    excelled others…..”

    He is echoed by the Garga Samhita, which says:

    “The Yavanas are barbarians, yet the science of astronomy originated with them
    and for this they must be reverenced like gods.”

    In the Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists: it is stated that the influence is apparent by looking at the founders of Indian astronomy:

Yavanesvara (149/150 CE)
    “Anonymous author in 149/150 CE of a Sanskrit prose translation of an
    unidentified Greek (probably Alexandrian) text on horoscopy, a translation
    known only from the surviving Sanskrit verse version Yavanajataka composed
    by Sphujidhvaja in 269/270. The title Yavanesvara then meant literally “lord of
    the Greeks,” evidently a high position among the Greek residents of western
    India under the western Ksatrapa rulers in the Saka or Skuthian dominion of
    the area… His text as known through the Yavanajataka became the chief
    inspiration for Indian horoscopic astrology”

    Sphujidhvaja (269/270 CE)

    “Composed in 269/270 CE a Sanskrit verse adaptation, entitled Yavanajataka
    (YJ) or Greek Horoscopy, of a prose translation from Greek by an anonymous
    Yavanesvara (“lord of the Greeks”)… clearly reveals its Greek origin, including
    many transliterated Greek technical terms.”

    Minaraja (ca 300 – 325 CE)
    “Minaraja was a yavanadhiraja, i.e., person of authority in the settlements of
    Greeks under the western Ksatrapas in what is now Gujarat and Rajasthan in
    western India. He wrote a long astrological compendium, the
    Vr.ddhayavanajataka, covering every subject of astrology, in 71 chapters. The
    work is based on Sphujidhvaja’s Yavanajataka and a lost work of Satya..”

    Paitamahasiddhanta (ca 425 CE?)

    “The extant form of the Paitamahasiddhanta still contains many of the basic
    features of classical Indian astronomy that were apparently derived from
    Hellenistic spherical astronomy models. These include large-integer period
    relations used to calculate mean celestial positions, planetary epicycles and
    equations for correcting mean positions on the assumption of circular orbits,
    and orbital sizes and geocentric distances. Their details reflect a rather
    chaotic mix of (among other things) Babylonian and Aristotelian notions
    invoked by various early Hellenistic theories that fell into oblivion after Ptolemy.
    Indian astronomers combined these concepts with other parameters and
    techniques in their astronomical tradition to produce the cosmological and
    computational models that became standard in siddhantas… appears to be
    the inspiration for much of the classical siddhanta tradition in Indian
    mathematical astronomy. The siddhanta is a standard treatise format that
    explains universal computations for all significant astronomical phenomena…
    The core siddhantas of the two earliest major schools or paksas of Indian
    astronomy (upon which the later schools are based) – namely, the Aryabhatiya
    of Aryabhata(ca 500 CE) in the Aryapaks.a and the Brahmasphutasiddhanta
    of Brahmagupta (628 CE) in the Brahmapaksa – both claim to follow a treatise
    of Brahma. Similarities in content strongly indicate this Paitamahasiddhanta as
    the treatise referred to in both cases. It is considered to be the founding text
    of the Brahmapaksa, although its original version has long been lost.”

    Aryabhata (circa 500 AD)

    “The planetary model used by Aryabhata is derived from a pre-Ptolemaic
    Greek model, which sought to preserve the Aristotelian principle of
    concentricity. The mean planet moves in a circle around the Earth, and
    centered around the mean planet are one or two epicycles, depending on
    whether the planet is one of the two luminaries or a star-planet. Pingree (DSB
    15.590) believes that the mean motions of the planets in the
    Aryabhatıya, apparently unrelated to those of the Brahmapaksa, were derived
    from a Greek table of mean longitudes corresponding to noon on 21 March
    499 CE.”

    Varahamira (circa 550 AD)

    “A descendant of Zoroastrian immigrants from Iran to India and a resident of
    the area near Ujjain, and a prolific writer, whose works cover all aspects of
    traditional Indian astrology and astronomy. His Pañcasiddhantika is a
    summary of five astronomical works current at his time, but now lost: the
    Paitamahasiddhanta, which expounds astronomy influenced
    by Mesopotamia… the Vasisthasiddhanta, the Paulisasiddhanta, the
    Romakasiddhanta and the Suryasiddhanta, which all expound Indian versions
    of Greco-Babylonian astronomy. The Pañcasiddhantika is an important work
    both in shedding light on the Indian astronomical tradition prior to 500
    CE, and in recording pre-Ptolemaic Greek astronomy from which the Indian
    tradition borrowed. Varahamihira authored three works on divination… On
    genethlialogy, Varahamihira authored two works… both based on the Indian
    adaptation of Greek material in the works of Sphujidhvaja and others.”

    • Jaipal

      Indian Astronomy is traced to a work known as “Vedanga Jyotisha” belonging to 1200 BC.
      Indian astronomical knowledge has its roots and foundations in the Vedas. For example, the Zodiac is mentioned in the Rig-Veda by a Vedic composer by the name of Dirghatamas.

      Just because there were later interactions with Greek knowledge does not mean that the Indians imported ,wholesale, the science of Astronomy! They, the Indian astronomers, made their own discoveries and worked on their own ideas which apparently influenced the islamic world and also China!

      • Jaipal

        “The Vedānga Jyotisha also details astronomical calculations, calendrical studies, and establishes rules for empirical observation”.[8] (Subbarayappa)

        Tripathi (2008) holds that ‘ “Twenty-seven constellations, eclipses, seven planets, and twelve signs of the zodiac were also known at that time.'”[9]

        Aryabhata was the author of the Āryabhatīya and the Aryabhatasiddhanta, which, according to Hayashi (2008): ‘circulated mainly in the northwest of India and, through the Sāsānian dynasty (224–651) of Iran, had a profound influence on the development of Islamic astronomy.

        Correctly Established Doctrine of Brahma, 628 CE) dealt with both Indian mathematics and astronomy. Hayashi (2008) writes: ‘It was translated into Arabic in Baghdad about 771 and had a major impact on Islamic mathematics and astronomy.'[10] In Khandakhadyaka (A Piece Eatable, 665 CE) Brahmagupta reinforced Aryabhata’s idea of another day beginning at midnight.[10] Brahmagupta also calculated the instantaneous motion of a planet, gave correct equations for parallax, and some information related to the computation of eclipses.[1] His works introduced Indian concept of mathematics based astronomy into the Arab world.[1]

        • Jaipal

          Indian astronomy reached China with the expansion of Buddhism during the Later Han dynasty (25–220 CE).[32] Further translation of Indian works on astronomy was completed in China by the Three Kingdoms era (220–265 CE).[32] However, the most detailed incorporation of Indian astronomy occurred only during the Tang Dynasty (618–907) when a number of Chinese scholars—such as Yi Xing— were versed both in Indian and Chinese astronomy.[32] A system of Indian astronomy was recorded in China as Jiuzhi-li (718 CE), the author of which was an Indian by the name of Qutan Xida—a translation of Devanagari Gotama Siddha—the director of the Tang dynasty’s national astronomical observatory.[32]

      • etype

        We agree India did not import it’s astronomical science wholesale. And it seems those with this knowledge shared it with others. The Greeks had the great benefit of deriving much from Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia and Sumeria, and it increased their knowledge greatly, which they shared with Indian astronomers.

  12. etype

    Sorry for the long post

    • Jaipal

      Etype said: “What you say regarding Alexander is very interesting, but to my knowledge completely contradicts everything known about Alexander. Plutarch records the massive desertions before the battle of Hydaspes and states the size of the first of Magadha’s army as just under 300.000 while Alexander’s army was 20000 infantry and two thousand horse.”
      (Quote)

      Well the same Plutarch has this to say: “As for the Macedonians, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms, including horsemen and war elephants. They were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants.”.[4]
      (Plut. “Alex”. 62)

      • etype

        Thank you for pointing this out, poor writing of a response on my part..you are right, I edited my response to make it short and was not clear the numbers were after the battle of Hydaspes and the desertion of the Macedonians.
        I mentioned Magadha’s and his numbers correctly as your citation attests. I did not mean to imply Magadha’s army was King Porus’s whom Alexander met at the battle of the Hydaspes.

        Various sources estimate Alexander fought the battle of Hydaspes with an estimated 10000 Macedonian infantry, 20000 allied mercenaries and 7000 cavalry. King Porus is estimated to have had 20000 infantry, 2000 cavalry, est. 100 war elephants and 1000 chariots. After the battle, with the slain and impeding desertions of the Macedonians from Alexander’s army, he faced Magadha’s army with a remaining force of 20000 infantry and his cavalry of 2000 horse…

        These are approximations, Plutarch claims he based his writing on the battle on a extant letter from Alexander. However it is obvious the numbers are rounded and are a summary. Arrians account is considered more accurate as it draws from a number of extant sources.

        • Truth sayer

          You are writing so much on Greeks while Greek historians themselves telling that they have leaned everything from Egypt and ancient Persian Magi
          The tallest figure of Greek knowledge Pythagoras even learned
          everything from Persian Magi.

          It is proved that Greek Pythagorus learned his talent from Persia which then connected to India.
          How those Greeks could excel Indians when they could not even know the decimal system with zero notation.
          Greek excelled only in Geometry which they got from outside sources and developed.This is the truth.
          Here is the quote from Greek historians themselves..
          Dont tell story to us.
          “In his Timaeus(21-23)Plato(428-347bc) testified that the Egyptian priests of Sais of Pharaoh(570-526bc)saw Greeks as young souls and children who had received language only recently and who did not keep wriitten records.Plato accepts and conforms this in his passage”.

          “Lamblichinus the Greek historian gives the following information.”When Persian king Cambyses II conquered Egypt in 525bc,Pythogorus was transported by the followers of Cambyses as a prisoner war to Persia,whilist he was there he gladly associated with Magi,and was instructed in their sacred rites and learned about a very mystical worship of Gods.He also reached the acme of perfection in arithmetic,music and mathematical sciences”.
          Here is the observation if Greek wise men on Indians.
          Apollonious is most traveled Greek wise man in all the know part of the world in his time.
          To the Egyptian Apollonius said”Indian Brahmins living on the earth but not on it,walled without walls and no possession except the whole world.”
          Egyptian civilization itself created by Menes who is from ancient Indias Solar dynasty or Ra’ghu dynasty.
          Ancient Vedic records tells migration Asa Manja of Solar dynasty from ancient India with 60,000 men due to misunderstanding with his father.Sagara
          The first Egyptian first Pharaoh Menes which Greek referred as such was referred as Aha Manja only in Egyptian Abydoss temple hieroglyphic inscriptions.
          There are other record outside India to prove this.
          “The testimony of Eusebius and Philostratus. In the seventh century, St. Isidore made a summary in his Encyclopedia of knowledge derived from ancient Greek and Latin authors, many of whose works have now disappeared. Regarding ‘Ethiopians’ he says in his Etymologiarium (IX.2.128): “They came in ancient times from the River Indus, established themselves in Egypt between the Nile and the sea, towards the south, in the equatorial regions”
          Here is reference from Greeks who visited India 2300 years ago.At that time Egypt was under their control
          “The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.” — Arrian (Indica 6.9)

          So,tell your egoistic story to some fools who dont know anything.
          Vedic culture is mother culture and all Civilization was created by Vedic people which Include Indus, Sumerian and Egyptian.
          India is mother of human civilization.This is the fact!

          Aryan Invasion theory is just figment of imagination of the West which is not supported by any archaeology and genetics.On the contrary,.all recent archaeology and genetics out rightly reject Aryan Invasion theory.
          If possible,read my details on genetics and modern archaeology and refute it possible where and which is false information in my details and not verifiable!
          Then you are a genuine person of intelligence.
          Dont spread lies of last century which nowhere lead you worthy place!

          “Another Greek philosopher Diogenus Laertius gives one information in his book ‘Lives and opinion of eminent philosophers’on Pythogorus.He says that Pythogorus entered the Egyptian temple and learned the secrets of their Gods.This is one of the most remarkable testimony and conforming Lamblichinus statements on Pythogorus”.

          “Porphyry Malchus of Tyre(223-309AD) in his Nicomachus gives the following details on Pythogorus.”Pythogorus was refused admission to all temples in Egypt except Diosopolis.Where he was accepted into the priesthood after completing rites meant Egyptian Priest”.Lamblichinus also told that Pythogorus got knowledge from Diosopolis priests”

          f

        • Truth sayer

          You are so much telling your non senses like Greeks gave many things to Indians like astronomy etc,.
          I just laughed to know the extent of your foolishness even in the 21st century!!.
          So, it is my duty to enlighten you on the historical facts.Dont think others can be fooled by non senses!

          Greek historians themselves accept that Greeks learned everything from Egyptians and Persia.
          The tallest figure of Greek knowledge Pythagoras even received his knowledge from Egyptians and Persian Magi as per Greek historian themselves.

          Here is Greek historian’s references.(Anybody can verify the validity of my details)

          “In his Timaeus(21-23)Plato(428-347bc) testified that the Egyptian priests of Sais of Pharaoh(570-526bc)saw Greeks as young souls and children who had received language only recently and who did not keep written records. Plato accepts and conforms this in his passage”

          “Another Greek philosopher Diogenus Laertius gives one information in his book ‘Lives and opinion of eminent philosophers’ on Pythogoras.He says that Pythagoras entered the Egyptian temple and learned the secrets of their Gods. This is one of the most remarkable testimony and conforming Lamblichinus statements on Pythagoras.”

          ”Porphyry Malchus of Tyre(223-309AD) in his Nicomachus gives the following details on Pythogoras.”Pythogoras was refused admission to all temples in Egypt except Diosopolis.Where he was accepted into the priesthood after completing rites meant Egyptian Priest”.Lamblichinus also told that Pythagoras got knowledge from Diosopolis priests.”

          “Lamblichinus the Greek historian gives the following information.” When Persian king Cambyses II conquered Egypt in 525bc,Pythogorus was transported by the followers of Cambyses as a prisoner war to Persia,whilist he was there he gladly associated with Magi, and was instructed in their sacred rites and learned about a very mystical worship of Gods. He also reached the acme of perfection in arithmetic, music and mathematical sciences.”
          The widely traveled Greek wise men to the all known part of the known world of his time, Apollonius said as follows.

          To the Egyptian Apollonius said”Indian Brahmins living on the earth but not on it, walled without walls and no possession except the whole world.”
          He added further” We owe everything to Egypt but Egypt owes it to India.”

          On other hand, Vedic text has very ancient record which saying that Asa Manja from Solar dynasty or Ra’ghu dynasty migrated from ancient India with 60,000 men to establish kingdom for his own beyond his father territory because of his misunderstanding with his father Sagara.
          There are outside records for this also.
          The Egyptian first Pharaoh Menus as called by Greeks was referred as Aha Manaja only in Abydos temple of Egypt in hieroglyph inscriptions.

          There are other records also as follows.

          “The testimony of Eusebius and Philostratus. In the seventh century, St. Isidore made a summary in his Encyclopedia of knowledge derived from ancient Greek and Latin authors, many of whose works have now disappeared. Regarding ‘Ethiopians’ he says in his Etymologiarium (IX.2.128): “They came in ancient times from the River Indus, established themselves in Egypt between the Nile and the sea, towards the south, in the equatorial regions.”

          Here is reference from Greeks who visited India 2300 years ago. At that time Egypt was under their control
          “The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.” — Arrian (Indica 6.9)

          India is mother of human civilization. Vedic people are the creators of all the civilizations which include Indus, Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations.
          IIndians leaned from Greek is pure nonsense!
          Don’t try to fool others with your non senses hereafter atleast!

          Aryan Invasion theory is a fig of imagination of West and well debunked by all recent archeology and genetics.
          On the other hand, reliable modern archeology and genetics out rightly reject Aryan Invasion theory from outside and confirms the continuity of Vedic culture in India from time immemorial
          Read if possible once again my details given in my comments. Tell me where is the fallacy in my details and which part of my comment is non verifiable.
          Then you are a genuine person with intelligence!
          Don’t spread lies in the open fora which lead you no worthy place!

        • etype

          Truth sayer:
          I tried to be somewhat polite with you, but it’s obvious you’re a imbecile unworthy of the benefit-of-a-doubt. Your first account is hear-say (25 centuries old ) it is also written in the high Greek style of panegyric, which you are unable to understand, because you are a stupid individual with an inferiority complex.
          You are too uncultured understand these words – and take them to mean what they do not. You blame the West for twisting the record (absolutely used for propaganda) and then do the same thing. Some of the accounts you cite are correct and I am aware of them, but you take them out of context because you are unaware of the context of Greek letters.
          You are the same as the afro-centric psuedo-Egyptians… word games and hyperbole. This is why the Vedic culture fell – they instituted caste to keep monkeys like you out, but eventually you jibb-jabbed your way in and now nothing is left.
          Historic texts cannot prevent the fact you are an idiot. Desist from making such long, boring posts. They are impossible to answer because after reading them one becomes aware one is dealing with an blustering idiot, any careful consideration of your claims is more than likely a waste of time in a time short world.

        • Truth sayer

          etype , you are telling so much of your politeness but your comments not personal but against the basic true history!
          Do you know it?

          You are saying that you are expressed doubt but your versions on Aryan origin not written as doubtful!!
          Why you are not doubted your knowledge on genetics and recent archaeology!
          Stop the humbug!

          You are telling what I have given on Greek accounts are outdated.But,everything is given by experts which already exist.
          I have just pointed those, seeing follies of your Aryan origin accounts which is nowhere different from a person who lived 100 years ago if he asked to give!
          Still,I have given the modern genetics with complete experts name both Indian and Western which are very very recent!
          What is your answer for this!

          I have given dried Saraswathji river discovery archaeology in 1996 and the result of subsequent experts study afterwards around four to five years.
          I have given Gulf of Cambay discovery in Gujarat in 2002.
          I have given the authentic website to refer also.
          Study sincerely all those given details.

          I asked where is fallacy in my verifiable accounts if it is!
          No answer but still you are writing unconnected non senses!
          Besides, pointing me as imbecile!!
          Good!

          Again, most reliable recent genetics and archaeology which I have given wont look you recent and reliable! Is it?
          Why?

        • etype

          Truth sayer:

          You say multiple times “You are telling what I have given on Greek accounts are outdated.But,everything is given by experts which already exist.”

          The ‘appeal to authority’ is not the basis of argument, but the tactic of a fool. Let us go back to you original laundry list of foolish arguments and deal with the one that sums them up:

          “Greek historians themselves accept that Greeks learned everything from Egyptians and Persia.
          The tallest figure of Greek knowledge Pythagoras even received his knowledge from Egyptians and Persian Magi as per Greek historian themselves.”

          This does not at all support your argument, you may be incapable of seeing it. The Greeks learned much from everyone they came into contact with, and then they took what they learned and excelled them all, advancing the knowledge they inherited, which they then shared with others. This is inconceivable to you as an Indian, as your inherited manner is stagnation and decay, jumping around with fallacious arguments pretending to be supported by ancient documents.
          This is the reason Westerners acknowledge your native intelligence, but despise your culture and tradition of tolerance of filth mixed with the sacred in your holy practices, your respect for the life of all beings mixed with absolute contempt for human life of those around you. The complete indolence of the corruption of the Hindu often seems incorrigible.

          You claim the infallibility of genetic research. Genetic back tracing is in it’s infancy. It is a mathematical computation that relies on the quality of it’s formulas, (garbage in/garbage out) but benefits from the lack of substantiated proof in the hands of fools. This is why you use it as an absolute truth – and rely on multiple references to expert fools.

          Your note on the discovery of the Saraswathji river is equally stupid and meaningless nationalistic foolishness. Any idiot should know that over the course of a few millennia thousands of rivers proceed from a mountain range, change course numerous times and eventually disperse into new water courses. The finding of a possible river bed by satellite imagery is the basis for nothing but a hypothesis. Only in your primitive mind is this the reappearance of a magic holy river….that confirms all your other holy magic.

          You’re proud of your country and I salute this. But you do your country no honour by these ridiculous references and stupid boasting. It is better you stop jabbering, work hard and become a moral person with a realistic outlook.

        • Truth sayer

          etype ,you are telling those genetic studies not infallible.so that is why all genetic study not one but all which have done in different times by different experts have totally debunk Aryan Invasion!
          Above,all modern archaeology confirm the genetic studies.
          Underwater discovery of ancient Vedic city in Gulf of Cambay confirms the above two.
          The astronomic precision date in Given in the Rigveda confirm all the above!
          Nobody guess or approximate planetary position with precision record thousands of years ago except recorded by personal observations!
          Our modern computers immediately find out manipulated records,if any!
          Do you know anything on this!
          How different scientific studies in different places not contradict each other if it is not true!
          So,these studies are fallible,but your last century approximations and other historical opinions are infallible!
          Is it?
          Do you know anything on dried Saraswathi discovery or simply what is by mean recent archaeology!
          Did you provide anything worthy except outdated details or your approximations as history except denying everything like a roadside blabber!

          While you are so much takings one your courtesy here,.where is gone your courtesy when you tried to fool others or could not refute others details with your expert one instead of denying!
          Do you think to deny others details without any basis,any expertise is needed? Is it?
          It is simply fools work!!
          Dont do that anymore!

          d

        • Truth sayer

          etype ,you are telling those genetic studies not infallible.so that is why all genetic study not one but all which have done in different times by different experts have totally debunk Aryan Invasion!
          Above,all modern archaeology confirm the genetic studies.
          Underwater discovery of ancient Vedic city in Gulf of Cambay confirms the above two.
          The astronomic precision date in Given in the Rigveda confirm all the above!
          Nobody guess or approximate planetary position with precision record thousands of years ago except recorded by personal observations!
          Our modern computers immediately find out manipulated records,if any!
          Rigvedic astronomical details and precision dates are confirmed by our modern astronomers and our advanced computers!
          Astronomers concluded those are personal observed records of people lived that time to observe those planetary positions!
          The oldest astronomical record of Rigveda corresponds to 4300BC!
          Do you know anything on this!
          How different scientific studies in different places not contradict each other if it is not true!
          So,these studies are fallible,but your last century approximations and other historical opinions are infallible!
          Is it?
          Do you know anything on dried Saraswathi discovery or simply what is by mean recent archaeology!
          Did you provide anything worthy except outdated details or your approximations as history except denying everything like a roadside blabber!

          While you are so much takings one your courtesy here,.where is gone your courtesy when you tried to fool others or could not refute others details with your expert one instead of denying!
          Do you think to deny others details without any basis,any expertise is needed? Is it?
          It is simply fools work!!
          Dont do that anymore!

      • Dota

        One of the reasons why it is impossible to argue with Hindutvadis is because they tend to blur the boundaries between religious practice and philosophy. Where does Indian philosophy end and Hinduism begin? Or Vice versa. Note how Truth Sayer talks about Nyaya logic and uses this to demonstrate ‘Hinduism’s’ commitment to logic. Any first year western student of philosophy would tell you that logic is a branch of philosophy which is concerned with the methodologies of Reasoning. To the average Hindu, its all Hinduism, possibly because he is too stupid to know any better. Educated Hindutvadis do it because they lack intellectual honesty. This is why there are barely any critiques of Hinduism around, because this is tradition without a fixed set of boundaries. The lack of criticism bolsters the Hindu’s innate sense of chauvinism.

        • Jaipal

          @Dota,
          You appear to be very ignorant of Hinduism and its teachings.
          Among the six schools of Hinduism, also known as “Shad-Darshanas”, Logic
          or Nyaya is one of them. These schools are not considered separate from the Hindu
          religion. This is because in the Hindu concept of reality, the material and the spiritual
          are two sides of the coin of Truth. One is a lower form of Truth and the other is a higher
          or Absolute form of Truth! So, the philosophies of Hinduism analyse both the sensual
          and the supra-sensual without any problem and help in contributing to an awareness
          of both forms of higher and lower realities which is also interconnected!

          In Western culture, on the other hand, the reason there is a divide between religion
          and philosophy, is because the West is nominally Christian by faith but the foundation
          of its intellectual heritage is not in Christianity per se, but rather in the pre-Christian
          Graeco-Roman traditions of thought. To accomodate both, a fine line had to be drawn
          between the two. That is why you see the divide and tend to think that Religion and
          philosophy are two separate streams. But in Hinduism, its not like that!

        • Dota

          I prefer to conform to western academic standards. I don’t particularly care for what you consider are Hinduism’s ‘true’ teachings. Hinduism’s philosophy is primarily concerned with metaphysics. That they have used logical systems to support their arguments doesn’t equate to logic being a part of the Hindu religion. Only a chauvinistic retard like you would see it that way. In the West, Aristotle is considered to be the father of Logic since he codified the system. However logic had been used by Philosophers like Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Xeno much before Aristotle. Seriously, go and enroll yourself into some western university, even a community college would be a step up from where you currently are.

        • Jaipal

          @Dota,

          Indian Logic is based on getting to the truth of the matter, whether
          physical or metaphysical. Now in those days, there was no secularism
          nor the need to be politically correct. But the reality is that Indian logic
          stems from the vast and comprehensive view of Hindu religious thought
          whether you like it or not.

  13. Jaipal

    Dota said: “Truth Sayer and Jaipal are both Hindutvadis and so you’re wasting your time arguing with them. Hindutva goes to extreme lengths in homogenizing the Aryans in an attempt to justify their petty cultural chauvinism. Jaipal has linked to the voice of dharma website as ‘proof.’
    That’s like me claiming that Muhammad is the final prophet for mankind and then linking to Islamonline.com” (Quote)

    Dota,
    Simply indulging in character assasination cannot be a valid substitute for an argument!
    There is enough evidence to warrant that Indo-Europeans did in fact originate in india.
    The site “Voice of Dharma” is just a site that has the relevant arguments on this topic in one
    place. You can either read the arguments and try to provide a factual based rebuttal but don’t
    bother trying to shoot the messenger. It won’t get you anywhere.

    • Dota

      Look, you can spout your typical nonsense about India being the fountain of knowledge that shaped every civilization in the world but don’t pretend you aren’t a Hindutwadi. I’ve dealt with these shitbags for years and I can spot one a mile away. You no different from a feminazi who opens a conversation with “I’m not a feminist but…” or a super Jew who begins his conversations with “I’m not a Zionist but…” Spare us.

      • Truth sayer

        Dota acting as if he know everything simply to prove that he knows nothing worthy!
        That is the fact!

      • Jaipal

        Dota,
        What my personal beliefs are is not relevant to the discussion on hand.
        That was my basic point. Sorry if you didn’t understand that.
        I could be an alien from Mars for all its worth, but my arguments still stand
        because it is factually-based!

        • The thing is, you have no argument at all. All you made so far are Hindutva rhetorics and non-sequiturs, with links to Hindutva sites that use circular reasoning as ‘evidence’. Rationality and logic is something that the majority of Hindus just don’t get.

        • Jaipal

          @Atheist Indian,

          You seem to be very confused. I bet you haven’t even read those arguments on that
          site which prove the Indian Homeland Theory of the Indo-Europeans! Maybe you
          should before levelling the charge of “Hindutva rhetorics”, “non-sequiturs”,
          “circular reasoning” etc etc. I frankly doubt you could provide a rebuttal to those
          arguments! It is pretty well argued. Try it if you can.

          The Indo-European Homeland: http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch7.htm

          The Indo-Iranian Homeland: http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch6.htm

          As for logic, the Sanskrit term is Nyayaa. Logic is considered as one of the six
          orthodox systems of the Hindus. So much for your claim of lack of logic among
          Hindus!

        • Truth sayer

          @ Atheist Indian
          Read my comments.Please tell where is the fallacy in my comments.Let us others also benefit in your observations,if it is true!.
          Iam damn sure that Aryans are in India around 40,000 years as per recent genetics and they only migrated to all other places from ancient India
          They are the originators all the human civilization which include Indus,Sumerian and Egyptian.
          If needed,I sent more information to prove my point.
          But,if possible refute my comment.

  14. Xera

    LOL Ha Ha Jai Pal and the Hinduvta moron douchebags strikes again, why are you even arguing with this retard Dota? All we have to do is set up JaI pal with Huax or some of some other nationalist of another country in some argument and see the hillarity ensue.

    • Jaipal

      Xera,
      We all saw how much of a moron you truly were in the “Bangladesh Thread”
      making claims like “Turks are not converted to Islam” or that “Bosnians/Balkan Muslims
      are original Muslims” ect ect. I could go on and on. You clearly do not know even your
      own Islamic history. If anyone is a moron, it is truly you. You have put your foot in your
      mouth time and again. So, clearly you are the retard. I even kicked your ass in debate
      on that thread. Remember?

      • Xera

        LoL when did I say Bosnians/Balkans were the original Muslims? Or that the Turks didn’t convert to Islam?

        • Jaipal

          @Xera,

          Why don’t you go back and take a look at that particular thread in which we had the
          debate. Even your good friend Atheist Indian pointed out your lack of historical
          knowledge on that thread.

        • Xera

          I did and your an idiot, I said the North Africans and Arabs played a much more integral role in Islam, as well the as the states of the former Byzantine Roman empire which Muhammed clearly crossed paths with. Now you are just making stuff up, I never said Turks did not convert to Islam (how the fuck did that come up lol?).

          My own “friend” had historical issues of his own as I had tried pointing it out to him, I wrote a huge big paragraph that was going to slaughter right there about his “ill-knowldege” but I decided not to since it would be a waste of time arguing with an idiot that thought his outdated sources and his 13 year old amateur anecdotal observations by jumping off a plane and then looking around, were like the answers to the Universe.

        • Jaipal

          Xera,

          The point that you don’t apparently get is that the North Africans were
          simply sub-ordinates to their Arab invader masters. The Arabs of the time considered North Africans as their inferiors, calling them “Mawali”.
          This was the case with much of the Middle-East also. The role that these
          inferiors played in early Islam are that of slaves and sub-ordinates who
          had no option but to cooperate with their conquerors. That is nothing
          to be proud of! Look what they lost in the process, namely their dignity
          and ancient culture/identity. All for what? Just to be a perpetual slave
          in Islam!

          Atheist Indian cited a source written by a Muslim historian on the Islamic
          history. So how was that outdated? You didn’t even bother providing a rebuttal, except a haughty dismissal that rings hollow!

        • Xera

          No North Africa was part of the Byzantine Empire, which Muhammed clearly crossed into as a merchant, and which subsequently left impressions in his mind. So yes in that case, North Africans clearly played a much more integral role in how Islamic society was developed, plus much of the original caliphate extended to North Africa.

          And what bullshit is this that North Africans were sub servant to Arabs, they converted and joined them, only in a few cases (Berbers) was there conflict.

        • Jaipal

          Xera,

          You are mistaken. Islam is supposed to be a revealed religion from
          Allah/God. So how exactly could North Africans contribute to a supposedly divinely revealed faith which wouldn’t have any human influence, now would it? Islam is based on Quran and Hadiths.
          Quran wasn’t influenced by North Africans and that is the standard
          of Islam. The Hadiths are simply the accounts of how the Prophet lived
          and how Muslims are supposed to imitate him if they want to go to heaven.
          Where is your North African influence here??

          If you read history, North Africans were conquered and converted
          by the invading Arabs, at sword-point. Islam is an imperial system
          based on a Master-Slave relationship. Arab Muslims are the masters
          and non-Arab muslims are their sub-ordinates. That is fact.
          You may have a hard time admitting it but that is truth!

  15. NonKoolAidDrinker

    “European Whites were created only in the past 11,000 years”

    You repeat that little factoid alot. What are you basing that statement on? My understanding is that some European sub-types such as the Brunn type trace their origins back to the upper paleoithic. If you’re talking about the origin of white/very light skin, there’s no hard evidence that that happened 11,000 years ago.

    I would wager that Europeans of 20,000 years ago already looked distinctly West Eurasian/Caucasian. Few would be mistaken for Mongolians or Native Americans. They may have been on the darker side of the present day European skin color range but probably not very dark. I doubt they resembled Arabs or Northern Indians since both those groups have very “progressive” features which where probably not common 20,000 ybp. Of the extant European racial types I believe the “berid” type of Southern Europe is probably the closest to the “original” white European.

    • Well, European skulls and genes 12-14,0000 YBP look like present day Arabs, not modern Europeans.

      So the Arabs are the original Europeans.

      Plotting 20,000 YBP European skulls on a graph shows that the closest match is the NW American Indians, like the Makah tribe for example.

      The light skin, blue and green eyes and blond and red hair go back to genes that originated in Finland 10,000 YBP.

  16. Truth sayer

    The people called Aryans are origins in India and migrated out of India to all the other places.
    Rigveda very clearly gives the migration of Aryans after ten kings war or
    Dasarajna If needed,I can write elaborately on this.

    Rivedic age is pushed to atleast 6000BC or still above due to dried Saraswathi river discovery in 1996 and subsequent expert study.
    This also confirmed the unchanged claim of Vedas and the efficacy of phonetic based”shruthi” system to protect the originality and purity of Vedic texts by Vedic pundits which is still followed from antiquity.
    Rigveda Vouch origins of Aryans in Saraswathi river basin by providing complete details of AryaVartha which is North India and ends with Afghanistan.
    Most ancient Rigveda never said even a single word on any people or place or Geographical location beyond the Afghanistan.
    Rigveda very clearly talks in their atleast 6000BC old texts as if those Aryans are living in Arya Vartha which is North India for many thousand years even in that time.

    • atheistseparatist

      @Truth Sayer
      You think rig veda is a historical document? lol

      • Hacienda

        separatist,

        What part of India are you from?

        • atheistseparatist

          North Indian living in Bombay. You aren’t a fundie trying to kill me are you? 😛

        • Which part Iam belonged is totally irrelevant question to the subject that we are discussing!
          Your question on Rigveda answered already.It is so much reliable to the extent it contained in Vedas.
          Before,asking question study sincerely my comments on Vedas and Rigvdic verses on Saraswathi

        • Hacienda

          No. Not a fundie. Why do call it Bombay, not Mumbai?

        • atheistseparatist

          mumbai derives from ‘mumba’, which is the name of a hindu goddess. I call it bombay because I don’t want to give them the satisfaction of having me accept that.
          I would have been preferred a secular name but its a bit too late for that.

        • Truth sayer

          I have given in may comments on Vedas and those details which speak of Saraswathi river with complete Sanskrit verses and it English translation.
          At least,before asking questions,try to study sincerely what others given and verify!!
          Your question answered already!
          Vedas are unchanged phonetically and even minute change is not allowed!!
          The details in Rigveda are so much reliable to the extent it contained Rigveda.

    • atheistseparatist

      @Truth Sayer
      Oh come on. It is obvious that much of the vedas is made up. The mandalas comprise mostly of hymns dedicated to gods and goddesses.
      If rig veda were true indra, shiva, ganesha and rest other gods would exist. But they don’t.

  17. Pepperoncini

    Standard argument of the AryanCentric / Hindutva / Upper Caste propaghandists and their usefull idiots = Repeat Ad-Nauseum that AIT is a debunked myth despite it not being the case.

    As Goebbels said, repeat something long enough and hard enough…

    Hindutva are a lot like the tiny segment of the far right in the US who steadfastly claim Whites were in the Americas first. The difference is that Hindutva is backed by a major Indian Political party and has some prominent Indian Academics (Former head of Archaeological Survey of India and Geneticists ) supporting them while even in a place like StormFront, WNists do not all go along with the Solutrean hypothesis. Just goes to show that the West actually values intellectual integrity and that even amongst WNists, not everyone just jumps on any ole theory that appears pro White.

    • Really? Prominent academics support Hindutva? Pitiful…

      • Truth sayer

        So,still even in the 21st century,many westerners try to fool the world with Aryan Invasion theory,though most reliable genetics and archaeology fully debunk it.
        They by their attitude even ridicule those genetic studies and recent archaeology.
        They expect everybody should believe their stories relegating most authentic archaeology and genetics.
        Funny!

    • Truth sayer

      Pepperoncini,
      We can also say those are the standard comments of those story tellers to fool the world.

      If you have really guts and intelligence,read my comments and enlighten me where is my mistake in my comments with your refuting details.
      I have already given most authentic genetics with expert names and archaeology details.
      We can also tell those brainwashed western cunts on fake Aryan Invasion theory still exist more outside India.
      Correct!

      Instead of telling your opinions on history,give proofs to substantiate your point.
      No more humbug please!

      Dont try to project yourself as if you know everything.Indeed, you are projecting that you are another person with little details on modern discoveries and developments.
      Update!

      • Pepperoncini

        You are making the claim for OIT and there being no invasion? If so it is up to you to provide proof . Proof would be peer reviewed Academic journals that published your claims following the peer review process. I am sticking to the standard theory so the onus for burden of proof is on you who is making the outlandish claims.

        I will stick to Academics like Witzel, Parpola and many other non Indian Indologists over lies pushed by Indian pseudo historians or their allies making unsubstantiated claims.

        When you can counter how linguistics totally rules out Aryans being indigenous then come back.

        • Jaipal

          @Pepperoncini,
          Have a look at those links that I posted on this Indo-European issue.
          All of your points have been answered in those links. You need to do some
          homework in order to update yourself.

          Witzel’s arguments have been very easily refuted. Do read those links.

          As far as linguistics ruling out an Indian Homeland Theory, this is a false impression
          that is not supported even by the science of linguistics itself. This point has also
          been answered in the links that I posted. Do have a look.

          The Indo-European Homeland: http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch7.htm

          The Indo-Iranian Homeland: http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch6.htm

        • Truth sayer

          Please go through those genetic study details and other archaeology details which I have given in my previous comments with expert name.
          If possible,disprove or ask more details,I will provide!

    • Jaipal

      @Pepperoncini,

      The AIT has been debunked for practical purposes. The Out of India Theory (OIT)
      has its merits and is not so far-fetched as you imagine. This is a view shared by even
      Western Scholars like Dr. Edwin Bryant of Rutgers University.

      There is no hard evidence that proves the AIT. In fact, the theory has many shortcomings
      and the only reason it is still present in academia is because of entrenched intellectual
      inertia! The AIT was invented some 150 years ago and it is not easy to just let go
      of such a paradigm, even if flawed! Old ideas usually die hard.

      • Pepperoncini

        It has not been debunked, simply repeating Hindutva regurgitation does not make it fact. What has happened is a tweaking of the theory , moving away from a swift blitzkrieg like invasion that drove all the non Aryans away to a model where the intrusion was more complicated and gradual, such that it would be more accurate to call it conquest , colonization and assimilation of the locals.

        This so called “hard evidence” is another chestnut in the Hindutva argument. There is no evidence for many invaders if one based invasion/conquest solely on whether the invaders destroyed the structures of the preceding cultures. What concrete proof is there that Brits, Arabs, Persians,Scythians, Greeks etc…invaded India?

        You also have to keep in mind that the conquest/invasion happened around 3500-3900 years ago. That far back written records were rare. History is written by winners and we don’t have the narrative of the Indus Valley people but we do know that Aryan languages established themselves in the region and supplanted non Aryan languages to a great extent but not totally. Indo-Aryan languages show a substratum of Dravidian and Munda and maybee another language. Indo-Aryan languages also have retroflexion something unheard of in other IE and even other Indo-Iranian languages. Retroflexion though is very common in Dravidian.

        No academic even considers OIT. OIT is in the same category of respectability as other BS claims of Aliens seeding Egyptian culture or that Whites created Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian civilization .

        • Jaipal

          @Pepperoncini said: “It has not been debunked, simply repeating Hindutva regurgitation does not make it fact. What has happened is a tweaking of the theory , moving away from a swift blitzkrieg like invasion that drove all the non Aryans away to a model where the intrusion was more complicated and gradual, such that it would be more accurate to call it conquest , colonization and assimilation of the locals.” (Quote)

          But there is a problem with this view. There is no archaeological proof or literary evidence
          suggesting such a scenario, let alone even the faintest memory of such a phenomenon!
          In other words, no real proof that proves this scenario. Just an assumption that has
          never been proven. That is not much of an argument really.

        • Jaipal

          @Pepperoncini said: “This so called “hard evidence” is another chestnut in the Hindutva argument. There is no evidence for many invaders if one based invasion/conquest solely on whether the invaders destroyed the structures of the preceding cultures. What concrete proof is there that Brits, Arabs, Persians,Scythians, Greeks etc…invaded India?” (Quote)

          Here you seem confused about the term “hard evidence”. “Hard evidence” does not only
          mean ruined physical structures but also epigraphical evidence, numismatic evidence,
          even literary records of some kind also constitute “Hard evidence”. Hard evidence simply
          means evidence from any reliable source that gives enough indicators that could support
          a certain paradigm on a solid footing and give credibility to that particular view-point.

          As far as the last part of your statement is concerned, most of the invaders have kept some
          literary records that document their invasions. That is how we know that these events took
          place in the first place. Now that is certainly some kind of hard evidence that proves these
          invasions. However, most of these invaders were defeated and kept in check by the
          contemporary Indian powers of the time. We know this also from epigraphical sources
          of the Indian dynasties of the time that fought, defeated, and kept these invaders in check!

        • Jaipal

          @Pepperoncini said: “You also have to keep in mind that the conquest/invasion happened around 3500-3900 years ago. That far back written records were rare.” (Quote)

          So what? The archaeological remains of the IVC dating to 3000 BC have been preserved
          whereas the hypothetical “Aryan Invasion” dating to 1500 BC, post-IVC, doesn’t
          show up in the archaeological record at any level, even though this invasion supposedly
          had such an impact as to completely change the linguistic and cultural complex of much
          of the sub-continent. Don’t you think that is strange?

          As far as written records go, sorry you are mistaken. Egypt, Mesopotamia, Mittani
          kingdom etc in the Middle-East all kept written records at some level and their records
          mention wars and invasions of one another. Even the Rig-Veda is a very old record
          of ancient Indian society and history along with the complementary Vedic literature.
          Nowhere in the Rig-Veda or in other Vedic literature is there any indication of Aryan invasion of IVC.

          You are also forgetting that besides written records, oral compositions can also be admitted as a form of keeping records.

        • Jaipal

          @Pepperoncini said: “History is written by winners and we don’t have the narrative of the Indus Valley people but we do know that Aryan languages established themselves in the region and supplanted non Aryan languages to a great extent but not totally”. (Quote)

          What is that “History” of the “victorious” Aryans, O wise one? Where and when did they
          write such a history? If not, why did they not compose such a history for posterity?
          The reason we don’t have a narrative of the Indus people, assuming that they were non-Aryans, is because the language of the Indus seals has not been deciphered yet! Therefore, it is premature at this time to say that the Indus people were losers who were overrun by the
          so-called Aryans, even when there is no indication for such a scenario in the first place.

          As far as Indo-Aryan languages go, without knowing what language the IVC people spoke,
          how you can say that they were non-IE or that IE languages were brought to the country
          without a shred of evidence from any angle!

        • Jaipal

          @Pepperoncini said: “Indo-Aryan languages show a substratum of Dravidian and Munda and maybee another language. Indo-Aryan languages also have retroflexion something unheard of in other IE and even other Indo-Iranian languages. Retroflexion though is very common in Dravidian.” (Quote)

          The substratum theory of Indo-Aryan is far from being an established fact.
          It is simply an assumption that lacks objective support. In fact, linguists are
          not sure as to what actually constitutes a substratum in Indo-Aryan. You may not be aware
          of that reality. The notion of substratum is just an unfounded dogma that is yet to be
          proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Linguists are actually at loggerheads with one
          another and there is no consensus on the issue at all. Go update yourself.

          As far as retroflexion goes, the reason it exists in Vedic is because the Vedic language
          interacted with Dravidian long after the other Indo-European branches had left India
          so yes for that reason you will not find retroflexion in other IE branches. But that does
          not at all disprove an Indian Homeland Theory.

        • Jaipal

          @Pepperoncini said: “No academic even considers OIT. OIT is in the same category of respectability as other BS claims of Aliens seeding Egyptian culture or that Whites created Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian civilization .” (Quote)

          The reason OIT is not considered is not because it is false or lacking in factual based
          evidence/arguments but because of entrenched intellectual inertia and biases
          that do not want to let go of a theory that has been around for a long time. When
          inconvenient facts and evidence fly in the face of an entrenched outlook, cognitive
          dissonance results and denial is the easy way out! So don’t be surprised at mainstream
          academic reactions.

  18. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini,

    You still here? Provide an answer to my points if you can.

  19. Jaipal

    I am going to give some of the arguments below for the OIT…..

  20. Jaipal

    The Linguistic Evidence

    Erdosy speaks of the “disciplinary divide” between linguistics and archaeology.

    And it is Michael Witzel whom Erdosy pits against the archaeologists whose papers are included in the volume: “Placed against Witzel’s contribution, the paper by J.Shaffer and D. Lichtenstein will illustrate the gulf still separating archaeology and linguistics.”32

    We will not assume that Witzel’s papers in this particular volume represent the sum total of the linguistic evidence, but, since the volume does pit him against the archaeologists, let us examine the linguistic evidence stressed by him.

    According to Erdosy, “M. Witzel begins by stressing the quality of linguistic (and historical) data obtainable from the Rgveda, along with the potential of a study of linguistic stratification, contact and convergence. Next, the evidence of place-names, above all hydronomy, is scrutinised, followed by an evaluation of some of the most frequently invoked models of language change in light of this analysis.”33

    We have already examined Witzel’s “models of language change” by which he seeks to explain away the lack of archaeological evidence. We will now examine “the evidence of place-names, above all hydronomy”, on the basis of which Witzel apparently contests the claims of the archaeologists and proves the Aryan invasion.

    Witzel does not have much to say about place-names. He points out that most of the place-names in England (all names ending in -don, -chester, -ton, -ham, -ey, -wick, etc., like London, Winchester, Uppington, Downham, Westrey, Lerwick, etc.) and in America (like Massachussetts, Wachussetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Chicago, etc) are remnants of older languages which were spoken in these areas.

    But, far from finding similar evidence in respect of India, Witzel is compelled to admit: “In South Asia, relatively few pre-Indo-Aryan place-names survive in the North; however, many more in central and southern India. Indo-Aryan place-names are generally not very old, since the towns themselves are relatively late.”34

    Witzel clearly evades the issue: he refers to “relatively few pre-Indo-Aryan place names” in the North, but judiciously refrains from going into any specifics about these names, or the number of such names.

    He insinuates that there are “many more” pre-Indoaryan place-names in Central and South India, but this is clearly a misleading statement: by Central India, he obviously means the Austric-language speaking areas, and by South India, he definitely means the Dravidian-language speaking areas, and perhaps other areas close to these. So, if these areas have Austric or Dravidian place-names respectively, does it prove anything?

    And, finally, he suggests that the paucity (or rather absence) of any “pre-Indo-Aryan” place-names in the North is because the towns concerned “are relatively late” (ie. came into being after the Aryan influx). This excuse is rather strange: the Indus people, alleged to be “pre-Indo-Aryans” did have towns and cities, but no alleged earlier place-names have survived, while the American Indians (in the U.S.A.) did not have large towns and cities, but their place-names have survived in large numbers.

    Witzel goes into more detail in respect of the hydronomes (ie. names of rivers), but the results of his investigation, and even his own comments on them, are intriguing.

    According to Witzel: “A better case for the early linguistic and ethnic history of South Asia can be made by investigating the names of rivers. In Europe river-names were found to reflect the languages spoken before the influx of Indo-European speaking populations. They are thus older than c. 4500-2500 BC (depending on the date of the spread of Indo-European languages in various parts of Europe). It would be fascinating to gain a similar vantage point for the prehistory of South Asia.”35

    It is indeed fascinating. Witzel finds, to his chagrin, that “in northern India, rivers in general have early Sanskrit names from the Vedic period, and names derived from the daughter languages of Sanskrit later on.”36

    Witzel tries to introduce the non-Aryan element into the picture: “River names in northern India are thus principally Sanskrit, with few indications of Dravidian, MuNDa or Tibeto-Burmese names. However, Kosala, with its uncharacteristic -s- after -o- may be Tibeto-Burmese (Sanskrit rules would demand KoSala or KoSala, a corrected form that is indeed adopted in the Epics).”37 Likewise, “there has been an almost complete Indo-Aryanisation in northern India; this has progressed much less in southern India and in the often inaccessible parts of central India. In the northwest there are only a few exceptions, such as the names of the rivers GangA, SutudrI and perhaps KubhA (Mayrhofer, 1956-1976).”38

    Thus, there are four river-names which he tries to connect with “pre-Indo-Aryan” languages. But three of them, Kosala, SutudrI and KubhA are clearly Indo-European names (the hairsplitting about the letter -s- in Kosala is a typical “linguistic” ploy which we will refer to later on in our examination of linguistic substrata), and only GaNgA is generally accepted as a possible non-Indo-European name.

    But the answer to this is given by Witzel himself: “Rivers often carry different names, sometimes more than two, along their courses. Even in a homogenous, monolingual country, such as Japan, this can be the case as names change as soon as the river passes through a major mountain range. In South Asia, to quote one well-known example, the BhAgIrathI and AlaknandA become the GaNgA. This increases the probability of multiple names from various languages for one and the same river of which only one may have survived in our sources.”39 (It may be noted that the Rigveda itself refers to the river as both GaNgA and JahnAvI).

    Witzel cannot escape the “evidence of hydronomy” as he calls it, and he tries to explain it away by suggesting that “there has been an almost complete Indo-Aryanisation”40 of the river-names in northern India.

    But his explanation rings hollow: “The Indo-Aryan influence, whether due to actual settlement, acculturation, or, if one prefers, the substitution of Indo-Aryan names for local ones, was powerful enough from early on to replace local names, in spite of the well-known conservatism of river-names. This is especially surprising in the area once occupied by the Indus civilization, where one would have expected the survival of earlier names, as has been the case in Europe and the Near East. At the least, one would expect a palimpsest, as found in New England, with the name of the State of Massachussetts next to the Charles River formerly called the Massachussetts River, and such new adaptations as Stony Brook, Muddy Creek, Red River, etc. next to the adaptations of Indian names such as the Mississippi and the Missouri. The failure to preserve old hydronomes even in the Indus Valley (with a few exceptions noted above) indicates the extent of the social and political collapse experienced by the local population.”41

    Apart from anything else, does this last bit at all harmonize with the claim made elsewhere in the same volume (to explain the lack of archaeological-anthropological evidence of any invasion) that the “Indo-Aryanisation” of the northwest was a “gradual and complex” rather than a “cataclysmic” event?

    Witzel starts out with the intention of pitting the linguistic evidence of place-names and river-names against the evidence of archaeology; and he ends up having to try and argue against, or explain away, this linguistic evidence, since it only confirms the archaeological evidence.

    The long and short of the evidence of place-names and river-names is as follows:

    The place-names and river-names in Europe, to this day, represent pre-Indo-European languages spoken in Europe before 2500 BC. The same is the case with Armenia: “among the numerous personal and place-names handed down to us from Armenia up to the end of the Assyrian age, there is absolutely nothing Indo-European.”42 And with Greece and Anatolia: “numerous place-names… show that Indo-Europeans did not originate in Greece. The same can be said for Italy and Anatolia.”43

    On the other hand, northern India is the only place where place-names and river-names are Indo-European right from the period of the Rigveda (a text which Max Müller refers to as “the first word spoken by the Aryan man”) with no traces of any alleged earlier non-Indo-European names.

    Witzel’s attitude towards this evidence is typical of the generally cavalier attitude of Western scholars towards inconvenient evidence in the matter of Indo-European origins: he notes that the evidence is negative, finds it “surprising” that it should be so, makes an offhand effort to explain it away, and then moves on.

    And, later on, in his second paper included in the volume, he actually refers complacently to the whole matter: “in view of the discussion of hydronomy and place-names in the previous paper, it is also interesting that the Indo-Aryans could not, apparently, pronounce local names.”44

    But, like it or not, the evidence of place-names and river-names is a very important factor in locating the Indo-European homeland in any particular area. And India, and India alone, passes this test with flying colours.

  21. Jaipal

    THE EVIDENCE OF LINGUISTIC ISOGLOSSES

    One linguistic phenomenon which is of great help to linguists in their efforts to chalk out the likely scenario of the migration schedule of the various Indo-European branches from the original homeland, is the phenomenon of linguistic isoglosses.

    A linguistic isogloss is a linguistic feature which is found in some of the branches of the family, and is not found in the others.

    This feature may, of course, be either an original feature of the parent Proto-Indo-European language which has been lost in some of the daughter branches but retained in others, or a linguistic innovation, not found in the parent Proto-Indo-European language, which developed in some of the daughter branches but not in the others. But this feature is useful in establishing early historico-geographical links between branches which share the same isogloss.

    We will examine the evidence of the isoglosses as follows:

    A. The Isoglosses
    B. The Homeland Indicated by the Isoglosses
    III.A. The Isoglosses

    There are, as Winn points out, “ten ‘living branches’… Two branches, Indic (Indo-Aryan) and Iranian dominate the eastern cluster. Because of the close links between their classical forms – Sanskrit and Avestan respectively – these languages are often grouped together as a single Indo-Iranian branch.”59 But Meillet notes: “It remains quite clear, however, that Indic and Iranian evolved from different Indo-European dialects whose period of common development was not long enough to effect total fusion.”60

    Besides these ten living branches, there are two extinct branches, Anatolian (Hittite) and Tocharian.

    Of these twelve branches, one branch, Illyrian (Albanian), is of little use in this study of isoglosses: “Albanian… has undergone so many influences that it is difficult to be certain of its relationships to the other Indo-European languages.”61

    An examination of the isoglosses which cover the other eleven branches (living and extinct) gives a more or less clear picture of the schedule of migrations of the different Indo-European branches from the original homeland.

    Whatever the dispute about the exact order in which the different branches migrated away from the homeland, the linguists are generally agreed on two important points:

    1. Anatolian (Hittite) was the first branch to leave the homeland: “The Anatolian languages, of which Hittite is the best known, display many archaic features that distinguish them from other Indo-European languages. They apparently represent an earlier stage of Indo-European, and are regarded by many as the first group to break away from the proto-language.”62

    2. Four branches, Indic, Iranian, Hellenic (Greek) and Thraco-Phrygian (Armenian) were the last branches remaining behind in the original homeland after the other branches had dispersed:

    “After the dispersals of the early PIE dialects,… there were still those who remained… Among them were the ancestors of the Greeks and Indo-Iranians…63

    “Greek and Sanskrit share many complex grammatical features: this is why many earlier linguists were misled into regarding them as examples of the most archaic stage of Proto-Indo-European. However, the similarities between the two languages are now regarded as innovations that took place during a late period of PIE , which we call stage III. One of these Indo-Greek innovations was also shared by Armenian; all these languages it seems, existed in an area of mutual interaction.”64

    Thus we get: “Greek Armenian, Phrygian, Thracian and Indo-Iranian. These languages may represent a comparatively late form of Indo-European, including linguistic innovations not present in earlier stages. In particular, Greek and Indic share a number of distinctive grammatical features……”65

    The following are some of the innovations shared only by Indic, Iranian, Greek and Armenian (Thraco-Phrygian); features which distinguish them from the other branches, particularly the other living branches:

    a. “The prohibitive negation *mE is attested only in Indo-Iranian (mA), Greek (mE) and Armenian (mi); elsewhere, it is totally lacking… and there is no difference in this respect between the ancient and modern stages of Greek, Armenian or Persian”;66 or, for that matter, sections of Indic (eg. the prohibitive negation mat in Hindi).

    b. “In the formation of the Perfect also, there is a clear ‘distinction’ between Indo-Iranian and Armenian and Greek on the one hand, and all of the other languages on the other.”67

    c. The “Indo-European voiceless aspirated stops are completely attested only in Indo-Iranian and Armenian… Greek… clearly preserves two of the three voiceless aspirated stops whose existence is established by the correspondence of Indo-Iranian and Armenian.”68 All the other branches show “complete fusion”69 of these voiceless aspirated stops.

    d. “The suffix *-tero-, *-toro-, *-tro- serves in bell Indo-European languages to mark the opposition of two qualities, but only in two languages, Greek and Indo-Iranian, is the use of the suffix extended to include the formation of secondary adjectival comparatives… This development, by its very difference, points to the significance of the Greek and Indo-Iranian convergence… Armenian, which has a completely new formation, is not instructive in this regard.”70 But, “Latin, Irish, Germanic, Lithuanian and Slavic, on the other hand, borrow their secondary comparative from the original primary type.”71

    e. “The augment is attested only in Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Greek; it is found nowhere else.”72 And it is “significant that the augment is not found in any of the other Indo-European languages… The total absence of the augment in even the earliest texts, and in all the dialects of Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, is characteristic.”73

    Hence, “the manner in which Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic eliminated the imperfect and came to express the preterite presupposes an original, Indo-European, absence of the augment throughout this group of languages. We thus have grounds for positing two distinct Indo-European dialect groups.”74

    f. The division of the Indo-European branches into two distinct groups is confirmed by what Meillet calls the Vocabulary of the Northwest: “There is quite a large group of words that appear in the dialects of the North and West (Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic) but are not found in the others (Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek)… their occurrence in the dialects of the North and West would indicate a cultural development peculiar to the peoples who spread these dialects.”75
    While Anatolian (Hittite) was “the first group to break away from the protolanguage”, and Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek were “those who remained” after “the dispersals of the early PIE dialects”, the other branches share isoglosses which can help in placing them between these two extremes:

    1. “Hittite, the first to separate itself, shares many isoglosses with Germanic and Tocharian.”76

    2. “Celtic, Italic, Hittite, Tocharian and (probably) Phrygian share an interesting isogloss: the use of ‘r’ to indicate the passive forms of verbs. This feature… does not occur in any other Indo-European language.”77

    3. Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavonic, as we have seen, constitute one distinct group (in contradistinction to another distinct group consisting of Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek).

    However, within themselves, these five branches link together as follows:

    a. Italic and Celtic: “Comparative linguists have long been aware of the links between Italic and Celtic, which share a number of archaic features. These links suggest that the two branches developed together.”78 Among other things: “Vocabulary is identical in parts; this is true of some very important words, particularly prepositions and preverbs.”79

    b. Baltic and Slavonic: “The general resemblance of Baltic and Slavic is so apparent that no-one challenges the notion of a period of common development… Baltic and Slavic are the descendants of almost identical Indo-European dialects. No important isogloss divides Baltic from Slavic… the vocabularies of Slavic and Baltic show numerous cognates – more precisely, cognates that are found nowhere else or cognates that in Baltic and Slavic have a form different from their form in other languages.”80

    c. Italic, Celtic and Germanic: “The Germanic, Celtic and Italic idioms present… certain common innovational tendencies.”81 But, Italic apparently separated from the other two earlier: “Germanic, Celtic and Italic underwent similar influences. After the Italic-Celtic period, Italic ceased undergoing these influences and underwent others… Germanic and Celtic, remaining in adjacent regions, developed in part along parallel lines.”82

    d. Germanic, Baltic and Slavonic: “Because Germanic shares certain important features with Baltic and Slavic, we may speculate that the history of the three groups is linked in some way.”83

    To go into more precise detail: “The difference between a dative plural with *-bh-, eg. Skr.-bhyah, Av. -byO, Lat. -bus, O.Osc. -fs, O.Ir.-ib, Gr. -fi(n), and one with *-m-, eg. Goth. -m, O.Lith. -mus, Ol.Sl. -mU, is one of the first things to have drawn attention to the problem of Indo-European dialectology. Since it has been established, principally by A. Leskien, that there was no unity of Germanic, Baltic and Slavic postdating the period of Indo-European unity, the very striking similarity of Germanic, Baltic and Slavic which we observe here cannot… be explained except by a dialectical variation within common Indo-European.”84 It is, therefore, clear “that these three languages arose from Indo-European dialects exhibiting certain common features.”85

    To sum up, we get two distinct groups of branches:

    Group A: Hittite, Tocharian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavonic.

    Group B: Indic, Iranian, Thraco-Phrygian (Armenian), Hellenic (Greek).

    No major isogloss cuts across the dividing line between the two groups to suggest any alternative grouping: the phenomenon of palatalization appears to do so, but it is now recognized as “a late phenomenon” which took place in “a post-PIE era in which whatever unity that once existed had broken down and most of the dialect groups had dispersed”,86 and we will examine the importance of this phenomenon later on.

    Other similarities between languages or branches which lie on opposite sides of the above dividing line are recognizable as phenomena which took place after the concerned branches had reached their historical habitats, and do not, therefore, throw any light on the location of the original homeland or the migration-schedule of the branches.

    The following are two examples of such similarities:

    1. The Phrygian language appears to share the “r-isogloss” which is found only in the Hittite, Tocharian, Italic and Celtic branches. However:

    a. The Phrygian language is known only from fragments, and many of the linguistic features attributed to it are speculative. About the “r-isogloss”, it may be noted, Winn points out that it is shared by “Celtic, Italic, Hittite, Tocharian and (probably) Phrygian”.87

    b. Armenian, the only living member of the Thraco-Phrygian branch, does not share the “r-isogloss”, and nor did the ancient Thracian language.

    c. The seeming presence of this isogloss in Phrygian is clearly due to the influence of Hittite, with which it shared its historical habitat: “Phrygian later replaced Hittite as the dominant language of Central Anatolia.”88

    2. Greek and Italic alone share the change of Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirated stops (bh, dh, gh) into voiceless aspirated stops (ph, th, kh). Sanskrit is the only language to have retained the original voiced aspirated stops, while all the other branches, except Greek and Italic, converted them into unaspirated stops (b, d, g).

    But this similarity between Greek and Italic is because “when Indo-European languages were brought to Mediterranean people unfamiliar with voiced aspirated stops, this element brought about the process of unvoicing”,89 and this change took place in the two branches “both independently and along parallel lines”.90 Hence, this is not an isogloss linking the two branches.

    Therefore, it is clear that the two groups represent two distinct divisions of the Indo-European family.

    III. B. The Homeland Indicated by the Isoglosses

    The pattern of isoglosses shows the following order of migration of the branches of Group A:

    1. Hittite.
    2. Tocharian.
    3. Italic-Celtic.
    4. Germanic.
    5. Baltic-Slavonic.
    Some of these branches share certain isoglosses among themselves which represent innovations which they must have developed in common after their departure from the original homeland, since the remaining branches (Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek) do not share these isoglosses.

    This clearly indicates the presence of a secondary homeland, outside the exit-point from the original homeland, which must have functioned as an area of settlement and common development for the migrating branches.

    The only homeland theory which fits in with the evidence of the isoglosses is the Indian homeland theory:

    The exit-point for the migrating branches was Afghanistan, and these branches migrated towards the north from Afghanistan into Central Asia, which clearly functioned as the secondary homeland for emigrating branches.

    As Winn points out: “Evidence from isoglosses… shows that the dispersal cannot be traced to one particular event; rather it seems to have occured in bursts or stages.”91

    Hittite was the first to emigrate from Afghanistan into Central Asia, followed by Tocharian.

    Italic-Celtic represented the next stage of emigration. The four branches developed the “r-isogloss” in common.

    Germanic was the next branch to enter the secondary homeland, and it developed some isoglosses in common with Hittite and Tocharian.

    The Baltic-Slavonic movement apparently represented the last major emigration. And its sojourn in the secondary homeland was apparently not long enough for it to develop any isoglosses in common with Hittite or Tocharian.

    The five branches (Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavonic, in that order) later moved further off, north-westwards, into the area to the north of the Caspian Sea, and subsequently formed part of the Kurgan III migrations into Europe. The Slavonic and Baltic branches settled down in the eastern parts of Europe, while the other three proceeded further into Europe. Later, the Italic branch moved towards the south, while the Germanic and Celtic branches moved to the north and west.

    Meanwhile, the other branches (barring Indic), Greek Armenian and Iranian, as also, perhaps, the one branch (Illyrian or Albanian) which we have not taken into consideration so far, migrated westwards from India by a different and southern route.

    The scholars, now, generally accept the evidence of the isoglosses, so far as it concerns the schedule of migrations of the different Indo-European branches from the original homeland, or the interrelationships between different branches. However, when it comes to determining the actual location of the original homeland, on the basis of this evidence, they abandon their objective approach and try to make it appear as if the evidence fits in with the particular homeland theory advocated by them, even when it is as clear as daylight that they are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

    The homeland theory generally advocated by the scholars is the South Russian homeland theory. Shan M.M. Winn advocates the “Pontic-Caspian area” within this region as the particular location of the homeland.

    An examination shows that the South Russian homeland theory (“Pontic-Caspian” or otherwise) is totally incompatible with the evidence of the isoglosses:

    1. To begin with, it is clear that we have two distinct groups of branches, which we have already classified as Group A and Group B.

    As per the evidence of the isoglosses, the branches in Group A are the branches which migrated away from the original homeland, and those in Group B are the branches which remained behind in the homeland after the other branches had departed.

    At the same time, all the branches in Group A are found to the north of the Eurasian mountain chain (except for Hittite in Anatolia, but this branch is known to have migrated into Anatolia from the north-east), while all the branches in Group B are found to the south of the Eurasian mountain chain (the northernmost, Greek, is known to have migrated into southeastern Europe from the south-east).

    The logical corollary should have been that the original homeland is also to the south of the Eurasian mountain chain, and that it is located in the historical habitat of one of the branches in Group B.

    However, the scholars regularly advocate homeland theories which place the homeland in the area of one or the other of the branches in Group A.

    2. The branches in Group A developed certain isoglosses in common after they had migrated away from the homeland. As we have pointed out, this makes it likely that there was a secondary homeland where they must have developed these isoglosses.

    However, any homeland theory which locates the homeland in a central area, like South Russia or any area around it, makes the location of this secondary homeland a problem: the Tocharian branch is historically located well to the east of South Russia, the Hittite branch is located well to the south of South Russia, and the Germanic and Italic-Celtic branches are located well to the west of South Russia. It is difficult to think of a way in which all these branches could have moved together in one direction from South Russia before parting from each other and moving off in totally opposite directions.

    It is perhaps to avoid this problem that Winn suggests that the isoglosses shared in common by these branches are not innovations developed by these branches in common, but archaic features which have been retained by otherwise separately migrating branches.

    In respect of the r-isogloss, for example, Winn puts it as follows: “Celtic, Italic, Hittite, Tocharian, and (probably) Phrygian share an interesting isogloss: the use of ‘r’ to indicate the passive forms of verbs. This feature, which does not occur in any other Indo-European language, is probably an example of the ‘archaism of the fringe’ phenomenon. When a language is spread over a large territory, speakers at the fringe of that territory are likely to be detached from what goes on at the core. Linguistic innovations that take place at the core may never find their way out to peripheral areas; hence dialects .spoken on the fringe tend to preserve archaic features that have long since disappeared from the mainstream… Tocharian… was so remote from the center that it could hardly have taken part in any innovations.”92

    However, it is more logical to treat this isogloss as an innovation developed in common by a few branches after their departure from the homeland, than to postulate that all the other, otherwise disparate, branches eliminated an original “use of ‘r’ to indicate the passive forms of verbs”.

    3. What is indeed an example of the “archaism of the fringe” phenomenon is the phenomenon of palatalization.

    Winn describes it as follows: “Palatalization must have been a late phenomenon; that is, we date it to a post-PIE era, in which whatever unity that once existed had now broken down, and most of the dialect groups had dispersed: looking at the geographical distribution of this isogloss, we may note its absence from the peripheral languages: Germanic (at the northwest limit of Indo-European language distribution); Celtic (western limit); Italic, Greek and Hittite (southern limit); and Tocharian (eastern limit). It is the languages at the center that have changed. Here, at the core, a trend towards palatalization started; then gradually spread outward. It never reached far enough to have any effect on the outlying languages.”93

    Note that Winn calls it a “post-PIE era, in which whatever unity that once existed had now broken down, and most of the dialect groups had dispersed”, and that he locates every single other branch (except Indic and Iranian), including Greek, in its historical habitat. He does not specifically name Baltic-Slavonic and Armenian, but it is understood that they are also located in their historical habitats, since he implies that they are “the languages at the centre” (ie. languages in and around South Russia, which is, anyway, the historical habitat of these branches).

    Indic and Iranian alone are not located by him in their historical habitats, since that would clearly characterize them as the most “peripheral” or “outlying” branches of all, being located at the extreme southern as well as extreme eastern limit of the Indo-European language distribution. And this would completely upset his pretty picture of an evolving “center” with archaic “outlying languages”, since the most outlying of the branches would turn out to be the most palatalized of them all. Hence, Winn without expressly saying so, but with such a location being implicit in his argument, locates all the other branches, including Greek, in their historical habitats, but only the Indic and Iranian branches well outside their historical habitats and still in South Russia, and keeps his fingers crossed over the possibility of the anomaly being noticed.

    Here we see, once again, how the manipulation required to locate the Indo-European homeland in South Russia compels the scholars, again and again, to postulate weird and unnatural schedules of migrations which make the Indo-Iranians the last to leave South Russia, and which locate them in South Russia long after all the other branches, including Greek, are already settled in their historical habitats: a picture which clashes sharply with, among other things, the extremely representative nature of the Rigvedic language and mythology, the purely Indian geographical milieu of the Rigveda (and the movement depicted in it from east to west, as we have seen in this book), and the evidence of the names of places and rivers in northern India right from the period of the Rigveda itself.

    The “late phenomenon” of a “trend towards palatalization” which started “at the core” and “then gradually -spread outward”, and “never reached far enough to have any effect on the outlying languages”, can be explained naturally only on the basis of the Indian homeland theory: the trend started in the “core area”, in north and northwest India, and spread outwards as far as the innermost of the branches in Group A: Baltic and Slavonic, but not as far as the outermost of the branches in Group B: Greek.

    Incidentally, here is how Meillet94 depicts the interrelationships between the various extant branches (he does not include Hittite and Tocharian in the picture, but it is clear that they will fall in the same group as Germanic, Celtic and Italic). (Figure on next page.)

    While the north-south axis clearly divides the non-palatalized branches in the west from the palatalized branches in the east (where we must locate the “core” area where palatalization started), the northeast-southwest axes neatly divide the branches into the three tribal groupings testified by Indian literary records, (click on next link).

    Click Here

    Click Here

    4. More than anything else, the one aspect of the evidence of the isoglosses, which disproves the South Russian theory, is the close relationship between Indic or Indo-Iranian and Greek, which is not satisfactorily explained by any homeland theory other than the Indian homeland theory.

    In dismissing Colin Renfrew’s Anatolian homeland theory, Winn cites this as the single most important factor in disproving the theory: “All the migrations postulated by Renfrew ultimately stem from a single catalyst: the crossing of Anatolian farmers into Greece… For all practical purposes, Renfrew’s hypothesis disregards Tocharian and Indo-Iranian.”95

    Supporters of Renfrew’s theory, Winn points out, “have tried to render the Indo-Iranian problem moot. They argue that the Indo-Iranian branch was somehow divided from the main body of Proto-Indo-European before the colonists brought agriculture to the Balkans. Greek and Indic are thus separated by millenniums of linguistic change – despite the close grammatical correspondences between them (as we saw in Chapter 12, these correspondences probably represent shared innovations from the last stage of PIE).”96

    Winn’s very valid argument against the Anatolian theory is just as applicable to the South Russian homeland theory, or any other theory which seeks to bring Indic and Iranian into their historical habitats through Central Asia: this involves an extremely long period of separation from Greek, which does not fit into the evidence of the isoglosses which shows that Indic and Greek have many “shared innovations from the last stage of PIE”.

    Archaeology, for one, completely rules out any links between the alleged Proto-Indo-Iranians located by these scholars in Central Asia, and the Greeks: Winn, as we saw, tries to identify the Andronovo culture which “covers much of the Central Asian Steppe east of the Ural river and Caspian Sea”,97 with the “Proto-Indo-Iranians” during their alleged sojourn in Central Asia.

    However, not only does he admit that “it is still a hazardous task to connect (this) archaeological evidence of Indo-Iranians in the Central Asian Steppe with the appearance of Iranian (Aryan) and Indic (Indo-Aryan) tribes in Iran, Afghanistan and India,”98 but he also accepts that these so-called Proto-Indo-Iranians in Central Asia have “no links with… south-eastern Europe”,99 ie. with the Greeks.

    It is only the Indian homeland theory which fits in with the evidence of the isoglosses. It may be noted again that:

    a. The evidence of the isoglosses suggests that the Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek branches, as well as the Albanian branch, were the last to remain behind in the original homeland after the departure of the other branches.

    b. These (naturally, barring Indic) are also the same branches which show connections with the BhRgus/ AtharvaNas, while those which departed show connections with the Druhyus.

    c. Again, all these branches form a long belt to the south of the Eurasian mountain chain, while the other (departed) branches are found to its north.

    d. And, finally, these are the only branches which are actually recorded in the DASarAjña hymns as being present in the Punjab area during the time of SudAs.

  22. Jaipal

    LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATA IN INDOARYAN

    As we have seen, there is plenty of linguistic evidence which clearly shows that the Indo-European family of languages originated in India.

    We will now examine the linguistic “evidence” on the basis of which the linguists usually dismiss the Indian homeland theory, and in the name of which archaeologists are classified together with “Hindu fundamentalists”. Entire schools of scholars (as we shall see in our Appendix on Misinterpretations of Rigvedic History) are mesmerised into treating the external (to India) homeland and the Aryan invasion of India as linguistically established facts.

    There are two main fields of linguistic study which have contributed to this misrepresentation of the linguistic situation:

    a. The study of the so-called non-Aryan substrata in Indoaryan languages.

    b. The study of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language, society and culture.

    In this section of the chapter, we will examine the first of the two above aspects: ie. the so-called non-Aryan linguistic substrata in Indoaryan languages.

    According to many linguists, the Indoaryan languages contain a large number of non-Aryan words, as well as grammatical and syntactical features, which appear to be Dravidian, or occasionally Austric – words and features which are missing in Indo-European languages outside India, and which therefore show that the Indoaryan languages were intruders into an area (North India) formerly occupied by speakers of Dravidian and Austric languages, who, in the course of time, adopted the Indoaryan speech forms. A special aspect of this argument is that names of Indian animals and plants, in Indoaryan languages, are alleged to be adopted from non-Aryan (Dravidian or Austric), thereby showing that the original Indoaryan speakers were not acquainted with the flora and fauna of India.

    We have examined these claims at some length in our earlier book, and we will only summaries here our arguments given therein against them:

    1. In respect of the grammatical and syntactical features common to Indoaryan and Dravidian, most of these features are also found in different Indo-European branches or languages outside India, so that the features in Indoaryan are not foreign to Indo-European and are more likely to be internal developments. And the modern Indoaryan languages do not necessarily represent a change from an originally Vedic like structure, since these modem Indoaryan languages are not, as popularly believed, descendants of the Vedic language, but descendants of other Indo-European dialects which we have called Inner-Indo-European dialects, whose grammatical and syntactical features may have been different from that of the dialects of the northwest and northernmost India, which produced Vedic and the ancestors of the extra-Indian Indo-European languages, and similar to the other non-Indo-European families within India (Dravidian, Austric), from pre-Vedic times.

    2. The linguists classify words as non-Aryan not because they are recognizable loan-words from Dravidian or Austric (ie. words which have a clear Dravidian or Austric etymology and no Indo-European or Sanskrit etymology), but simply because they are words for which, in the subjective opinions of these scholars (who, in any case, are on a mission to hunt out non-Aryan words in the Indoaryan languages), the Indo-European or Sanskrit etymologies are “not satisfactory”.

    In most cases, these words, or equivalent forms, are not even found in the Dravidian or Austric languages, and the scholars are therefore compelled to invent the “possibility of non-Aryan speeches (other than Dravidian, Kol and the later Tibeto-Burman), speeches now extinct, being present in India”,129 and being the source for these words. There is thus a clear predisposition to brand these words as “non-Aryan” by hook or by crook.

    3. Most of the non-Aryan (Dravidian or Austric) etymological derivations sought to be postulated by the linguists for particular words are challenged or refuted by other linguists, who give clear Indo-European or Sanskrit etymological derivations for the same words; and it is clear that there is no consistency or consensus in the assertions of the linguists, beyond the basic dogma that there must be non-Aryan words in the Indoaryan languages.

    4. Many of the derivations which the scholars try to assert from Dravidian or Austric are basically impossible ones, since, even apart from other considerations, these words contain phonetic characteristics which are inconsistent with those of the alleged source-languages. Thus words original to the Dravidian languages could not start with an initial cerebral or liquid (T, D, r, l), did not contain aspirate sounds (h, kh, gh, ch, jh, Th, Dh, th, dh, ph, bh) and sibilants (s, S), could not start with initial voiced stops (g, j, D, d, b) or have intervocalic voiceless obstruents (k, c, T, t, p), and did not contain obstruents + liquids (kr, pi, pr, tr, etc). And yet, the linguists regularly postulate a Dravidian origin for large numbers of words which contain these phonetic characteristics.

    5. In the case of names of Indian plants and animals, the majority of them have been given Sanskrit etymologies, not only by ancient Sanskrit grammarians and etymologists, but even by modern Western Sanskritists like Sir Monier-Williams, etc. Linguists who are predisposed to reject these etymologies, without being able to give definite and indisputable alternatives, cannot be taken seriously.

    6. Names of plants and animals which appear to have no clear or credible Indo-European or Sanskrit etymologies cannot be automatically treated as non-Aryan words (unless they have clear and indisputable Dravidian or Austric etymologies) purely on that ground, since the situation is identical in the case of words which are very clearly and definitely inherited Indo-European words.

    Thus, Carl D. Buck points out: “In the inherited names of animals there is little to be said about their semantic nature, for in most of them, the root-connection is wholly obscure.”130 Likewise, in the few inherited names of plants common to various Indo-European branches, he points out that “the root connections are mostly obscure”.131 Specifically, even a universal Indo-European word like *kuon (dog) has a “root connection much disputed and dubious”;132 and the equally universal word *ekwo (horse) has a “root connection wholly obscure”.133

    Therefore, unless it is to be assumed that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were totally unacquainted with any plants and animals at all, it must be accepted that the names of plants and animals in any language need not necessarily be derivable from the etymological roots of that language: these names are more likely to have been “at first colloquial or even slang words”134 which rose up from common speech into the standard vocabulary.

    7. When the names of certain plants or animals in the Indoaryan languages are demonstrably Dravidian or Austric, this will be because the plants or animals concerned are native to those parts of India where Dravidian or Austric languages are spoken. Thus the Sanskrit word ela is certainly derived from the Dravidian word yela, since the plant concerned (cardamom) is native to Kerala, which is in the heart of the Dravidian language area. The South Indian plant was borrowed, alongwith its name, by the people of North India.

    In such cases, it need not even be necessary that the plant must not be found in the area of the borrowers. If a plant which is native to both North and South India was first cultivated and popularised in the South, then it is possible that the South Indian name would stick to the cultivated plant, even in the North. Thus, the tea plant is native to both China and India (Assam, etc.), and the cultivated varieties of tea today include both Chinese tea and Assamese tea. But China was the first to cultivate and popularise the beverage, and even today, the plant is known everywhere, including in India (and Assam) by its Chinese names (cA/cAy, tea).

    Therefore, when there is any Dravidian or Austric name for any plant in Indoaryan languages, it is due to the geographical origin or historical cultivation of the plant in a Dravidian or Austric area, and not because the original Indoaryan speakers came from outside into an originally Dravidian or Austric India.

    8. The names of plants and animals which are native to North India are of Indo-European or Sanskrit origin even in the Dravidian languages of South India and the Austric languages of eastern India. Thus, the words for camel (Sanskrit uSTra), lion (Sanskrit siMha) and rhinoceros (Sanskrit khaDgI or gaNDa) are derived from purely Indo-European roots: the word uSTra, in fact, is found in Iranian (uStra).

    But, the Dravidian words for camel (Tamil-Malayalam oTTagam, Kannada-Telugu oNTe, Toda oTTe, Brahui huch, etc.), lion (Tamil cingam, Telugu siMhamu, Kannada siMha, etc.) and rhinoceros (Tamil kANDAmirugam, Telugu, khaDga-mRgamu, Kannada khaDgamRga; note also the Sanskrit word mRga, animal, necessarily added to the basic name), are all derived from the Sanskrit words. Likewise, the Austric words for camel (Santali Ut, Khasi ut) and lion (Santali sinho, Sora sinam-kidan, etc.).

    This would clearly not have been the case if the northwestern areas, native to the camel, lion, and (at least in the Indus Valley period) the rhinoceros, had originally been Dravidian or Austric, or any other non-Aryan language areas before the alleged advent of the Indoaryans.

    9. In addition (this is a point not made in our earlier book), it must be noted that the linguists often reject the Sanskrit or Indo-European origins of words in Indoaryan languages, or they reject correspondences between Indoaryan words and words in other branches of Indo-European, on the flimsiest of grounds: even a single vowel or consonant in a word which, according to them, is not what it should have been according to the strict and regular rules of Sanskrit or Indo-European derivations, is sufficient for them to brand the word as probably or definitely non-Aryan.

    Thus, the connection between Vedic VaruNa, Greek Ouranos and Teutonic Woden is rejected, inspite of the fact that the close similarity of the names is backed by close correspondences in the mythical nature and characteristics of the three Gods, on the ground that the derivations are irregular. Likewise, the connection between Vedic PaNi/VaNi, Greek Pan and Teutonic Vanir will also be rejected on similar flimsy grounds, although, as we will see in Chapter 10 of this book, the three are definitely cognate names.

    On the other hand, linguists connecting up Indoaryan words with Dravidian or Austric words have no compunctioris about linguistic regularity or accuracy: thus T. Burrow (‘Some-Dravidian Words in Sanskrit’, in Transactions of the Philological Society-1945, London, 1946) derives Sanskrit paN (to negotiate, bargain) and paNa (wager) from “Tamil puNai, to tie; tie, bond, pledge, security, surety, Kannada poNe, bond, bail…” etc. If these are Dravidian words in Sanskrit, then the related Greek Pan and Teutonic Vanir are also Dravidian words in these languages.

    It is not only in respect of Indoaryan words that the linguists indulge in such hairsplitting: even in respect of the Greek word theós (God), instead of accepting that the word is an irregular derivation from Indo-European *deiwos, the linguists insist that theós is unrelated to *deiwos, and try to suggest alternative etymologies for it, eg. “from *thesós (cf. théspharos, ‘spoken by god, ordained’), but root connection much disputed and still dubious”.135 Some linguists go further: “Mr. Hopkins… rejects all the proposed etymologies and suggests that… théos itself is a loanword from pre-Greek sources.”136 However, while this kind of hairsplitting is occasional in respect of Greek, it is a regular feature in respect of Indoaryan.

    We have seen, earlier on in this chapter, how Michael Witzel, while admitting to the fact that the rivers in North India have Sanskrit names from the earliest recorded (Rigvedic) period itself, tries to suggest that at least three river names, KubhA, SutudrI and KoSala, are non-Aryan, on grounds of the suggested Sanskrit etymologies being irregular.

    But this kind of argument is basically untenable: while there can be no doubt that there is such a thing as regular derivations according to definite phonetic rules of etymology and phonetic change, there can be irregular derivations also, since human speech in its historical evolution has not evolved strictly according to rules. Thus, the Latin word canis (dog) is definitely derived from Indo-European *kuon: according to Buck, the “phonetic development is peculiar, but connection not to be questioned”.137 Likewise, the modern Greek ikkos (horse) is definitely derived from Indo-European *ekwo, although, as Buck points out, “with some unexplained phonetic features”.138

    Hence, it is clear that linguists seeking to reject Indo-European correspondences, or Sanskrit etymologies, of Indoaryan words, on the grounds of irregular phonetic features, are not being strictly honest, and their opinions cannot be considered conclusive in any sense of the term.

    This was a brief summary of our main arguments in our earlier book.

    An examination of the writings of the various linguists who have written on this subject, as part of the sustained effort to produce long lists of “non-Aryan” words which form a “substratum” in Indoaryan languages, shows that logic and objectivity play no part in this exercise: any word in Sanskrit or in the modern Indoaryan languages, which appears to be similar in sound to any Dravidian word with even a vaguely similar meaning, automatically represents a Dravidian word adopted by Indoaryan in the eyes of these scholars, even when most of such words have clear Sanskrit etymologies, and many of them, or similar words, are found in other Indo-European languages outside India as well.

    An examination or comparative study of the works of these linguists has been undertaken by an American scholar, Edwin F. Bryant, in his paper Linguistic Substrata and the Indigenous Aryan Debate. The quotations to follow are based on the rough draft of the above paper, the final version of which was presented at the October 1996 Michigan-Laussane International Seminar on Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia: Evidence, Interpretation and Ideology. (Bryant is currently on the faculty of the Department of History, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA.)

    Bryant finds that “all these linguists are operating on the assumption, based on other criteria, that the Aryans ‘must have’ invaded India where there could not have been a ‘linguistic vacuum’”, and that, beyond this shared predisposition, there is no consensus among them on any specific point. His examination of the works of different linguists shows “that they are not internally consistent, since the opinions of the principal linguists in this area have differed quite considerably. This problematizes the value of this method as a significant determinant in the Indo-Aryan debate…”.

    The extent to which these linguists (all of whom are otherwise in agreement in the belief that the Indoaryans are immigrants into India from an original homeland in South Russia) differ in the matter is made clear by Bryant:

    1. About the grammatical and syntactical features common to both Dravidian and Indoaryan, Robert Caldwell (1856) was the first to draw attention to many of them; but he rejected the idea that these features constituted originally Dravidian grammatical and syntactical elements (which surfaced in Indoaryan as a substratum): “whatever the ethnological evidence of their identity may be supposed to exist… when we view the question philologically, and with reference to the evidence furnished by their languages alone, the hypothesis of their identity does not appear to me to have been established.”

    But, a hundred years later, M.B. Emeneau (1956) drew up a whole list of such grammatical and syntactical features, and added to them in his later studies (1969, 1974). F.B.J. Kuiper (1967) and Massica (1976) also added to the list. These linguists concluded that these features were definitely evidence of a Dravidian substratum.

    However, H. Hock (1975, 1984) strongly rejected the idea that these features are due to a Dravidian substratum. He pointed out that most of these features actually have parallels in other Indo-European languages outside India, and therefore they were more likely to be internal developments in Indoaryan. Since then, several other linguists, all otherwise staunch believers in the Aryan invasion theory, have rejected the idea that these features are Dravidian features.

    F.B.J Kuiper (1974), a staunch protagonist of the substratum theory, admits that “we cannot compare the syntax of the Rigveda with contemporaneous Dravidian texts. The oldest Dravidian texts that we know are those of old Tamil. They probably date from about the second century AD and are, accordingly, at least a thousand years later than the Rgveda.”

    M.B. Emeneau himself, although he sticks to the claim that a Dravidian substratum explains the situation better, admits (1980) that it is not as easy as that: “Is the whole Indo-Aryan history one of self-development, and the complex Dravidian development triggered by Indo-Aryan, perhaps even New Indo-Aryan, influence, or, in the case of Kurukh, borrowed from New Indo-Aryan?… no easy solution is yet at hand.”

    2. F.B.J. Kuiper (1991) produced a list of 380 words from the Rigveda, constituting four percent of the Rigvedic vocabulary, which he claimed were of non-Aryan (primarily Dravidian) origin. Earlier linguists were more cautious in the matter of Rigvedic vocabulary. M.B. Emeneau (1980), for example, hoped that the linguists would agree at least on one word mayUra, as a borrowing from Dravidian: “I can only hope that the evidence for mayuura as a RV borrowing from Dr. is convincing to scholars in general.”

    But P. Thieme (1994) examined and rejected Kuiper’s list in toto, gave Indoaryan or Sanskrit etymologies for most of these words, and characterized Kuiper’s exercise as an example of a misplaced “zeal for hunting up Dravidian loans in Sanskrit”. In general, Thieme sharply rejects the tendency to force Dravidian or Austric etymologies onto Indoaryan words, and insists (1992) that “if a word can be explained easily from material extant in Sanskrit itself, there is little chance for such a hypothesis”.

    Rahul Peter Das (a believer in the Aryan invasion theory), likewise rejects (1994) Kuiper’s list, and emphasises that there is “not a single case in which a communis opinio has been found confirming the foreign origin of a Rgvedic (and probably Vedic in general) word”.

    Therefore, it is clear that claims regarding Dravidian loan-words in Vedic Sanskrit are totally baseless.

    3. So far as the modern Indoaryan languages are concerned, also, the untenability of the whole exercise of hunting down non-Aryan words in Indoaryan can be illustrated by an examination of a detailed study conducted by Massica (1991), a staunch believer in the Aryan invasion theory (and who, in fact, concludes that his study confirms the theory), who examined a complete list of names of plants and agricultural terms in Hindi.

    Massica’s study found that only 4.5% of the words have Austric etymologies, and 7.6% of the words have Dravidian etymologies, and, even here, “a significant portion of the suggested Dravidian and Austroasiatic etymologies is uncertain”. When we consider that the few words where an Austric or a Dravidian etymology can be proved probably refer to plants and agricultural processes native to South India or Eastern India, Massica’s study clearly contradicts his conclusions.

    Massica, however, classifies 55% of the words as non-Aryan (other than Dravidian and Austric, and other than non-Indian names for non-Indian plants), but of “unknown origin”.

    It is words of this kind which, as we have already seen, have led the linguists to postulate extinct indigenous families of non-Aryan, non-Dravidian and non-Austric languages in ancient India, which have disappeared without a trace, but which constitute the main non-Aryan substrata in Indoaryan. As T. Burrow notes, even the most liberal Dravidian and Austric etymologising may not serve in explaining words which (in his opinion) are non-Aryan, since “it may very well turn out that the number of such words which cannot be explained will outnumber those which can be. This is the impression one gets, for example, from the field of plant names, since so far only a minority of this section of the non-Aryan words has been explained from these two linguistic families.”

    However, although the linguists are compelled to resort to these stratagems, they are not very comfortable with them. Emeneau (1980), for example, admits: “it hardly seems useful to take into account the possibilities of another language, or language family, totally lost to the record, as the source” for the supposedly non-Aryan words.

    Massica himself, although he brands the words as non-Aryan on the ground that there are no acceptable Sanskrit etymologies, admits that “it is not a requirement that the word be connected with a root, of course: there are many native words in Sanskrit as in all languages that cannot be analysed”.

    Bloch and Thieme emphasize the point that the names of plants need not be analysable from etymological roots, since most of them will be slang or colloquial words derived from the “low culture” vernaculars of the same language.

    4. It is in Classical Sanskrit word-lists that we find many words which can be, or have been, assigned Dravidian or Austric origins. This has led the linguists to emphasise a theory first mooted by Burrow (1968), according to which there was a very small number of Dravidian and Austric words (or none at all) in the Rigveda, which grew in the later Vedic literature, reached a peak in the Epics and PurANas, and in the Classical Sanskrit word-lists, and finally dwindled in the Prakrits, and even more so in the modern Indoaryan languages. This situation, according to Burrow, depicts a scenario where the Aryan immigrants into India were new arrivals at the time of composition of the hymns, and hence hardly any indigenous words had infiltrated into the vocabulary of the Rigveda. As the process of bilingualism developed (involving both the local inhabitants of the North preserving some of their original non-Aryan vocabulary as they adopted the Aryan speech-forms, as well as post-first generation Aryans inheriting non-Aryan words as they merged with the local people), the number of such words increased in the language of the Epics and PurANas, and the Classical Sanskrit word-lists. Finally, when there were no more bilingual speakers left in the North, since everyone had adopted the Aryan speech-forms, the appearance of non-Aryan words in the Indoaryan languages ceased, hence the modem Indoaryan languages have few such words.

    However, Caldwell (1856), who was the first to produce lists of words “probably” borrowed by Sanskrit from Dravidian, rejected this substratum theory. He noted that the words did not include the essential aspects of vocabulary (such as actions, pronouns, body parts, etc.), and consisted almost exclusively of words “remote from ordinary use”, and hence concluded that the Dravidian languages could not possibly have been spoken in North India at the time of the alleged Aryan invasion.

    Bloch (1929), who rejected the substratum theory completely, pointed out that the Dravidian languages of the South, even at the level of common speech, contain a massive amount of borrowed Sanskrit vocabulary covering every aspect of life. But this is not explained as an Aryan substratum in South India. The natural explanation for these borrowings is that a relatively small number of Sanskrit-speaking individuals were responsible for them. Likewise, the Dravidian words in Sanskrit were reverse borrowings, being introductions of Dravidian words into literary Sanskrit by similar Sanskrit-speaking individuals from the South. Such words were only part of the Classical Sanskrit lexicon, and few of them percolated to the Indoaryan vernaculars. Thus, even popular Sanskrit words like nIra (water, Tamil nIr), mIna (fish, Tamil mIn), heramba (buffalo, Tamil erumai), etc. are not used in the modem Indoaryan languages, which use, instead, derivatives of the Sanskrit words pAnIyam, matsya and mahiSa respectively. Such words, as Bloch points out, were artificial and temporary introductions into literary Sanskrit, most of which (although it is likely that some of them became so popular that they replaced, or accompanied, original Sanskrit words, and percolated down into modern Indoaryan) either died out completely, or remained purely literary words which did not become a part of naturally spoken Indoaryan speech.

    Massica, in his recent study (1991) already referred to, also notes that Dravidian words in Sanskrit are not found in present-day Indoaryan languages like Hindi. Clearly, these words do not represent a Dravidian substratum in Sanskrit, but a process of artificial adoption of vocabulary from regional speech-forms, both Aryan and non-Aryan.

    5. Many linguists question the idea that there could be a Dravidian or Austric substratum in the Indoaryan languages of North India, even on the grounds of the likely geographical distribution of these two families in ancient times. In respect of the Austric languages, even a staunch supporter of the non-Aryan substratum theory like Burrow (1968) admits that the possibility of an Austric substratum is remote since “the evidence as it is so far established would suggest that these languages in ancient times as well as now were situated only in eastern India”. Massica (1979) and Southworth (1979) also reiterate this point.

    R.P. Das (1994) points out that there is “not a single bit of uncontroversial evidence on the actual spread of Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic in prehistoric times, so that any statement on Dravidian and Austric in Rgvedic times is nothing but speculation”.

    6. In fact, when words are similar in both Indoaryan and Dravidian, it is more natural to conclude that the Indoaryan words are the original ones. According to Thieme, “all the Dravidian languages known to us fairly bristle with loans from Sanskrit and the Aryan vernaculars. Dravidian literature in South India came into existence under the impulse and influence of Sanskrit literature and speech. Wherever there is a correspondence in the vocabularies of Sanskrit and Dravidian, there is a presumption, to be removed only by specific argument, that Sanskrit has been the lender, Dravidian the borrower.”

    While Thieme is, of course, an opponent of the substratum theory, even so staunch a supporter of the substratum theory as Emeneau (1980) admits that it is “always possible, eg. to counter a suggestion of borrowing from one of the indigenous language families by suggesting that there has been borrowing in the other direction”.

    7. Ultimately, therefore, the whole question of a Dravidian, or non-Aryan, substratum in the Indoaryan languages is a matter of dogma rather than scientific study.

    R.P. Das (1994), for example, points out that there is little linguistic logic involved in the debate about the Dravidian or Austric origins of Indoaryan words: “Many of the arguments for (or against) such foreign origin are often not the results of impartial and thorough research, but rather of (often wistful) statements of faith.”

    Bloch (1929), likewise, had earlier dismissed the Dravidian derivations which many linguists sought to force on Sanskrit words, as being not “self-evident” but “a matter of probability and to a certain extent of faith”.

    While both Das and Bloch are opponents of the substratum theory (though believers in the Aryan invasion theory in general), Emeneau (1980), a staunch supporter of the substratum theory, himself admits that these derivations are “in fact all merely ‘suggestions’. Unfortunately, all areal etymologies are in the last analysis unprovable, are ‘acts of faith’.”

    The “faith” in all these cases is the faith in the external (to India) origin of the Indoaryans (and Indo-Europeans), which Emeneau (1980) describes as “our linguistic doctrine which has been held now for more than a century and a half”.

    Hence, after his examination of the claims and counterclaims of the linguists, Bryant reaches the logical conclusion that “the theory of Aryan migrations must be established without doubt on other grounds for research into pre-Aryan linguistic substrata to become meaningful. However, the ‘evidence’ of a linguistic substratum in Indo-Aryan, in and of itself, due to its inconclusive nature, cannot be presented in isolation as decisive proof in support of the theory of Aryan invasions or migrations into the Indian subcontinent.”

  23. Jaipal

    PROTOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

    Finally, we come to that aspect of linguistic studies which first led the linguists to dismiss the idea of India being the original homeland, and which first created the impression, which persists to this day, even after this aspect of linguistic studies has now been recognized by serious linguists as a method which cannot be relied upon for arriving at any conclusions on the subject, that linguistics has “proved” the non-Indian origin of the Indo-Europeans. We refer to the study of the proto-language and of its geographical implications for the original homeland of the Indo-European family of languages.

    The linguists have reconstructed the Proto-Indo-European language on the basis of definite phonetic rules of sound-change and development, applied to the words common to different Indo-European branches. Allowing for the fact that most linguists often tend to adopt a rigid and dogmatic approach to the subject (which, as we have already seen, leads them to indulge in hairsplitting, and to reject many obvious cognate forms, like Greek theos, or to only grudgingly accept some others, like Latin canis and modern Greek ikkos), and that it is often difficult to explain changes in vocabulary, which makes it necessary to be cautious in postulating original words (as has often been pointed out, as an example, all the modem Italic languages have words for “horse” derived from a Latin word caballus: eg. Italian cavallo, French cheval, Spanish caballo, Rumanian cal; while the actual Latin word for the horse was equus. If Latin had been an unrecorded language, and it had been required to reconstruct it on the basis of words common to its present day descendants, the word equus would never be reconstructed), the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language may generally be accepted as a reasonably valid one, with some natural limitations.

    However, this reconstruction has not been treated as a purely academic exercise, but as a means of pinpointing the geographical location of the original homeland. There have been two main methods by which the linguists have sought to use the exercise as a means of rejecting the idea of an Indian homeland. and, since their endeavours appear to have been so successful in mesmerising all and sundry and in effectively derailing all rational inquiry into the subject, it is necessary for us to examine these two methods:

    A. Linguistic Paleontology.
    B. Archaic Dialectology.

    VI. A. Linguistic Paleontology

    Linguistic Paleontology is a method devised by nineteenth century linguists, by which they sought to reconstruct the geographical and socio-cultural environment of the Proto-Indo-European people on the basis of words common to different Indo-European branches.

    On the basis of the few names of animals, birds and plants, and words indicating climate, common to different Indo-European branches, the linguists concluded that the Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in a cold environment, and were acquainted with a few plants/trees like barley, birch, pine and oak, and animals like horses, cattle, goats, sheep, deer, bears, wolves, dogs, foxes and otters.

    The names of these plants and animals do not really pinpoint a specific area, since they are all found in a large area ranging from Europe to North India, covering almost the entire Indo-European belt. But the linguists concluded that the evidence of these names clearly excluded India from being the location of the original homeland, since the common names did not include names of plants/trees and animals which are specifically found in India (such as the elephant, etc).

    However, this argument is clearly illogical: if the Indo-European languages outside India do not appear to have names for plants and animals which are found in India, but not found in the areas where these languages are spoken; then the Indoaryan languages also do not have names for plants and animals which are found in Indo-European areas outside India, but not found in India. The conclusion that can be derived from this is simply that Indo-European languages generally (but not always) retained Proto-Indo-European names only for those plants and animals which were also found in their new habitats: they generally lost the names for plants and animals which were found in former habitats but not in newer ones. This would naturally be the case, when we consider that the speakers of most Indo-European languages would generally be natives of their respective areas, who adopted the Indo-European speech from immigrant Indo-Europeans, and who would therefore be ignorant of, and unconcerned with, plants and animals native to the former habitats of the immigrants.

    Therefore, linguistic paleontology stands largely discredited today as a method of reconstruction of the original geographical environment of the Indo-Europeans, or at least as a method on the negative testimony of which certain areas like India could be excluded from being the original homeland. As the eminent linguist Stefan Zimmer puts it: “The long dispute about the reliability of this ‘linguistic paleontology’ is not yet finished, but approaching its inevitable end – with a negative result, of course.”139

    But, as a matter of fact, such evidence as there is, far from disproving the Indian homeland theory, actually proves this theory.

    T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov,140 two linguists who are supporters of the Anatolian homeland theory, have recently examined words in the Indo-European languages which were largely ignored or missed by the linguists in general, and they have arrived at the conclusion that Proto-Indo-European names definitely existed for some more animals such as the leopard (Sanskrit pRdAku, Greek pardos, Hittite parsana) and the monkey (Sanskrit kapi, Greek kepos, which they also link, with k/mute alteration, with Germanic and Celtic words like Old Norse api, Old English apa, Old High German affo, Welsh epa and Irish apa, “ape”), and even more significantly, the camel and the elephant:

    1. The camel is native to West Asia and to Central Asia. There are cognate words for the camel in Tokharian *alpi, Old Church Slavonic velibadu, Baltic (Lithuanian) verbliudas, and Germanic words like Old Norse ulfaldi, Old English olfend, Old High German olbanta and Gothic ulbandus. A related word in Hittite, according to C.D. Buck, is ulupantas or ulpantas which appears to be used for “ox”.141

    The word is similar to the Greek word elephas for elephant, which is the source for all the European names for the elephant. Buck suggests that this word is “based upon… Egyptian words… to be analysed as el-ephas, the second part, like Lat. ebur, ‘ivory’, from Egypt. Ab, ‘elephant, ivory’, but first part disputed”.142 He adds: “Hence also (though disputed by some) with shift to ‘camel’, Goth. ulbandus, ON ulfaldi, OE olfend, OHG olbanta……”143

    The evidence of the Tokharian word, however, conclusively proves that this word cannot be a borrowing by Greek from Egyptian. A word so borrowed could never have been transmitted to Tokharian in Central Asia by any manipulation of any known theory of Indo-European origins and migrations; and the Tocharian word is clearly a related one since it contains both the elements, the “second part” of the word as well as the “disputed” first part.

    Therefore, while it is very likely that there was a “shift” from an original meaning “elephant” to a new meaning “camel”, this shift took place in Central Asia and not in Greece. The cognate words for camel in Tocharian, Germanic, Slavonic and Baltic (and also Hittite, where there has been a second shift in meaning to “ox”) clearly prove that all these branches shared a sojourn in the camel lands of Central Asia.

    2. The Greek word el-ephas is exactly cognate (again, only the second part of the word) with the Rigvedic ibhas. As we have already seen in our chapter on the Geography of the Rigveda, ibhas is just one of the four purely “Aryan” names (ibhas, sRNI, hastin and vAraNa) for the elephant in the Rigveda. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov point out that the Latin word ebur, “ivory”, is also cognate to the Sanskrit ibhas.

    We thus have the evidence of three different branches of Indo-European languages for the elephant as an animal known to the Proto-Indo-Europeans. As the Proto-Indo-Europeans were not native to Africa, African elephants (not being domesticated) could not have been directly known to them (even as an imported animal) in any other proposed homeland, and the Asiatic elephant is not native to any area north or west of India, the implications of this evidence are loud and clear.

    Incidentally, it is possible that the Egyptian word Ab for “elephant” or “ivory” is itself derived from Sanskrit ibhas. We have it on the testimony of the Old Testament of the Bible (I Kings 22.10; II Chronicles 9.21) that apes, ivory and peacocks were imported from India (the peacocks confirm that the land referred to is India, or a transit port on the way from India) into Palestine, and doubtless the same was the case in Egypt as well.

    The Hebrew word for “ape” in the above references is qoph which is derived by linguists from the Sanskrit kapi; and, likewise, Buck accepts kapi as the “probable source of Egyptian qephi”.144 Significantly, the words for elephant in Arabic and Hebrew, fil and pil respectively, are clearly derived from the Sanskrit word pIlu for a male elephant, thereby indicating that it was the Indian elephant rather than the African one which was known in this region.

    3. An animal whose name is common to almost all the Indo-European branches is the cow (Sanskrit go, Avestan gao, German kuh, Latin bOs, Irish bo, Lettish guovs, Greek boûs, Old Church Slavonic krava, etc), for whom the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European word is *gwou. It is clear that the cow was a very intrinsic part of the life of the Indo-Europeans, as is proved also by its dominant status in the culture, idiom and imagery of the oldest Indo-European texts, the Rigveda and the Avesta.

    Significantly, different ancient civilizations (Sumerian gu, Ancient Chinese gou) appear to have borrowed the word from the Indo-Europeans. It is, therefore, quite likely that the Proto-Indo-European homeland was a primary centre of diffusion of cattle breeding.

    It may be noted in this context that recent research by scientists at the Trinity College in Dublin has revolutionised ideas about the origins of the domestication of cattle. It was formerly believed that cattle domestication first took place in Anatolia, and then spread to the rest of the world; and the humped breeds of Indian cattle, known in the West as Zebu or Brahmin cattle, were believed to be descended from these Anatolian cattle.

    However, the scientists “who examined the DNA of 13 breeds of modern cattle found that all the European and African cattle breeds shared the same genetic lineage. But the eastern types came from an entirely different source. By backtracking the number of mutations that must have occured, the scientists have also deduced that the two lines split more than 200,000 years ago; and since the two lines are still distinct, the simplest interpretation of the research was that there were two separate domestication events.”145

    Thus, India, the centre of domestication of other species of bovids, like the buffalo and the gayal, was also the centre of domestication of the eastern or humped cattle.

    And, to howsoever great or small an extent, this appears to strengthen the claims of India to be the location of the original homeland of the Indo-European family of languages.

    This is corroborated by the fact that Sanskrit retains a distinctly different root word for “milk”, which appears to be older, and closer to the original Indo-European ethos, than the common word for “milk” found in almost all the other branches of Indo-European languages.

    Many of the other branches have related words for “milk”: German milch, Irish mlicht, Russian moloko, etc. And even where they appear to differ in the noun form, they share a common word for the verb “to milk”: Latin mulgere, Old High German melchan, Greek amèlgo, Old Church Slavonic mlešti, Lithuanian milZti, Albanian mjellë, Irish bligim, etc.

    Only Sanskrit and Iranian stand out in not having any word related to the above. Instead, we have Sanskrit dugdha, “milk”, derived from the root duh-, “to milk”, with related verbal forms duxtan, dušidan, “to milk” in modern Persian (though not in the Avesta).

    The root duh-, found directly only in Sanskrit, and only secondarily in Iranian, appears to have deeper roots in the Indo-European languages. According to many linguists (although many others dismiss the derivation as simplistic), the Indo-European words for “daughter” (Sanskrit duhitar, Persian dukhtar, Gothic dauhtar, Lithuanian dukte, Old Church Slavonic dUšti, Greek thugater, etc.) are derived from the same root, so that the word basically means “milkmaid”, indicating that cattle-breeding was a primary occupation among the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

    VI.B. Archaic Dialectology

    The second significant aspect of the study of the protolanguage, on the basis of which an Indian homeland was rejected by the linguists, was that Sanskrit, in some respects, represents a phonetically highly evolved form of the original Proto-Indo-European: thus, for example, to quote the most common factor cited, Sanskrit is a “Satem” language, and in fact, alongwith Avestan, the most highly palatalized of the Satem languages. The original Proto-Indo-European language was a “Kentum” language, and some branches evolved into Satem branches by a process of palatalization of original velars (k, g) into palatals (c, j) and into sibilants (s, S). The Kentum branches thus represent an older form of Indo-European, and all the Kentum branches are found only in Europe – or so it was thought until the discovery of Tokharian in Chinese Turkestan; but this discovery was quickly sought to be absorbed into the western homeland theory by postulating an early migration of the Tokharians from the west into the east,

    However, as we have already seen earlier on in this chapter, the phenomenon of palatalization, as also various other features which represent phonetic evolutions from the Indo-European original, are now accepted as innovations which took place in the heartland of the Proto-Indo-European homeland after the migrations of early branches which retained the original features.

    As Winn puts it: “Linguistic innovations that take place at the core may never find their way out to peripheral areas, hence dialects spoken on the fringe tend to preserve archaic features that have long since disappeared from the mainstream.”146 Therefore, the fact that Sanskrit represents a phonetically evolved form of the Proto-Indo-European language, far from being a negative factor in respect of the idea of an Indian homeland, is a positive one.

    In fact, there are three factors, in respect of archaisms, which add up to make a strong case for an Indian homeland:

    1. Various evolved phonetic features in Sanskrit, as we have seen, particularly in the matter of palatalization of original velars, definitely point towards India as the original homeland.

    2. At the same time, in respect of vocabulary, Sanskrit is the most archaic or representative language in the entire Indo-European family. As Griffith puts it in his preface to his translation of the Rigveda, in the language of the Rigveda “we see the roots and shoots of the languages of Greek and Latin, of Kelt, Teuton and Slavonian… the science of comparative philology could hardly have existed without the study of Sanskrit…”

    As we have pointed out in some detail in our earlier book, the fact that Sanskrit has retained the largest number of Proto-Indo-European words, even when its phonetic and grammatical features continued to evolve, is strong evidence of an Indian homeland: the language of a migrating group may retain many of its original phonetic or grammatical features, even when these features are lost or evolved away in the language still spoken in the original area, but it is likely to lose or replace a substantial part of its original vocabulary (though it may retain many telltale archaic words) as compared to the language still spoken back home.

    Warren Cowgill, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, points out that this was the case with most of the ancient Indo-European languages: “In prehistoric times, most branches of Indo-European were carried into territories presumably or certainly occupied by speakers of non-Indo-European languages… it is reasonable to suppose that these languages had some effect on the speech of the newcomers. For the lexicon, this is indeed demonstrable in Hittite and Greek, at least. It is much less clear, however, that these non-Indo-European languages affected significantly the sounds and grammar of the Indo-European languages that replaced them.”147 The same was the case with the modern languages: “When Indo-European languages have been carried within historical times into areas occupied by speakers of other languages, they have generally taken over a number of loan-words… however, there has been very little effect on sounds and grammar.”148

    3. Finally, and most significant of all, we have the fact that within India itself, certain isolated languages have retained archaisms already lost even in Vedic Sanskrit. There is no way in which the presence of these languages, which definitely represent remnants of extinct branches of Indo-European other than Indoaryan or even the hypothetical “Indo-Iranian”, can be incorporated into any theory of migration of the Indoaryans from South Russia to India.

    There are two such languages, one of which is now accepted by the linguists as a remnant of an extinct Kentum branch of Indo-European languages, but in respect of the other, detailed research is necessary from a point of view hitherto unsuspected:

    a. The BangANI language, spoken in the Garhwal region in the western Himalayas (in Uttar Pradesh) was brought into dramatic highlight by Clans Peter Zoller, a German linguist, in 1987 (as reported in our earlier book) when he announced the discovery of the remnants of an ancient Kentum language in the older layers of this language.

    Zoller pointed out that BangANI contained three historical layers: “The youngest and most extensive layer is where BangANI shares many similarities with the Indo-Aryan languages of Himachal Pradesh and Garhwal. The second is an older layer of Sanskrit words where one can observe a strikingly large number of words that belongs to the oldest layer of Sanskrit, the Sanskrit of the Vedas. The third and the oldest layer in BangANI is formed by words that have no connection with Sanskrit but with the Kentum branch of Indo-European languages.”149

    By 1989, Zoller had presented a full-fledged case, which created a furore in linguistic circles. An immediate reaction to it was a joint project, by an Indian linguist Suhnu Ram Sharma and a Dutch linguist George van Driem, which examined Zoller’s claims. According to these scholars, “Zoller’s BangANI findings not only had far-reaching implications for our understanding of the prehistoric migrations of ancient Indo-Europeans, they also appeared to violate much of what is received knowledge in historical linguistics.”150 Hence: “In 1994, we conducted fieldwork in order to verify these remarkable findings. The results of our investigation are presented here. On the basis of these results, it is our contention that no Kentum Indo-European remnants exist in the BangANI language.”151

    Not only did these linguists reject Zoller’s findings, but they also levelled serious allegations regarding Zoller’s professional integrity: “In view of our findings, and in view of the manner in which Zoller presented his, the question which remains for the reader to resolve in his own mind is whether Zoller has fallen prey to the wishful etymologizing of transcriptional errors or whether he has deliberately perpetrated a hoax upon the academic community. In other words, was the joke on Zoller, or was the joke on us?”152

    The above is an example of the vicious reactions evoked among scholars inimical to the Indian homeland theory, to any serious scholarly study which tends to, directly or indirectly, support, or even appear to support, this theory.

    The matter did not end there. Zoller took up the challenge and issued a strong and detailed rejoinder to the allegations of van Driem and Sharma. Even more significant was a detailed counter study by Anvita Abbi and Hans Hock which not only conclusively demolished their “refutation” of Zoller’s findings, and conclusively proved that BangANI does indeed contain the remnants of an extinct Kentum language, but also clearly showed that it was Suhnu Ram Sharma and George van Driem who had attempted to deliberately perpetrate a hoax on the academic community.

    The long and short of it is that BangANI is now accepted by linguists all over the world as a language whose oldest layers contain remnants of an archaic Kentum language, a circumstance which is totally incongruous with any theory of Indoaryan immigrations into India.

    b. The Sinhalese language of Sri Lanka is generally accepted as a regular, if long separated and isolated, member of the “Indoaryan” branch of Indo-European languages; and no linguist studying Sinhalese appears, so far, to have suggested any other status for the language.

    However, apart from the fact that Sinhalese has been heavily influenced not only by Sanskrit and (due to the predominance of Buddhism in Sri Lanka) Pali, but also by Dravidian and the near-extinct Vedda, the language contains many features which are not easily explainable on the basis of Indoaryan.

    Wilhelm Geiger, in his preface to his study of Sinhalese, points out that the phonology of the language “is full of intricacies… We sometimes meet with a long vowel when we expect a short one and vice versa”,153 and, further: “In morphology there are formations, chiefly in the verbal inflexion, which seem to be peculiar to Sinhalese and to have no parallels in other Indo-Aryan dialects… and I must frankly avow that I am unable to solve all the riddles arising out of the grammar of the Sinhalese language.”154

    However, not having any particular reason to suspect that Sinhalese could be anything but an “Indoaryan” language descended from Sanskrit, Geiger does not carry out any detailed research to ascertain whether or not Sinhalese is indeed in a class with the “other Indo-Aryan dialects”. In fact, referring to an attempt by an earlier scholar, Gnana Prakasar, to connect the Sinhalese word eLi (light) with the Greek hElios (sun), Geiger rejects the suggestion as “the old practice of comparing two or more words of the most distant languages merely on the basis of similar sounds, without any consideration for chronology, for phonological principles, or for the historical development of words and forms…”155

    However, there are words in Sinhalese, of which we can cite only one here, which cannot be so easily dismissed: the Sinhalese word watura, “water”, is not only closely cognate to the Germanic words (which includes English “water”) and Hittite water, but it represents a form which is impossible to explain on the basis of Sanskrit or Indoaryan etymologies. Geiger himself, elsewhere, rejects an attempt by an earlier scholar, Wickremasinghe, to derive the word from Sanskrit vartarUka as “improbable”; and although he accepts the suggestion of another scholar, B. Gunasekara, that the “original meaning is ‘spread, extension, flood’ (M. vithar)… Pk. vitthAra, Sk. vistAra,”156 he notes that “vocalism a.u. in vatura is irregular, cf. vitura”.157

    M.W.S. de Silva, in his detailed study of Sinhalese, points out that “Indo-Aryan (or Indic) research began with an effort devoted primarily to classifying Indian languages and tracing their phonological antecedents historically back to Vedic and Classical Sanskrit… Early Sinhalese studies have followed the same tradition.”158 However, Sinhalese “presents a linguistic make-up which, for various reasons, distinguishes itself from the related languages in North India… there are features in Sinhalese which are not known in any other Indo-Aryan language, but these features, which make the story of Sinhalese all the more exciting, had not received much attention in the earlier studies.”159

    He also points out: “Another area of uncertainty is the source of the small but high-frequency segment of the Sinhalese vocabulary, especially words for parts of the body and the like: eg. oluva ‘head’, bella ‘neck’, kakula ‘leg’, kalava ‘thigh’, etc. which are neither Sanskritic nor Tamil in origin. The native grammarians of the past have recognized that there are three categories of words – (a) loanwords, (b) historically derived words and (c) indigenous words… No serious enquiry has been made into these so-called indigenous words”.160

    In his preface, de Silva notes that “there is a growing awareness of the significance of Sinhalese as a test case for the prevailing linguistic theories; more than one linguist has commented on the oddities that Sinhalese presents and the fact… that Sinhalese is ‘unlike any language I have seen’.”161 Further, he quotes Geiger: “It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, to assign it a definite place among the modern Indo-Aryan dialects.”162

    But, it does not strike de Silva, any more than Geiger, that the reason for all this confusion among linguists could be their failure to recognize the possibility that Sinhalese is not an Indoaryan language (in the sense in which the term is used) at all, but a descendant of another branch of Indo-European languages.

    From the historical point of view, “a vast body of material has been gathered together by way of lithic and other records to portray the continuous history of Sinhalese from as early as the third century BC.”163 in Sri Lanka, and “attempts have been made to trace the origins of the earliest Sinhalese people and their language either to the eastern parts of North India or to the western parts”.164

    But de Silva quotes Geiger as well as S. Paranavitana, and agrees with their view that “the band of immigrants who gave their name Simhala to the composite people, their language and the island, seems to have come from northwestern India… their original habitat was on the upper reaches of the Indus river… in what is now the borderland between Pakistan and Afghanistan”,165 and quotes Paranavitana’s summary of the evidence, and his conclusion: “All this evidence goes to establish that the original Sinhalese migrated to Gujarat from the lands of the Upper Indus, and were settled in LATa for some time before they colonised Ceylon.”166

    A thorough examination, with an open mind, of the vocabulary and grammar of Sinhalese, will establish that Sinhalese represents a remnant of an archaic branch of Indo-European languages.

    The evidence of BangANI and Sinhalese (the one word watura itself) constitutes a strong case for an Indian homeland since it clashes sharply with any theory of Indoaryan migrations into India.

    Basically, the confusion that we see in respect of Sinhalese studies is also found in the study of Indoaryan languages in general. And the root of all this confusion is the general theory which maintains that:

    a. The “Indo-Iranians” represented a branch of Indo-Europeans who separated from the other branches in distant regions and migrated to Central Asia, and shared a joint “Indo-Iranian” phase there, before separating and migrating into India and Iran respectively.

    b. The “Indoaryans” represented that section of the “Indo-Iranians” who entered India and composed the Rigveda during the earliest period of their sojourn in the northwestern parts of India, before expanding into the rest of India and giving birth to the ancestral forms of the present-day Indoaryan languages.

    The linguistic evidence (even apart from the archaic evidence of BangANI and Sinhalese) totally fails to fit in with this theory:

    1. “Indoaryan” and Iranian do not constitute one branch, but at least two distinct branches: Winn points out that there are “ten ‘living branches’… Two branches, Indic (Indo-Aryan) and Iranian dominate the eastern cluster. Because of the close links between their classical forms – Sanskrit and Avestan respectively – these languages are often grouped together as a single Indo-Iranian branch”.167 And he notes that these close links came about due to “a period of close contact between Indic and Iranian people (which) brought about linguistic convergence, thus making the two languages appear misleadingly similar”.168

    As Meillet had long ago pointed out: “It remains quite clear, however, that Indic and Iranian developed from different Indo-European dialects, whose period of common development was not long enough to effect total fusion.”169

    The evidence of comparative mythology (see Chapter 10) also disproves the common Indo-Iranian hypothesis. Rigvedic mythology is often the only connecting link between different other Indo-European mythologies, while Avestan mythology appears to have no links with any other Indo-European mythology other than that of the Rigveda itself.

    The “period of common development” which brought about the “close links between… Sanskrit and Avestan” was of course the “period of close contact between Indic and Iranian people” in the Late Period of the Rigveda, as we have already seen in the previous chapter.

    2. The Indo-Iranian hypothesis is also disproved by the fact that Iranian shares at least one isogloss with Greek and Armenian (fitting in with our classification of these three branches as constituting. the Anu confederation of the Early Period of the Rigveda) which is not shared by Sanskrit: “In three Indo-European languages, whose grouping is significant – Greek, Armenian and Iranian – the shift from s to h occured, not, as in Brythonic, at a relatively recent date, but before the date of the oldest texts. Moreover, in all three, the distribution pattern is exactly the same: h develops from initial *s before a vowel, from intervocalic *s and from some occurences of *s before and after sonants; *s remains before and after a stop.”170

    This shift, which is universal in the three branches, is not found in Sanskrit and a majority of the Indoaryan languages, although a similar shift took place “at a relatively recent date” in some modem Indoaryan dialects of the northwest and west (Gujarati, etc.) and, significantly, in Sinhalese.

    Another, minor, point where Greek, Armenian and Iranian share a common development, distinct from Sanskrit, is in “those cases in which a morphological element ends with a dental consonant and the following element begins with a t”.171 All the three branches show st while “Sanskrit regularly shows tt”.172

    3. There is one isogloss which is found only in the three branches referred to above (Greek, Armenian and Iranian) and in Sanskrit, and in some modern Indoaryan dialects of the north and northwest (as far as the western dialects of Hindi), but not in the majority of modern Indoaryan languages: “the prohibitive negation *mE is attested only in Indo-Iranian (mA), Greek (mE) and Armenian (mI), elsewhere it is totally lacking… and there is no difference in this respect between the ancient and modern stages of Greek, Armenian or Persian.”173

    But there is a difference in this respect between the ancient stage (Sanskrit) and a majority of the languages in the modem stage of what the linguists classify as the “Indoaryan” branch (except for modem western Hindi mat, etc.).

    This could be because most of the Indoaryan languages lost this word; but it could also be because most of the modern Indoaryan languages are descendants of Indo-European dialects which never had this word, and were not directly part of the common culture developed by the PUrus (the Vedic Aryans) and the Anus (Iranians, Armenians, Greeks) in the northern and northwestern parts of North India, after the departure of the Druhyus. Their ancestral dialects were what we have (in our earlier book) called the “Inner Indo-European” dialects spoken in the interior of India.

    4. This, at any rate, is certainly clearly demonstrated in the development of Indo-European l in “Indo-Iranian”: “all of Indo-Iranian tended to confuse r and l …. Every IE l becomes r in Iranian. This same occurence is to be observed in the Northwest of India, and, consequently, in the Rigveda, which is based on idioms of the Northwest.”174

    So, is this an “Indo-Iranian” phenomenon? Apparently not: “On the other hand, initial and intervocalic l was present in Indic dialects of other regions. Numerous elements of these dialects were gradually introduced into the literary language, which became fixed in Classical Sanskrit. This explains the appearance of l in more recent parts of the Rigveda and its subsequent rise in frequency.”175

    Meillet correctly observes that this is “an instance of concordance of Iranian with the Indic idioms closest to the area of Iranian and discordance with Indic idioms further to the East”.176

    The concept of an “Indo-Iranian” branch is based on “the close links between their classical forms – Sanskrit and Avestan respectively”,177 which is the result of a “period of common development”,178 as we have already seen. This period of common development was before the separation of the Vedic and Iranian people.

    But this conversion of the original Indo-European l into r is a phenomenon pertaining to this period of common development, and it is not shared by the ancient “Indoaryan” dialects to the east of the Rigvedic area. These dialects, therefore, represent a pre-“Indo-Iranian” phase of Indo-European, which is incompatible with any theory of an Indo-Iranian phase in Central Asia and Afghanistan before the separation of the Indoaryans and Iranians and the consequent migration of Indoaryans into India.

    It is also incompatible with any theory of the origin of the “Indoaryan” languages from the Vedic language which forms part of this joint “Indo-Iranian” phase. Therefore, while the word “Indoaryan” may be used in the sense of “Aryan or Indo-European languages historically native to India”, it cannot and should not be used in the sense in which it is generally used: ie. to mean languages descended from a language (Vedic Sanskrit) which, or whose proto-form, shared a joint “Indo-Iranian” phase with Proto-Iranian.

    5. The theory that the Indoaryan languages are descended from Vedic Sanskrit is not really corroborated by linguistic factors. As we have pointed out in our earlier book, S.K. Chatterji makes the following remarks about the Old, Middle and New phases of Indoaryan:

    “The Aryan came to India, assuredly not as a single, uniform or standardised speech, but rather as a group or groups of dialects… only one of these dialects or dialect-groups has mainly been represented in the language of the Vedas – other dialects… (might) have been ultimately transformed into one or the other of the various New Indo-Aryan languages and dialects. The mutual relationship of these Old Indo-Aryan dialects, their individual traits and number as well as location, will perhaps never be settled… The true significance of the various Prakrits as preserved in literary and other records, their origin and interrelations, and their true connection with the modern languages, forms one of the most baffling problems of Indo-Aryan linguistics… and there has been admixture among the various dialects to an extent which has completely changed their original appearance, and which makes their affiliation to forms of Middle Indo-Aryan as in our records at times rather problematical.”179

    Thus S.K. Chatterji unwillingly admits (although he tries to explain it within the framework of the invasion theory) that:

    a. There were many different dialects, of which the language of the Rigveda was only one, and that the modern Indoaryan languages may well be descended from these other non-Vedic dialects.

    b. The relations (within each chronological group: Old, Middle or New; as well as between different chronological groups) between Old Indoaryan (Rigvedic and Classical Sanskrit, as well as the “other” dialects or dialect groups) and Middle Indoaryan (Prakrits) and the present-day New Indoaryan languages are “baffling” and “problematical” and “will perhaps never be settled”.

    The problem will certainly “never be settled” if examined from the viewpoint of an Aryan invasion of India which treats the Indoaryan languages as descended from the languages of people who migrated into India from the northwest after an “Indo-Iranian” phase in Central Asia and an Indo-European phase in South Russia.

    As per our theory, Proto-Indo-European, and its earlier forms, developed in the interior of North India. In ancient times, it developed into various dialects, many of which expanded into the northwest and Afghanistan. The divisions of these dialects can be conveniently classified in Puranic terms (howsoever unpalatable it may sound to modern ears) with the dialects of the extreme northwest (which included the ancestral forms of most of the European languages, as well as Hittite and Tocharian) being the Druhyu dialects, the dialects further to their east (mainly the ancestral forms of Iranian, as also Armenian and Greek) being the Anu dialects, and the dialects in the northern parts of North India (Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and nearby areas) being the PUru dialects (including Vedic). In the interior were other dialects which represented other Puranic groups: Yadus, TurvaSas, IkSvAkus, etc.

    With the emigration of the Druhyus, and later the Anus, and the predominant position which the Rigvedic language came to occupy (after the Vedic cult spread all over India, incorporated all the religious systems of the land in the course of time, and became itself the elite layer of an all-inclusive Pan-Indian religious system) in India, began the phase of Indian history which the linguists and historians have interpreted as the “Indoaryan” phase.

    The Rigvedic language heavily influenced all the other languages of India, including the languages descended from the remnants of the Outer dialects (Druhyu, Anu), those descended from the Inner dialects (Yadu, TurvaSa, IkSvAku, etc), and also the Dravidian and Austric languages in the South and East.

    In turn, the literary forms which developed from the Rigvedic language, Epic and Classical Sanskrit, were heavily influenced by all the other languages (Indo-European, Dravidian and Austric). As Meillet, in a different context (already referred to), puts it: “Numerous elements of these dialects were gradually introduced into the literary language which became fixed in Classical Sanskrit.”180

    And finally, as Chatterji correctly puts it: “there has been admixture among the various dialects to an extent which has completely changed their original appearance.”181

    To sum up the whole question of the Indo-European homeland:

    1. The evidence of archaeology completely disproves, or, at the very least, completely fails to prove, the non-Indian origin of the Indo-Europeans.

    2. The evidence of the oldest literary records (the Rigveda and the Avesta) proves the Indian homeland theory from three distinct angles:

    a. The evidence of comparative mythology.

    b. The evidence of the internal chronology and geography of the Rigveda.

    c. The direct evidence in the Rigveda about the emigration of identifiable Indo-European groups from India.

    3. The evidence of linguistics, in some matters, is either ambiguous or neutral, and , in some others, definitely confirms the evidence of the literary records which indicate that India was the original homeland.

    • Truth sayer

      Good job done!Keep it up!!
      Those proponents of Aryan Invasion theory has done great disservice to the truth and true history!

      They used those linguistic details just to twist the details in their favour but sincere linguistic study only indicate Aryan origin in India.
      Of course,modern dried Saraswathi river archaeology and genetics completely debunked those fake Aryan Invasion theory.
      One surprising thing is,still many westerners raiding over that fake Aryan Invasion theory as it is suitable for their wishful expectation on history

      One more information which like to give from ancient Dravidian literature Tamil is as follows.
      Tamil literature very clearly says the Tamil was found by Aryan Sage Agastya which call him as Arya Maindan or the son of Arya.
      Agastya as per Vedic texts was long sojourn in Tamil Nadu in Pothigai Malai and he collected all words of ancient Tamil people to give them a language for which he used Sanskrit Grammar.
      Agastya died in ancient Tamil Nadu only.
      Agastya migrated to South Tamil Nadu 9000 years ago
      Tamil literature clearly says it as” IIndiram Niranadha Tolakappiyam”
      Tolkappiyam is the first Tamil Grammar book written by Tolkappiya,who was the first disciple of Sage Agastya.
      “IIndiram Niranadha Tolakappiyam”literally means Tolakapiyam was written based on Sanskrit Grammar school of ‘IIndira’
      Agastya still referred as first Siddhar and creator of Siddha Vaidya(medical system) and other Varma arts(defense fight) like Kalari
      He is still venerated by Tamil people.
      As Tamil Nadu was not affected by invasions from outside and invading Muslim destructions as it is surrounded by sea in all the three side,the ancient Aryan Vedic books and traditions brought by Vedic sage such as Agastya. completely unaffected in Tamil Nadu which is utilized by those protagonists of Aryan Invasion theory to twist the details as all ancient traditions belonged to Tamils and North Aryans usurped it.
      What a fraud and humbug!
      Recent genetics confirmed those Aryans who are living in North India around 40,000 years arrived in South India around 20,000 years to have interaction with Dravidians,that time Dravidians have no scripts and living primitive life.
      Later,Agastya completed that task and still venerated by Tamil literature. and by Tamils still to this day.
      Most of the North Indians also dont know original Vedic culture only safeguarded in South India and many of the original culture they followed in antiquity were lost due to Muslim rule in the North India.
      They fooled by the fraud Invasion theory and Aryan -Dravidian divide which is created by the evil western elements and by those British to rule India by their “divide and rule policy”
      One important historical point which I like to refer here as follows.
      Chanakya or Kautilya wrote ArthaSastra 2300 years ago during Chandra Gupta Maurya Rule exist in many rock inscriptions in the North India but the book was not available in the North even in many learning centres .Experts thought that the book was lost.
      But,in last century,one Brahman from Tanjore in Tamil Nadu handed over the only existing copy of that book to the Mysore University from the worthy saving of the Manuscripts by his forgathers.
      If that book is not there,the entire details of that book which give lofty pictures on India on many aspects would have been lost.
      Artha Sastra also called the first administrative book of the world.

      By this above details,many things existed in India could be well understood.

      • Jaipal

        Thank you for your kind words, Truth Sayer.
        If you would like to know more about the OIT (Out of India Theory),
        I would recommend you take a look at the books authored by Shrikant Talageri.
        He has written 3 books that nicely demolish the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) and provides
        lots of evidence for the Indian Homeland Theory. After you read his three books, I can
        guarantee, you won’t even remotely believe in Aryan Invasion Theory anymore, even if
        you ever did. His arguments are very compelling. Do take a look at his books.

        • Truth sayer

          Of course,I have studied Srikant Talageri book on historicity of Rigveda.
          anyhow,thank for your suggestion!!
          I have some very valid source which is so concrete that Aryans only migrated from ancient India even before studying Talageri details.
          One is dried Saraswathi discovery in 1996 exactly as per Rigvedic details which not only pushed antiquity of Rigveda to 6000Bc or still above but also confirmed the validity and antiquity of Rigvedic informations.
          Second is, those clay tablet details of Hurrians and Mittanis besides Al-amarna clay tablets excavated in Egypt.
          Those details give accurate and most reliable details on Aryan migration as late as 1900BC after drying of Saraswathi river
          We have Mittanis history near Turkey Syria border in 1700BC.They took around 100 years to reach there from India as they moving as a settlement and another 100 years to establish kingdom there.
          Dasarajna or ten kings war migration details are many thousand year before this.

        • Jaipal

          Truth Sayer,
          Good to know that you have read Talageri’s second book. But I would also encourage you
          to read his first and third books. Those books have alot more information and basically
          add to his arguments even further.

          He has written a third book recently in 2008 AD called “The Rig-Veda and Avesta: Final Evidence” . Please have a look at his other two books also. They contain more evidence
          also, in addition to his arguments in second book.

      • Pepperoncini

        Typical Hindutva lies about “evil westerners” inventing Dravidian=Aryan paradigm. Dravidian and Indo-Aryan are 2 very different linguistic families. This is accepted linguistic fact, and not a political invention by Brits or other Europeans.

        Before the Brits unified India, the Dravidian south was not under the control of the Indo-Aryan speaking north, so really the Brits ultimately rather than dividing the Dravidians from Aryans, ended up giving the Aryan speaking northern elite control over the South. If it hadn’t been for British colonialism, the South might very well have become an independent nation/nations.

        • Truth sayer

          Talageri is Hindutva based!!
          What a great invention!!
          What about modern genetics which I have given when most of them are western geneticists!!.
          You people, please think with your filthy brain how to brand them as HIndutva
          I have given the study of those western astronomers
          .Prove it those things are false!
          Is dried Saraswathi river discovered say as HIndutva or written on it HIndutva!
          So,those satellite pictures of dried Saraswathi river as exactly said in Rigveda prove Hindutva! Is it?
          Is Gulf of Cambay underwater city created by HIndutva people in depth of the river when ships with modern weapons only venture there!
          Is it?
          What a humbug!!
          These morons ridicule others!!
          This is the greatest joke of 21st century!!

  24. Truth sayer

    Correction in the above comment:
    ‘Manuscripts by his forgathers” as “Manuscripts by his forefathers.”

  25. Jaipal

    I agree with you, Truth Sayer.
    It is our duty to enlighten our northern Indian brothers and sisters on the original
    Vedic culture which makes up authentic Indian culture. Rather than showing interest
    in that garbage language called “Urdu” and third rate “Urdu poetry”, the North Indians
    should take pride in Sanskrit Language and literature as well as Hindu spirituality.
    I have said it before and I will say it again, Indian culture is Hindu Culture and Hindu culture
    is basically Vedic Culture only. There is no difference at all.

  26. Jaipal

    Mr. Robert Lindsay,
    The linguistic points that I posted above on the Indo-European question as far as
    regarding an Indian homeland for Indo-European, what do you think about it?
    Can you refute it? Try if you can!

  27. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini,

    Are you still with us? You here?

  28. Jaipal

    @Pepperoncini,

    The Linguistic points that I posted above answers the Invasion theory
    pretty well. You had asked for linguistic evidence supporting the
    Indian Homeland Theory. So whats your view now?

    • Truth sayer

      These people have not studied in depth or even not shown sincerity to understand the truth but always vomit those last century concocted opinions
      as history.For them,the expert studies and modern discoveries not relevance to their preconceived notions on history.
      They are very much happy to fool themselves and trying to fool others!

  29. Jaipal

    You haven’t answered yet, Pepperoncini.
    So whats your view?

    • Hindu Work Ethic

      Jaipal you basically pwnd all the commenters here. I don’t think anyone has the wherewithall or knowledge to even reply.

      Don’t know much about caste but I find it insteresting that the 4 varnas mentioned in Bhagavad Gita are precisely the same career tracks we still find today all over the world.

      About not having original Vedas, aren’t they still passed on orally in India? I’ve seen documentaries of the methods still used today to do so. Fascinating. So you wouldn’t need access to a thousands of years old manuscript, you can just go to India and ask your questions to the people who orally passing it down.

      • Jaipal

        Thank you for your kind words, Hindu Work Ethic.
        Yes, the caste system is just a division of labor based on capacity and
        aptitude. Thats all there is to it. But some ignorant people imagine
        that it is some type of a racial system of historical oppression when
        that was never the case in reality!

        • Pepperoncini

          It is racial as Aryans put themselves at the top. To claim it isn’t racial is akin to claiming that American slavery or British colonialism wasn’t racial either. Indo-European society traditionally had a 3 fold caste system with warrior royalty at the top followed by the priests/scribes and then the commoners. But in the subcontinent, we see the creation of a 4th caste and untouchables. The fact that the word for caste in Sanskrit is Varna which also means colour is again proof of the racial nature of caste.

          Now it likely wasn’t strictly based on race because for the invading/colonising Aryans to dominate the far more numerous and civilized populace they would have needed to assimilate and co-opt some Indegenous Indians . But there is a definite aspect of race in the caste system. Phenotypic differences just point to this obvious observation.

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          Actually Jaipal, from my understanding today’s caste system is vastly different from the 4 varnas of yore, which were in fact division of labor and which we see everywhere in the world today. Somewhere in history a number of different factors combined to create what is called “caste” and many of them – hundreds if not thousands of sub-castes.

          Perhaps Indians should return to the simple 4 varna model and forget about caste and sub-caste.

        • Truth sayer

          Of course,but instead of opinions on Caste system refer authentic Greek records written by 2300 years ago by Greek historians.
          They witness accounts so much praise caste system? Why?
          one has to read!

        • Dota

          @ HWE

          “”Perhaps Indians should return to the simple 4 varna model and forget about caste and sub-caste.””

          Good idea, lets go back in time.

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          Truth Sayer, the travel documents of Greeks, Persians and others coming into that area of the world at the time reported no slavery, self sufficient village economics and a division of labor linked to job security and pride in one’s area of expertise.

          It would be great if India could return to this but I think its current population size makes that near impossible.

          We see in the West a return to small scale organic farming, local trade, barter etc. I know that Indians are doing the same. It doesn’t appear to be much because they have so much ground to cover with so many people.

          I greatly admire the work Indians are doing to fight Monsanto. Can you believe they tried to patent the neem leaf?

        • Dota

          Slavery as an institution was redundant in a society where half the population slaved away for the upper castes in fear of being re-incarnated as cockroaches in the next life. Slaves in the traditional sense could always be freed, but a shudra was a slave for life and knew of nothing else. Caste enslaves the mind, and even today, Indians cannot rise above the Manusmiriti.

        • Bay Area Guy

          @ Dota

          Just curious, was there a racial basis for the caste system? I’ve read that the Aryan invaders wanted to segregate themselves from the natives, so they created a caste system to preserve racial purity.

          However, at the same time, you look at bourgeois/high caste Indians, and your average white Westerner considers them as brown as the next desi.

          Can you shed some light on this?

        • Truth sayer

          You may have studied so many stories on India and Aryans!!
          What one can do for this!
          Better,study my comments sincerely if you want to know truth!
          When Aryan Invasion itself totally debunked by most reliable genetics and recent archaeology where comes space for other stories!

        • Dota

          @ BAG

          From what I had read years ago, the Aryans who entered India were divided into 3 castes, priests, warriors, and labourers. The conquered dravidians would eventually become the new labour caste and the aryan labourers would then be promoted to the newly constructed Trader/Merchant caste (from which I am descended). This is one theory and I question some aspects of it. Why would a tribal society be divided into castes to begin with? The Rigveda was certainly a lot more egalitarian than many of the later Hindu scriptures. I’m certain the caste system was based upon phenotype and this is obvious to those that visit India even today. The higher castes have a distinct look. Genetic studies, such as those conducted by renowned geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, have concluded that the higher castes cluster closely to Europeans, compared to the lower ones anyway.

          I’ve posted this before, but anyhow, this is what peasant marathi women look like

          http://www.fotopedia.com/albums/pFU-UDYcBho/entries/8EgVeGZ592A

          This is what marathi brahmins look like:

          “However, at the same time, you look at bourgeois/high caste Indians, and your average white Westerner considers them as brown as the next desi. ”

          Labels = cultural programming. Most people cannot see beyond them. When I look in the mirror I see a typical brown desi. Robert has seen a picture of me and insists I look white. I’ve also been mistaken for Arab (rare) and Persian (more common). I was once mistaken for a Spanish man by an elderly lady who had possibly never seen an Indian before, but that was a freak occurrence. I suppose to Americans, most of us look alike, but to those that take a closer look (like the commenters on this blog) the diversity is astounding.

      • Jaipal

        Every country has got some type of a “caste-system” if you think about
        it. Its not just India.

    • Pepperoncini

      I am just now seeing your reply, as my computer bit the dust few weeks ago so am on a burrowed comp.

      And as for your reply and and to those posters supporting you; all you did/do is parrot Hindutva SOP. You speak highly of Talageri, which just goes to show that your claims are nothing but Hindutva propaghanda and not asscepted academic facts. Talageri , Elst, Frawley, Rajaram, Kalanarayan and many others like them are nothing but propaghandists who have no standing in the Indology academic world. The only people who give any sort of credence to these pseudo historians are ethnic chauvinists.

      Not playing the Hindutva game does not give merit to their claims , much in the same way that not addressing absurd claims by Birthers ( Americans convinced that Obama was born in Kenya ) or White Nationalists convinced that Whites populated Americas before Mongoloids gives credence to either of these claims.

      Right wing Hindu claims are rubbished by Academia and no peer reviewed journal (following a peer review process) has carried your garbage . Simply because the Hindu Nationalist claims are devoid of facts, and nothing but shameless and pathetic ethno-nationalist myths.

  30. Dota

    Good post Pepperoncini, mainstream Academia chucks Hindutva garbage right out the window.

    I just want to add one last thing to this sorry excuse for a debate. Caste is not class. As Arthur Danto points out, every caste is treated as a separate species with its own value system and culture. The castes are not held up to a common moral standard and caste mobility is non existent. Feudalism was a class based society based on division of labour, but that’s been done away with. Caste still persists, even to this day.

    • Truth sayer

      Of course,dumb asses try to shroud their foolishness by telling Hindutva as they have nothing capable to refute and understand others details!
      This is quite natural to them!
      These morons dont know, others can also call their details as their religious based or some isms peculiar to them!

      • Pepperoncini

        There is nothing to refute as all you Hindu Chauvinists operate on lies, myths and fabricated evidence (cue Rajaram) . Linguistic, Philological, Archaeological artifiacts , Population genetics and simple Observation exposes you frauds for what you are.

        If your side has any merit, why don’t peer reviewed journals and international Academia support you? Tis OIT BS is primarily an Indian narrative, specifically an upper caste narrative.

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          As someone who’s been through the heavily leftist agenda of western academia, I cannot put my blind faith in it the way foreigners from impoverished nations do. They seem to equally in awe of America’s Big Pharma and Big Farma.

          There are so many inaccuracies about foreign cultures and religions in academia. Either they are fetishized and idealized (Islam seems to be a current favorite, even some Leftist Feminists are afraid to call it out for what it is) or they are completely bastardized and painted with a negative brush.

          Been there, done that.
          I no longer trust academia to teach me a damn thing.

  31. Hindu Work Ethic

    I do see a positive trend starting with regards to Indic or Hindu studies. No longer are the subjects solely confined to being taught by complete outsiders. People like Christopher D. Wallis, Christopher P. Thompkins and Dr. Douglas Brooks who studied under Dr. Gopala Aiyar Sundaramoorthy are practicioner-scholars who have studied the teachings of authentic Hindu Vedic or Tantric lineages and are writing academically about them and teaching them both within and outside of academia.

    This has long been par for the course with Jewish and Christian studies within universities. Buddhists have made good headway with positioning Buddhist pracitioner-scholars in universities, Islam similarly and now Hinduism is catching on.

    If I want to learn Rg Veda I will go to a Vedic brahmin. If I want to learn Maha Prajna Paramita Sutta I will go to a Buddhist who can read the text in its original language and is well versed in the culture of the same.

    To learn any religion, even if from an academic point of view, from a non-practicioner complete outsider is a total joke and nothing more than government largesse, which it appears our universities have become.

    Universities should teach marketable, employable skills and leave religion up to pracitcioner-scholars.

    • Dota

      If you wish to decipher the secrets of the cosmos, by all means consult a Brahmin. If however, you want to study a text from a dispassionate and deconstructionist approach, western academia will suffice. If your only reason to reject it is because they aren’t as Islam bashing as you’d like them to be, then you’re a retard and there isn’t much that can be done for you.

    • Pepperoncini

      The Rig Veda has been translated by Westerners, so a Western academic such as Michael Witzel who is a Sanskritist can explain the Vedas, and likely much more honestly than a Brahmin because unlike Western scholars the Brahmin like soo many supposed Hindu academic is going to display an Aryancentric bias.

      • Pepperoncini

        Also
        I have no faith in most all Indian academics because they prove time and again that they don’t care about intellectual honesty , this whole rewritting of ancient Indian history by upper caste Hindus is all the proof I need to distrust Indian historians. The exceptions are when they adhere to general academic consensus.

        When history , especially critical analysis of history paints an ugly picture of Vedic and Indian society, Indian ethno-nationalists hide behind the race/colonialism card and play victim. When Linguistics demolished OIT, supposed Indian historians dismiss the science of Linguistics. This is truly pathetic, along the lines of Nazis who saw Aryans everywhere where civilization appeared.

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          “I have no faith in most all Indian academics because they prove time and again that they don’t care about intellectual honesty ”

          Pepper, I feel the same exact way about most western academics.

      • Truth sayer

        Michael Witzel is a Sanskritist to you,Is it?
        He is the only person who dont know anything on Sanskrit when he simply told many bull shits without knowing the Sanskrit but studying those poor Western version of translations!
        He has been ridiculed for this!!
        So,he very recently started studying Sanskrit with South Indian pundit!
        Verify!!
        He is a joke!

  32. Hindu Work Ethic

    I’m neither Indian nor Hindu so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I disagree that a dispassionate and critical view of a religion cannot be given from within. I studied a number of different religions under practicioner-scholars who managed to give balanced presentations, they are often more familiar with the criticisms of their religions than outsiders and are able to articulate those criticisms and show where they are right, wrong and to what degree.

    The move to have practicioner-scholars such as, well forgot her name maybe someone can help me out, she’s young and a Buddhist scholar at some University and gives classes on Buddhism, Yoga and Vedanta in a dynamic way, anyway, its a move in the right direction.

    I personally prefer to learn from Western female practicioners. Western because you can avoid the ethno-cultural chauvinism that often accompanies people from the lands where these wisdom traditions first sprang, and female because they usually drop the andro-centric view that many of these traditions assumed in their beginnings and throughout much of their history.

    The future of the world’s greatest religions lies with liberated Western women now, not male chauvanist Eastern men.

    Kiss those days goodbye boys!

    • Dota

      You’ve constructed a fantasy and decided to live in it. I doubt the future of Hinduism lies with those that are into pop spirituality. Such westerners have a shallow understanding of not only their adopted religion, but even their own western heritage. Neither here nor there. Tragic clowns.

      • Hindu Work Ethic

        I’m not talking about pop spiritualists, I’m talking about practicioner-scholars like the names I mentioned above and the people who, being inspired by them, seriously study these wisdom traditions. Of course there will be many more who don’t get into it so deep, and that’s ok too. The Huffington Post did a piece, “We Are All Hindus Now” about the neo-hindu mindset in the US. Some Desis liked it and others similar to you came with this “pop spirituality” blah, blah, mentality.

        The point is, westerners, whether approaching it in a serious or pop manner will in either case do it more justice than Desis currently are and that’s what pisses Desis off.

        The future of Hinduism lies with intelligent westerners who don’t have the weird hang ups, (like gender role obsession and mama’s boyism), that Desis do.

        Can anyone here imagine being a 30 year grown man hiding his dating life from his parents and crying in the arms of the woman he loves because he has to dump her and marry the woman arranged for him by his parents?

        Hello! This is why India is in the mess its in.

        And Robert, I’ve read several posts of your’s saying “such and such country is a shit hole” .

        What did ALL those countries have in common? NO FEMINISM!!!

        Any country, and this include the entire middle East, most of Africa and South Asia, that has not had a hardcore feminist movement WILL BE A SHIT HOLE for BOTH men and women to live in.

        All the countries that are not shit holes? Feminism.

        • You are correct honey. Feminism makes the difference between a country being a shithole or not. Shitholes almost invariably lack feminism.

        • Dota

          You’re a joke if you think that Feminism is the pinnacle of western civilization. If anything, it has crippled it by socially re-engineering women (useful idiots like yourself for instance) and by attacking family, white identity, and religion. As Arthur Danto points out, you can meditate and worship your steak, but the core underlying values of Hinduism are not accessible to the majority of westerners since they are at odds with morality. Despite the prevailing Hindu fad, there will be no major Hinduization of the west. There will always be clowns like yourself who will want to be different, but I cannot see Westerners embracing the mindless and amoral philosophy of the Gita. Good luck to you anyway.

        • Bay Area Guy

          Hindu Work Ethic.

          I think you have it mixed up. The affluence of the various “feminist countries” you mentioned was the reason that feminism spawned in those places to begin with.

          Feminism always takes hold in affluent, post-industrial societies where more and more women enter the workforce.

          Feminism is a byproduct of success/affluence, not a reason for it. And if you look at social norms in various Western countries today, which have been at the forefront of feminism the longest, I wouldn’t say that the byproducts of feminism have been positive.

        • Bay Area Guy

          @ Dota

          Well, as long as you have idiot, wimpy, self-hating white liberals out there, you never know.

          I recall an anecdote from eight years ago or so. I was riding BART, and some white man was speaking to a fobby Indian family. He was basically flagellating white American culture, saying how it lacked spirituality, how Indian culture had much greater family values, etc.

          But yes, besides a few pathetic SWPL’s in places like the Bay Area, LA, New York, and similar places, I highly doubt that white Westerners as a whole will embrace the Hindu fad.

          This pathetic tradition of flagellating their own culture and romanticizing Eastern traditions can only last so long.

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          BAG, the self-hating wimpy white liberals are similar to self-hating wimpy brown desis. I can’t stand either.

          There is already a major hinduization going on in the West and it isn’t confined to self-hating white liberals who fetishize the East. Quite the contrary there are many of us who purposely avoid Eastern people. We don’t need their sexism and other backwardisms like arranged marriage. Our societies, in large part due to feminism have advanced way beyond their’s and we do not have to adopt those backward cultural quirks in order to study philosophy and practice various meditations.

          We also oppose desis and arabs coming to the US and lobbying for H1B visas and outsourcing. Can you imagine clamoring for citizenship in a country and then working against that country’s collective best interest? This is what many desis and arabs do.

          Fuck that!

          If you are going to come here then come here as an INDEPENDENT MAN and leave your mother, father, sister, brother, uncle, aunt and 500 cousins back home!

          My great grandparents immigrated to this country ALONE. They did not bring their entire families with them or lobby to get them brought over late.

          Look what havoc this “arranged marriage with a girl back home” has wrought on the UK and Europe.

        • Dota

          I have a theory about romanticism BAG, tell me if it makes sense. I believe that romanticism is a product of western guilt. Because the west overtook everybody else post 16th century, and because their actions affected other cultures and races on so many negative levels, romanticism served a dual purpose of soothing the conscience and also helping western peoples remain grounded. Of course if some intellectual has already written a book about this then this post blows up in my face 🙂

          Anyhow if by some chance I’m right, then romanticism is not the gateway to adopting foreign cultural fads as it inherently recognizes the inadequacy of certain non western cultures and tries to compensate for their shortcomings.

          “Well, as long as you have idiot, wimpy, self-hating white liberals out there, you never know.”

          I’ve got one in my office. A friend of mine, and I respect him, but his uber environmentalism, aboriginal romanticizing, and extereme feminist views drive me nuts. The Earth mother is kosher but Jesus and God are not. I think my greatest accomplishment at the office was to make my boss admit that she was proud of being white. Took me 2 years to do, but I did it 🙂

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          I’ll add that they should just ban immigration of desi, arab and african men, and allow only SINGLE desi, arab and african women in. Those women, who prefer western men anyway, can marry western men and feel what its like to be treated as an equal by your spouse. That will very quickly turn the tide of the backwardization that desis, arabs and africans are doing to the Western world.

          Let those sexist backward men rot in their own cesspools without women of their own. They refuse to modernize and treat women as equals, hence their gene pools need to die out completely.

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          I’ll agree that Western Feminism has lost its way once it opened its Islamic apologetics branch.

          One feminism went so far as to write in an essay that a burka clad muslim woman who casts her gaze downward when talking to a man is actually her way of giving the finger to the patriarchy.

          Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

          My sister brought this home to me from her Gender Studies class very confused. The rest of us had a good laugh over it.

          Anyone who would write such crap I don’t even consider a Feminist.

          Multi-culturalism only works with certain cultures and in small doses. Some cultures will forever be incompatible.

          Western governments should wake up to this fact. PRONTO.

        • Dota

          @ Hindu work ethic

          Grab yourself a pen. If you want to combine feminism with Hinduism you’ll have to re-write the Mahabharat, Gita, Upanishads, and the Manusmiriti. You might even re-write the Ramayan where it is Sita who goes to Lanka to rescue Ram 🙂 In the end your silly self centered/self serving ideology will only bear a superficial resemblance to Hinduism, but you can tell yourself that this cherry picking has helped you have uncover the secret meaning of these texts.

        • Bay Area Guy

          @ Dota

          Re: Romanticism

          Hmm, hard to say. There’s always the guilt, or simply the fact that white Westerners are more prone to guilt.

          For example, you don’t see too many Turks romanticizing Armenians, Kurds, or Greeks, or Japanese people romanticizing pre-colonial Koreans.

          (someone correct me if I’m wrong)

          then romanticism is not the gateway to adopting foreign cultural fads as it inherently recognizes the inadequacy of certain non western cultures and tries to compensate for their shortcomings.

          Exactly. It really is just a postmodernist, self-flagellating version of Orientalism. Neither the old school Orientalists or self-hating whites are actually interested in learning about the true nature of the non-Western world.

          I think my greatest accomplishment at the office was to make my boss admit that she was proud of being white. Took me 2 years to do, but I did it

          Ah yes, I remember you telling me about her. White liberals and other white people are not the lost causes that radical WN’s make them out to be.

          I’m currently engaged in a similar project myself.

          I’ve been engaging one of my white liberal Republican (IOW, fiscally conservative, socially liberal) friends in debates regarding immigration and diversity. He’s all for open borders, thinks that countries like Japan are doomed by not accepting immigrants, thinks that all diversity is good because it provides us with “new perspectives,” etc.

          I, in turn, point out the low educational attainment of the West’s largest immigrant groups (ie. Mexicans in the U.S, Pakistanis in Britain, Turks in Germany, etc), how they form an underclass, how there’s race riots, identity politics, etc.

          He remains unconvinced, but I think I know how to get him. I’ll simply point out that his economic Libertarianism is incompatible with open borders and diversity, since poor non-white immigrants, and more importantly, their 2nd generation kids, tend to be liberal, or at the very least, prefer a large government featuring various social services/welfare state functions.

          I’ll succeed as you did, Dota! 🙂

          (BTW, Robert, this isn’t an endorsement of right wing economics, in case you’re wondering)

  33. Xera

    Why can’t the Indians just construct an empire like Imperial Japan?

    • Truth sayer

      We have very ancient Empires and also modern even 1000 years before.
      Read,the Great Rajaraja conquest of all South east Asia and establishing Vedic culture there.
      THOSE, Japan IS LATEST EVENT IN HISTORY WHICH REJUVENATED BASED ON ANCIENT INDIAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN CHINA AND SOUTH EAST ASIA.

    • Hindu Work Ethic

      The population size is to great, that’s why.

  34. Sid Righteous

    Bay Area Guy, you’re wrong or perhaps stuck in the 70s. There’s A LOT of people who are into sanskrit studies, vedic studies, hinduism whatever you want to call it that do not romanticise India or her people. In fact, most of those who were serious enough to actually go to India and in some cases live there longterm do not idealize it at all. But they are very serious about their practice.

  35. Michael

    “As Arthur Danto points out, you can meditate and worship your steak, but the core underlying values of Hinduism are not accessible to the majority of westerners since they are at odds with morality. Despite the prevailing Hindu fad, there will be no major Hinduization of the west. There will always be clowns like yourself who will want to be different, but I cannot see Westerners embracing the mindless and amoral philosophy of the Gita. Good luck to you anyway.”

    Dude, what’s with the anti-religious freedom? Not cool.

    • Truth sayer

      “but I cannot see Westerners embracing the mindless and amoral philosophy of the Gita.”
      Moron!Who expected you to follow!Those things are not created for you but most ancient and followed continuously by Vedic people!
      Vedic philosophy was from ancient days,is still strong and will be in the future!!
      Better,mind your own business!

  36. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini said: “Typical Hindutva lies about “evil westerners” inventing Dravidian=Aryan paradigm. Dravidian and Indo-Aryan are 2 very different linguistic families. This is accepted linguistic fact, and not a political invention by Brits or other Europeans.

    Before the Brits unified India, the Dravidian south was not under the control of the Indo-Aryan speaking north, so really the Brits ultimately rather than dividing the Dravidians from Aryans, ended up giving the Aryan speaking northern elite control over the South. If it hadn’t been for British colonialism, the South might very well have become an independent nation/nations.”
    (Quote)

    @Pepperoncini,

    The issue is not whether Indo-Aryan and Dravidian language families are the same or different but that they are both indigenous to the country! Historically, both the North and the South are bound by a common civilizational heritage
    rooted in Sanskritic Vedic Hinduism. Sanskrit was the lingua franca of the entire country for millenias and the Vedic
    cultural/religious heritage is held in common by both areas of the country. Sanskrit and the Vedic culture originated
    in the Northern parts of the country but it spread to the South long ago and the South has also contributed immensely
    to Vedic Indian culture ,so it is pan-Indian heritage.

    The English did not unify India. That was accomplished by a great Indian statesman named Sardar Vallabhai Patel.
    It was his leadership capacity that that brought the Indian kingdoms togerther in one union . The English
    had nothing to do with it. Patel is also known as the “Indian Bismarck”.

    • Pepperoncini

      Indo-Aryan is but one branch of the Indo-European limguistic tree and as such is NOT indegenous to the SubContinent. To claim Indo-Aryan as indegenous is to claim that Indo-European languages arose in the Subcontinent. No one outside of Hindu/Aryancentrists accept this as a valid theory simply because the evidence does not support this, rather the evidence supports an external source for Indo-Aryan.

      Northern India was Dravidian and Austro Asiatic speaking (might even have had another langauge, the so called Langauge X) prior to Indo-Aryan invasion and colonisation. There are still pockets of Dravidian and Austro Asiatic in Northern India. Oldest Indo-Aryan historical narrative, the Rig Veda shows a Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic substratum proving that non Aryan inhabitants of Northern India were subjugated and assimialted by Indo-Aryans. The dark skin and phenotypes of contemprary inhabitants of the Indo-Aryans speaking north also prove the indegenous ancestry of most northerners. If Aryans were native to the SubContinent, then the vast vast majority of the people should be fair skinned and dolicephalic , a look not unlike Ayatollah Sistani or Ayatollah Khomeni or Slavs.

      Indo-Aryan unlike other Indo-European languages has retroflexion, again proving that formerly Dravidian and or Munda (Austro Asiatic ) speakers underwent language shift. Dravidian is known for its use of retroflexion. If Indo-European originated in the SubCon, it should also have retroflexion and the Dravidian and Munda substratum but even other Indo-Iranian tongues do not show this. There is a lack of Indo-European linguistic diversity in the SubCon, you only have Dardic and Indo-Iranian.If Indo-European was indegenous then the greatest Indo-European lingusitic diversity should be evident in the SubCon.

      An invading/colonising culture’s language imposes itself on the masses and especially the centers of civilization with the conquered inhabitants slowly retreating to edges of society and or niches areas. This is exaclty the case in Northern India where Indo-Aryan tongues are the dominant tongue but pockets of Dravidian and Munda speakers persist amongst poor rural communities living on the edge of society. We can compare it to how in North America, European languages are the dominant languages but there exists pockets of Amerindian languages. Or we can look at the Iberian Peninsula where Indo-European languages are the dominant languages both geographically and in the biggest cities but Basque has a small foothold in their niche area.

      The Rig Veda does not speak about living in a civilization , of cities, urban planning, mercantilism, sea faring and hydraulic engeineering. All this is evident in the Indus Valley civilization. Rig Veda describes a semi nomadic pastoral rural culture , not a civilization.But the Rig does speak about Indo-Aryans destroying dams and subjugating short dark skinned people.

      The gods of the Aryans are: Mithras, Varuna, Nastaya, Diyas Petr and Indra ; the same gods are mirrored amongst the Mitanni elite and some other Indo-European cultures. The Mitanni had an Indo-Aryan elite but the Mitanni empire spoke a non Indo-European language. So we can adduce that Indo-Aryans made up some or most of the elite but were unable to impose their language on the common folk. Mitanni elite lack the gods unique to the Subcontinent like Shiva, Lingam, Murugan.

      What most people call as Hindusim is a NOT 1 religion but rather many different relgions that have been absorbed and co-opted by the Brahminical elite. They did this to control, subjugate and destroy non Aryan Indian identity. To claim the relgious/cultural beliefs of non Aryan India and Ancient India (IVC) as Aryan is like Saudis taking credit for Sumerian culture and claiming all other Semitic and middle Eastern religons as Islamic . IVC has nothing to do with Vedic Aryans, it was a non Aryan / non Indo-European civilization. The Vedic Aryans just co-opted the relgiious beliefs of the IVC and it’s descendents. Dravidian relgious tradition is not Vedic per se though it has been influenced by Ino-Aryans, notably the caste system.

      You are simply trying to deny the heritage, identity and exsistence of Non Aryan India and claim everything for Aryans. Hinduism is just a political and racial scheme that the Aryan priesthood (Brahmins) used to co-opt indegenous beliefs and identity. Hinduism has been constantly evolving and absorbing native beliefs in an attempt to neuter competing cultures .

      No one would accept it If Saudsi tried to take control of Judaism and Christianity and bring it under the umbrella of Islam, yet this is what Hinduism has done and is doing. It just gobbles up any other SubContinent belief system , but it has not succeded against Jainism and Buddhism .

      To sum it up, Hindutva and similar claims are nothing but upper caste Hindus especially Brahmins trying to steal non Aryan culture and civilization and claim it for the Aryans. Aryans were a warlike barbarian tribe of pastoralists, not a permanently settled agriculturalist people who built permanent lasting civlizations like IVC, Sumer or Ancient Egypt. This is no different than when White Supremacists (only some ) try to claim Sumer or Ancient Egypt as White. Hindutva is naked Aryan supremacist propaghanda.

      • Jaipal

        Pepperoncini,

        You are simply rehashing the points that I had already rebutted. I already refuted your retroflexion theory and gave an
        explanation. Look up my earlier answers to you above. It seems you don’t read!
        There is no archaeological evidence, literary evidence for Aryan invasion let alone any memories of such an event
        ever happening. The Linguistic evidence is actually inconclusive in disproving Indian Homeland Theory.
        There is enough evidence from linguistics itself supporting OIT. I have posted a long post below on the linguistic
        situation. Do take the time to read it. Its a bit long but worth it!

        Whats your nationality by the way? Are you Persian by any chance?

  37. Hindu Work Ethic

    “Sanskrit and the Vedic culture originated
    in the Northern parts of the country but it spread to the South long ago and the South has also contributed immensely
    to Vedic Indian culture ,so it is pan-Indian heritage. ”

    Weren’t several the Vedic rishis from the South?

  38. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini said: “It is racial as Aryans put themselves at the top. To claim it isn’t racial is akin to claiming that American slavery or British colonialism wasn’t racial either. Indo-European society traditionally had a 3 fold caste system with warrior royalty at the top followed by the priests/scribes and then the commoners. But in the subcontinent, we see the creation of a 4th caste and untouchables. The fact that the word for caste in Sanskrit is Varna which also means colour is again proof of the racial nature of caste.

    Now it likely wasn’t strictly based on race because for the invading/colonising Aryans to dominate the far more numerous and civilized populace they would have needed to assimilate and co-opt some Indegenous Indians . But there is a definite aspect of race in the caste system. Phenotypic differences just point to this obvious observation.” (Quote)

    @Pepperoncini,

    Your understanding is all wrong. First of all, Varna has many meanings like most Sanskrit words do.
    I agree that color is but ONE of those meanings but not the only one! Maybe you don’t know this but other definitions
    for Varna are “the halo round a god’s head”, ” the color of gold used in Touchstones”, “and the “alphabet”!
    Since the Scholars were working from the premise of race, they arbitrarily decided that it must refer to color!
    The Invasion Theorists failed to explain by what justification they decided that in “Chatur-Varna” (ie. the Four-fold
    system) Varna refers to color! Nor is there any evidence to show that this meaning is the oldest term!
    Nowhwere in the vast Indian literary sources is there any indication that “Chatur-varna” is based on physical color!
    There is no objective source for assuming a color-based division of society. It was simply accepted because it fitted
    into the Aryan Hypothesis. The basic argument is that the scholars worked backwards, forming the concept
    of race from a social definition!

    As far as the Phenotypic argument goes, this too is flawed! If one looks at every province without preconceptions,
    he will find race has nothing to do with caste. India is a sub-continent and it is not surprising that there should be
    various ethnic groups, but in each region both upper and lower castes belong to the same race.
    For example, the Shudra of Punjab is fairer than a South Indian Brahmin or Bengali Brahmin. In short, the people
    of a given geographical area are more genetically related to each other than they are to some distant racial category.
    Therefore, we can’t say that one race has conquered another.

  39. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini,
    You simply indulge in the logical fallacy of character assasination. Typical of your response.
    I was expecting this from you. A few posts above I had given the linguistic arguments against the AIT (Aryan Invasion
    Theory). But you did not provide a rebuttal to my arguments purely from a linguistic angle!! If I am wrong, try and prove
    me wrong using purely factual based analysis! Simply indulging in name calling like “Hindutva this, Hindutva that” cannot
    substitute for a valid counter-argument! It seems you can’t answer those points that I raised above. You didn’t even make
    an attempt. And yet you are talking big. Can there be anything funnier than this! lol.

  40. Hindu Work Ethic

    “Since the Scholars were working from the premise of race, they arbitrarily decided that it must refer to color!”

    Orientalist colonialist literature is ridiculous and much of western academia is not much better. They mapped their own cultural and ethnic biases onto South Asians, and even their own history. Slavery anyone? Even Wendy translated shudra as “slave” when it is well known that South Asia had no system of buying or selling humans and the model was self sufficient village economics where everyone was employed.

    Anyway, all for the best because its reading experiences like that that prompted me to learn Sanskrit for myself.

    Don’t get me started on what passes for “scholastic work” even now, though things are changing as non-orientalising practicioner scholars are churning out great work and being placed in academia. Finally some authenticity is being made available to students.

  41. Jaipal

    @ Pepperoncini, I am going to post those linguistic arguments again so you can read them…

  42. Jaipal

    The Linguistic Evidence

    Erdosy speaks of the “disciplinary divide” between linguistics and archaeology.

    And it is Michael Witzel whom Erdosy pits against the archaeologists whose papers are included in the volume: “Placed against Witzel’s contribution, the paper by J.Shaffer and D. Lichtenstein will illustrate the gulf still separating archaeology and linguistics.”32

    We will not assume that Witzel’s papers in this particular volume represent the sum total of the linguistic evidence, but, since the volume does pit him against the archaeologists, let us examine the linguistic evidence stressed by him.

    According to Erdosy, “M. Witzel begins by stressing the quality of linguistic (and historical) data obtainable from the Rgveda, along with the potential of a study of linguistic stratification, contact and convergence. Next, the evidence of place-names, above all hydronomy, is scrutinised, followed by an evaluation of some of the most frequently invoked models of language change in light of this analysis.”33

    We have already examined Witzel’s “models of language change” by which he seeks to explain away the lack of archaeological evidence. We will now examine “the evidence of place-names, above all hydronomy”, on the basis of which Witzel apparently contests the claims of the archaeologists and proves the Aryan invasion.

    Witzel does not have much to say about place-names. He points out that most of the place-names in England (all names ending in -don, -chester, -ton, -ham, -ey, -wick, etc., like London, Winchester, Uppington, Downham, Westrey, Lerwick, etc.) and in America (like Massachussetts, Wachussetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Chicago, etc) are remnants of older languages which were spoken in these areas.

    But, far from finding similar evidence in respect of India, Witzel is compelled to admit: “In South Asia, relatively few pre-Indo-Aryan place-names survive in the North; however, many more in central and southern India. Indo-Aryan place-names are generally not very old, since the towns themselves are relatively late.”34

    Witzel clearly evades the issue: he refers to “relatively few pre-Indo-Aryan place names” in the North, but judiciously refrains from going into any specifics about these names, or the number of such names.

    He insinuates that there are “many more” pre-Indoaryan place-names in Central and South India, but this is clearly a misleading statement: by Central India, he obviously means the Austric-language speaking areas, and by South India, he definitely means the Dravidian-language speaking areas, and perhaps other areas close to these. So, if these areas have Austric or Dravidian place-names respectively, does it prove anything?

    And, finally, he suggests that the paucity (or rather absence) of any “pre-Indo-Aryan” place-names in the North is because the towns concerned “are relatively late” (ie. came into being after the Aryan influx). This excuse is rather strange: the Indus people, alleged to be “pre-Indo-Aryans” did have towns and cities, but no alleged earlier place-names have survived, while the American Indians (in the U.S.A.) did not have large towns and cities, but their place-names have survived in large numbers.

    Witzel goes into more detail in respect of the hydronomes (ie. names of rivers), but the results of his investigation, and even his own comments on them, are intriguing.

    According to Witzel: “A better case for the early linguistic and ethnic history of South Asia can be made by investigating the names of rivers. In Europe river-names were found to reflect the languages spoken before the influx of Indo-European speaking populations. They are thus older than c. 4500-2500 BC (depending on the date of the spread of Indo-European languages in various parts of Europe). It would be fascinating to gain a similar vantage point for the prehistory of South Asia.”35

    It is indeed fascinating. Witzel finds, to his chagrin, that “in northern India, rivers in general have early Sanskrit names from the Vedic period, and names derived from the daughter languages of Sanskrit later on.”36

    Witzel tries to introduce the non-Aryan element into the picture: “River names in northern India are thus principally Sanskrit, with few indications of Dravidian, MuNDa or Tibeto-Burmese names. However, Kosala, with its uncharacteristic -s- after -o- may be Tibeto-Burmese (Sanskrit rules would demand KoSala or KoSala, a corrected form that is indeed adopted in the Epics).”37 Likewise, “there has been an almost complete Indo-Aryanisation in northern India; this has progressed much less in southern India and in the often inaccessible parts of central India. In the northwest there are only a few exceptions, such as the names of the rivers GangA, SutudrI and perhaps KubhA (Mayrhofer, 1956-1976).”38

    Thus, there are four river-names which he tries to connect with “pre-Indo-Aryan” languages. But three of them, Kosala, SutudrI and KubhA are clearly Indo-European names (the hairsplitting about the letter -s- in Kosala is a typical “linguistic” ploy which we will refer to later on in our examination of linguistic substrata), and only GaNgA is generally accepted as a possible non-Indo-European name.

    But the answer to this is given by Witzel himself: “Rivers often carry different names, sometimes more than two, along their courses. Even in a homogenous, monolingual country, such as Japan, this can be the case as names change as soon as the river passes through a major mountain range. In South Asia, to quote one well-known example, the BhAgIrathI and AlaknandA become the GaNgA. This increases the probability of multiple names from various languages for one and the same river of which only one may have survived in our sources.”39 (It may be noted that the Rigveda itself refers to the river as both GaNgA and JahnAvI).

    Witzel cannot escape the “evidence of hydronomy” as he calls it, and he tries to explain it away by suggesting that “there has been an almost complete Indo-Aryanisation”40 of the river-names in northern India.

    But his explanation rings hollow: “The Indo-Aryan influence, whether due to actual settlement, acculturation, or, if one prefers, the substitution of Indo-Aryan names for local ones, was powerful enough from early on to replace local names, in spite of the well-known conservatism of river-names. This is especially surprising in the area once occupied by the Indus civilization, where one would have expected the survival of earlier names, as has been the case in Europe and the Near East. At the least, one would expect a palimpsest, as found in New England, with the name of the State of Massachussetts next to the Charles River formerly called the Massachussetts River, and such new adaptations as Stony Brook, Muddy Creek, Red River, etc. next to the adaptations of Indian names such as the Mississippi and the Missouri. The failure to preserve old hydronomes even in the Indus Valley (with a few exceptions noted above) indicates the extent of the social and political collapse experienced by the local population.”41

    Apart from anything else, does this last bit at all harmonize with the claim made elsewhere in the same volume (to explain the lack of archaeological-anthropological evidence of any invasion) that the “Indo-Aryanisation” of the northwest was a “gradual and complex” rather than a “cataclysmic” event?

    Witzel starts out with the intention of pitting the linguistic evidence of place-names and river-names against the evidence of archaeology; and he ends up having to try and argue against, or explain away, this linguistic evidence, since it only confirms the archaeological evidence.

    The long and short of the evidence of place-names and river-names is as follows:

    The place-names and river-names in Europe, to this day, represent pre-Indo-European languages spoken in Europe before 2500 BC. The same is the case with Armenia: “among the numerous personal and place-names handed down to us from Armenia up to the end of the Assyrian age, there is absolutely nothing Indo-European.”42 And with Greece and Anatolia: “numerous place-names… show that Indo-Europeans did not originate in Greece. The same can be said for Italy and Anatolia.”43

    On the other hand, northern India is the only place where place-names and river-names are Indo-European right from the period of the Rigveda (a text which Max Müller refers to as “the first word spoken by the Aryan man”) with no traces of any alleged earlier non-Indo-European names.

    Witzel’s attitude towards this evidence is typical of the generally cavalier attitude of Western scholars towards inconvenient evidence in the matter of Indo-European origins: he notes that the evidence is negative, finds it “surprising” that it should be so, makes an offhand effort to explain it away, and then moves on.

    And, later on, in his second paper included in the volume, he actually refers complacently to the whole matter: “in view of the discussion of hydronomy and place-names in the previous paper, it is also interesting that the Indo-Aryans could not, apparently, pronounce local names.”44

    But, like it or not, the evidence of place-names and river-names is a very important factor in locating the Indo-European homeland in any particular area. And India, and India alone, passes this test with flying colours.

  43. Jaipal

    THE EVIDENCE OF LINGUISTIC ISOGLOSSES

    One linguistic phenomenon which is of great help to linguists in their efforts to chalk out the likely scenario of the migration schedule of the various Indo-European branches from the original homeland, is the phenomenon of linguistic isoglosses.

    A linguistic isogloss is a linguistic feature which is found in some of the branches of the family, and is not found in the others.

    This feature may, of course, be either an original feature of the parent Proto-Indo-European language which has been lost in some of the daughter branches but retained in others, or a linguistic innovation, not found in the parent Proto-Indo-European language, which developed in some of the daughter branches but not in the others. But this feature is useful in establishing early historico-geographical links between branches which share the same isogloss.

    We will examine the evidence of the isoglosses as follows:

    A. The Isoglosses
    B. The Homeland Indicated by the Isoglosses
    III.A. The Isoglosses

    There are, as Winn points out, “ten ‘living branches’… Two branches, Indic (Indo-Aryan) and Iranian dominate the eastern cluster. Because of the close links between their classical forms – Sanskrit and Avestan respectively – these languages are often grouped together as a single Indo-Iranian branch.”59 But Meillet notes: “It remains quite clear, however, that Indic and Iranian evolved from different Indo-European dialects whose period of common development was not long enough to effect total fusion.”60

    Besides these ten living branches, there are two extinct branches, Anatolian (Hittite) and Tocharian.

    Of these twelve branches, one branch, Illyrian (Albanian), is of little use in this study of isoglosses: “Albanian… has undergone so many influences that it is difficult to be certain of its relationships to the other Indo-European languages.”61

    An examination of the isoglosses which cover the other eleven branches (living and extinct) gives a more or less clear picture of the schedule of migrations of the different Indo-European branches from the original homeland.

    Whatever the dispute about the exact order in which the different branches migrated away from the homeland, the linguists are generally agreed on two important points:

    1. Anatolian (Hittite) was the first branch to leave the homeland: “The Anatolian languages, of which Hittite is the best known, display many archaic features that distinguish them from other Indo-European languages. They apparently represent an earlier stage of Indo-European, and are regarded by many as the first group to break away from the proto-language.”62

    2. Four branches, Indic, Iranian, Hellenic (Greek) and Thraco-Phrygian (Armenian) were the last branches remaining behind in the original homeland after the other branches had dispersed:

    “After the dispersals of the early PIE dialects,… there were still those who remained… Among them were the ancestors of the Greeks and Indo-Iranians…63

    “Greek and Sanskrit share many complex grammatical features: this is why many earlier linguists were misled into regarding them as examples of the most archaic stage of Proto-Indo-European. However, the similarities between the two languages are now regarded as innovations that took place during a late period of PIE , which we call stage III. One of these Indo-Greek innovations was also shared by Armenian; all these languages it seems, existed in an area of mutual interaction.”64

    Thus we get: “Greek Armenian, Phrygian, Thracian and Indo-Iranian. These languages may represent a comparatively late form of Indo-European, including linguistic innovations not present in earlier stages. In particular, Greek and Indic share a number of distinctive grammatical features……”65

    The following are some of the innovations shared only by Indic, Iranian, Greek and Armenian (Thraco-Phrygian); features which distinguish them from the other branches, particularly the other living branches:

    a. “The prohibitive negation *mE is attested only in Indo-Iranian (mA), Greek (mE) and Armenian (mi); elsewhere, it is totally lacking… and there is no difference in this respect between the ancient and modern stages of Greek, Armenian or Persian”;66 or, for that matter, sections of Indic (eg. the prohibitive negation mat in Hindi).

    b. “In the formation of the Perfect also, there is a clear ‘distinction’ between Indo-Iranian and Armenian and Greek on the one hand, and all of the other languages on the other.”67

    c. The “Indo-European voiceless aspirated stops are completely attested only in Indo-Iranian and Armenian… Greek… clearly preserves two of the three voiceless aspirated stops whose existence is established by the correspondence of Indo-Iranian and Armenian.”68 All the other branches show “complete fusion”69 of these voiceless aspirated stops.

    d. “The suffix *-tero-, *-toro-, *-tro- serves in bell Indo-European languages to mark the opposition of two qualities, but only in two languages, Greek and Indo-Iranian, is the use of the suffix extended to include the formation of secondary adjectival comparatives… This development, by its very difference, points to the significance of the Greek and Indo-Iranian convergence… Armenian, which has a completely new formation, is not instructive in this regard.”70 But, “Latin, Irish, Germanic, Lithuanian and Slavic, on the other hand, borrow their secondary comparative from the original primary type.”71

    e. “The augment is attested only in Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Greek; it is found nowhere else.”72 And it is “significant that the augment is not found in any of the other Indo-European languages… The total absence of the augment in even the earliest texts, and in all the dialects of Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, is characteristic.”73

    Hence, “the manner in which Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic eliminated the imperfect and came to express the preterite presupposes an original, Indo-European, absence of the augment throughout this group of languages. We thus have grounds for positing two distinct Indo-European dialect groups.”74

    f. The division of the Indo-European branches into two distinct groups is confirmed by what Meillet calls the Vocabulary of the Northwest: “There is quite a large group of words that appear in the dialects of the North and West (Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic) but are not found in the others (Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek)… their occurrence in the dialects of the North and West would indicate a cultural development peculiar to the peoples who spread these dialects.”75
    While Anatolian (Hittite) was “the first group to break away from the protolanguage”, and Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek were “those who remained” after “the dispersals of the early PIE dialects”, the other branches share isoglosses which can help in placing them between these two extremes:

    1. “Hittite, the first to separate itself, shares many isoglosses with Germanic and Tocharian.”76

    2. “Celtic, Italic, Hittite, Tocharian and (probably) Phrygian share an interesting isogloss: the use of ‘r’ to indicate the passive forms of verbs. This feature… does not occur in any other Indo-European language.”77

    3. Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavonic, as we have seen, constitute one distinct group (in contradistinction to another distinct group consisting of Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek).

    However, within themselves, these five branches link together as follows:

    a. Italic and Celtic: “Comparative linguists have long been aware of the links between Italic and Celtic, which share a number of archaic features. These links suggest that the two branches developed together.”78 Among other things: “Vocabulary is identical in parts; this is true of some very important words, particularly prepositions and preverbs.”79

    b. Baltic and Slavonic: “The general resemblance of Baltic and Slavic is so apparent that no-one challenges the notion of a period of common development… Baltic and Slavic are the descendants of almost identical Indo-European dialects. No important isogloss divides Baltic from Slavic… the vocabularies of Slavic and Baltic show numerous cognates – more precisely, cognates that are found nowhere else or cognates that in Baltic and Slavic have a form different from their form in other languages.”80

    c. Italic, Celtic and Germanic: “The Germanic, Celtic and Italic idioms present… certain common innovational tendencies.”81 But, Italic apparently separated from the other two earlier: “Germanic, Celtic and Italic underwent similar influences. After the Italic-Celtic period, Italic ceased undergoing these influences and underwent others… Germanic and Celtic, remaining in adjacent regions, developed in part along parallel lines.”82

    d. Germanic, Baltic and Slavonic: “Because Germanic shares certain important features with Baltic and Slavic, we may speculate that the history of the three groups is linked in some way.”83

    To go into more precise detail: “The difference between a dative plural with *-bh-, eg. Skr.-bhyah, Av. -byO, Lat. -bus, O.Osc. -fs, O.Ir.-ib, Gr. -fi(n), and one with *-m-, eg. Goth. -m, O.Lith. -mus, Ol.Sl. -mU, is one of the first things to have drawn attention to the problem of Indo-European dialectology. Since it has been established, principally by A. Leskien, that there was no unity of Germanic, Baltic and Slavic postdating the period of Indo-European unity, the very striking similarity of Germanic, Baltic and Slavic which we observe here cannot… be explained except by a dialectical variation within common Indo-European.”84 It is, therefore, clear “that these three languages arose from Indo-European dialects exhibiting certain common features.”85

    To sum up, we get two distinct groups of branches:

    Group A: Hittite, Tocharian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavonic.

    Group B: Indic, Iranian, Thraco-Phrygian (Armenian), Hellenic (Greek).

    No major isogloss cuts across the dividing line between the two groups to suggest any alternative grouping: the phenomenon of palatalization appears to do so, but it is now recognized as “a late phenomenon” which took place in “a post-PIE era in which whatever unity that once existed had broken down and most of the dialect groups had dispersed”,86 and we will examine the importance of this phenomenon later on.

    Other similarities between languages or branches which lie on opposite sides of the above dividing line are recognizable as phenomena which took place after the concerned branches had reached their historical habitats, and do not, therefore, throw any light on the location of the original homeland or the migration-schedule of the branches.

    The following are two examples of such similarities:

    1. The Phrygian language appears to share the “r-isogloss” which is found only in the Hittite, Tocharian, Italic and Celtic branches. However:

    a. The Phrygian language is known only from fragments, and many of the linguistic features attributed to it are speculative. About the “r-isogloss”, it may be noted, Winn points out that it is shared by “Celtic, Italic, Hittite, Tocharian and (probably) Phrygian”.87

    b. Armenian, the only living member of the Thraco-Phrygian branch, does not share the “r-isogloss”, and nor did the ancient Thracian language.

    c. The seeming presence of this isogloss in Phrygian is clearly due to the influence of Hittite, with which it shared its historical habitat: “Phrygian later replaced Hittite as the dominant language of Central Anatolia.”88

    2. Greek and Italic alone share the change of Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirated stops (bh, dh, gh) into voiceless aspirated stops (ph, th, kh). Sanskrit is the only language to have retained the original voiced aspirated stops, while all the other branches, except Greek and Italic, converted them into unaspirated stops (b, d, g).

    But this similarity between Greek and Italic is because “when Indo-European languages were brought to Mediterranean people unfamiliar with voiced aspirated stops, this element brought about the process of unvoicing”,89 and this change took place in the two branches “both independently and along parallel lines”.90 Hence, this is not an isogloss linking the two branches.

    Therefore, it is clear that the two groups represent two distinct divisions of the Indo-European family.

    III. B. The Homeland Indicated by the Isoglosses

    The pattern of isoglosses shows the following order of migration of the branches of Group A:

    1. Hittite.
    2. Tocharian.
    3. Italic-Celtic.
    4. Germanic.
    5. Baltic-Slavonic.
    Some of these branches share certain isoglosses among themselves which represent innovations which they must have developed in common after their departure from the original homeland, since the remaining branches (Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek) do not share these isoglosses.

    This clearly indicates the presence of a secondary homeland, outside the exit-point from the original homeland, which must have functioned as an area of settlement and common development for the migrating branches.

    The only homeland theory which fits in with the evidence of the isoglosses is the Indian homeland theory:

    The exit-point for the migrating branches was Afghanistan, and these branches migrated towards the north from Afghanistan into Central Asia, which clearly functioned as the secondary homeland for emigrating branches.

    As Winn points out: “Evidence from isoglosses… shows that the dispersal cannot be traced to one particular event; rather it seems to have occured in bursts or stages.”91

    Hittite was the first to emigrate from Afghanistan into Central Asia, followed by Tocharian.

    Italic-Celtic represented the next stage of emigration. The four branches developed the “r-isogloss” in common.

    Germanic was the next branch to enter the secondary homeland, and it developed some isoglosses in common with Hittite and Tocharian.

    The Baltic-Slavonic movement apparently represented the last major emigration. And its sojourn in the secondary homeland was apparently not long enough for it to develop any isoglosses in common with Hittite or Tocharian.

    The five branches (Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavonic, in that order) later moved further off, north-westwards, into the area to the north of the Caspian Sea, and subsequently formed part of the Kurgan III migrations into Europe. The Slavonic and Baltic branches settled down in the eastern parts of Europe, while the other three proceeded further into Europe. Later, the Italic branch moved towards the south, while the Germanic and Celtic branches moved to the north and west.

    Meanwhile, the other branches (barring Indic), Greek Armenian and Iranian, as also, perhaps, the one branch (Illyrian or Albanian) which we have not taken into consideration so far, migrated westwards from India by a different and southern route.

    The scholars, now, generally accept the evidence of the isoglosses, so far as it concerns the schedule of migrations of the different Indo-European branches from the original homeland, or the interrelationships between different branches. However, when it comes to determining the actual location of the original homeland, on the basis of this evidence, they abandon their objective approach and try to make it appear as if the evidence fits in with the particular homeland theory advocated by them, even when it is as clear as daylight that they are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

    The homeland theory generally advocated by the scholars is the South Russian homeland theory. Shan M.M. Winn advocates the “Pontic-Caspian area” within this region as the particular location of the homeland.

    An examination shows that the South Russian homeland theory (“Pontic-Caspian” or otherwise) is totally incompatible with the evidence of the isoglosses:

    1. To begin with, it is clear that we have two distinct groups of branches, which we have already classified as Group A and Group B.

    As per the evidence of the isoglosses, the branches in Group A are the branches which migrated away from the original homeland, and those in Group B are the branches which remained behind in the homeland after the other branches had departed.

    At the same time, all the branches in Group A are found to the north of the Eurasian mountain chain (except for Hittite in Anatolia, but this branch is known to have migrated into Anatolia from the north-east), while all the branches in Group B are found to the south of the Eurasian mountain chain (the northernmost, Greek, is known to have migrated into southeastern Europe from the south-east).

    The logical corollary should have been that the original homeland is also to the south of the Eurasian mountain chain, and that it is located in the historical habitat of one of the branches in Group B.

    However, the scholars regularly advocate homeland theories which place the homeland in the area of one or the other of the branches in Group A.

    2. The branches in Group A developed certain isoglosses in common after they had migrated away from the homeland. As we have pointed out, this makes it likely that there was a secondary homeland where they must have developed these isoglosses.

    However, any homeland theory which locates the homeland in a central area, like South Russia or any area around it, makes the location of this secondary homeland a problem: the Tocharian branch is historically located well to the east of South Russia, the Hittite branch is located well to the south of South Russia, and the Germanic and Italic-Celtic branches are located well to the west of South Russia. It is difficult to think of a way in which all these branches could have moved together in one direction from South Russia before parting from each other and moving off in totally opposite directions.

    It is perhaps to avoid this problem that Winn suggests that the isoglosses shared in common by these branches are not innovations developed by these branches in common, but archaic features which have been retained by otherwise separately migrating branches.

    In respect of the r-isogloss, for example, Winn puts it as follows: “Celtic, Italic, Hittite, Tocharian, and (probably) Phrygian share an interesting isogloss: the use of ‘r’ to indicate the passive forms of verbs. This feature, which does not occur in any other Indo-European language, is probably an example of the ‘archaism of the fringe’ phenomenon. When a language is spread over a large territory, speakers at the fringe of that territory are likely to be detached from what goes on at the core. Linguistic innovations that take place at the core may never find their way out to peripheral areas; hence dialects .spoken on the fringe tend to preserve archaic features that have long since disappeared from the mainstream… Tocharian… was so remote from the center that it could hardly have taken part in any innovations.”92

    However, it is more logical to treat this isogloss as an innovation developed in common by a few branches after their departure from the homeland, than to postulate that all the other, otherwise disparate, branches eliminated an original “use of ‘r’ to indicate the passive forms of verbs”.

    3. What is indeed an example of the “archaism of the fringe” phenomenon is the phenomenon of palatalization.

    Winn describes it as follows: “Palatalization must have been a late phenomenon; that is, we date it to a post-PIE era, in which whatever unity that once existed had now broken down, and most of the dialect groups had dispersed: looking at the geographical distribution of this isogloss, we may note its absence from the peripheral languages: Germanic (at the northwest limit of Indo-European language distribution); Celtic (western limit); Italic, Greek and Hittite (southern limit); and Tocharian (eastern limit). It is the languages at the center that have changed. Here, at the core, a trend towards palatalization started; then gradually spread outward. It never reached far enough to have any effect on the outlying languages.”93

    Note that Winn calls it a “post-PIE era, in which whatever unity that once existed had now broken down, and most of the dialect groups had dispersed”, and that he locates every single other branch (except Indic and Iranian), including Greek, in its historical habitat. He does not specifically name Baltic-Slavonic and Armenian, but it is understood that they are also located in their historical habitats, since he implies that they are “the languages at the centre” (ie. languages in and around South Russia, which is, anyway, the historical habitat of these branches).

    Indic and Iranian alone are not located by him in their historical habitats, since that would clearly characterize them as the most “peripheral” or “outlying” branches of all, being located at the extreme southern as well as extreme eastern limit of the Indo-European language distribution. And this would completely upset his pretty picture of an evolving “center” with archaic “outlying languages”, since the most outlying of the branches would turn out to be the most palatalized of them all. Hence, Winn without expressly saying so, but with such a location being implicit in his argument, locates all the other branches, including Greek, in their historical habitats, but only the Indic and Iranian branches well outside their historical habitats and still in South Russia, and keeps his fingers crossed over the possibility of the anomaly being noticed.

    Here we see, once again, how the manipulation required to locate the Indo-European homeland in South Russia compels the scholars, again and again, to postulate weird and unnatural schedules of migrations which make the Indo-Iranians the last to leave South Russia, and which locate them in South Russia long after all the other branches, including Greek, are already settled in their historical habitats: a picture which clashes sharply with, among other things, the extremely representative nature of the Rigvedic language and mythology, the purely Indian geographical milieu of the Rigveda (and the movement depicted in it from east to west, as we have seen in this book), and the evidence of the names of places and rivers in northern India right from the period of the Rigveda itself.

    The “late phenomenon” of a “trend towards palatalization” which started “at the core” and “then gradually -spread outward”, and “never reached far enough to have any effect on the outlying languages”, can be explained naturally only on the basis of the Indian homeland theory: the trend started in the “core area”, in north and northwest India, and spread outwards as far as the innermost of the branches in Group A: Baltic and Slavonic, but not as far as the outermost of the branches in Group B: Greek.

    Incidentally, here is how Meillet94 depicts the interrelationships between the various extant branches (he does not include Hittite and Tocharian in the picture, but it is clear that they will fall in the same group as Germanic, Celtic and Italic). (Figure on next page.)

    While the north-south axis clearly divides the non-palatalized branches in the west from the palatalized branches in the east (where we must locate the “core” area where palatalization started), the northeast-southwest axes neatly divide the branches into the three tribal groupings testified by Indian literary records, (click on next link).

    Click Here

    Click Here

    4. More than anything else, the one aspect of the evidence of the isoglosses, which disproves the South Russian theory, is the close relationship between Indic or Indo-Iranian and Greek, which is not satisfactorily explained by any homeland theory other than the Indian homeland theory.

    In dismissing Colin Renfrew’s Anatolian homeland theory, Winn cites this as the single most important factor in disproving the theory: “All the migrations postulated by Renfrew ultimately stem from a single catalyst: the crossing of Anatolian farmers into Greece… For all practical purposes, Renfrew’s hypothesis disregards Tocharian and Indo-Iranian.”95

    Supporters of Renfrew’s theory, Winn points out, “have tried to render the Indo-Iranian problem moot. They argue that the Indo-Iranian branch was somehow divided from the main body of Proto-Indo-European before the colonists brought agriculture to the Balkans. Greek and Indic are thus separated by millenniums of linguistic change – despite the close grammatical correspondences between them (as we saw in Chapter 12, these correspondences probably represent shared innovations from the last stage of PIE).”96

    Winn’s very valid argument against the Anatolian theory is just as applicable to the South Russian homeland theory, or any other theory which seeks to bring Indic and Iranian into their historical habitats through Central Asia: this involves an extremely long period of separation from Greek, which does not fit into the evidence of the isoglosses which shows that Indic and Greek have many “shared innovations from the last stage of PIE”.

    Archaeology, for one, completely rules out any links between the alleged Proto-Indo-Iranians located by these scholars in Central Asia, and the Greeks: Winn, as we saw, tries to identify the Andronovo culture which “covers much of the Central Asian Steppe east of the Ural river and Caspian Sea”,97 with the “Proto-Indo-Iranians” during their alleged sojourn in Central Asia.

    However, not only does he admit that “it is still a hazardous task to connect (this) archaeological evidence of Indo-Iranians in the Central Asian Steppe with the appearance of Iranian (Aryan) and Indic (Indo-Aryan) tribes in Iran, Afghanistan and India,”98 but he also accepts that these so-called Proto-Indo-Iranians in Central Asia have “no links with… south-eastern Europe”,99 ie. with the Greeks.

    It is only the Indian homeland theory which fits in with the evidence of the isoglosses. It may be noted again that:

    a. The evidence of the isoglosses suggests that the Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek branches, as well as the Albanian branch, were the last to remain behind in the original homeland after the departure of the other branches.

    b. These (naturally, barring Indic) are also the same branches which show connections with the BhRgus/ AtharvaNas, while those which departed show connections with the Druhyus.

    c. Again, all these branches form a long belt to the south of the Eurasian mountain chain, while the other (departed) branches are found to its north.

    d. And, finally, these are the only branches which are actually recorded in the DASarAjña hymns as being present in the Punjab area during the time of SudAs.

    • Hindu Work Ethic

      Jaipal, I like your contributions here but I have to ask you – are you one of those racist, xenophobic desis with a superioritiy complex who wants westerners to praise India and Hinduism and feels proud when we do but then thinks your superior to us and never really accepts us?

      We’ve had plenty of experiences with Hindus like that, one reason why we say only Westerners should teach other Westerners about Hinduism.

      • Xera

        He most likely copy/pasted everything so they are not really his “contributions”, also why would any Indian feel superior about anything? Their country is absolute shit and full of decay as pointed out by people here, the British shat all over them as well the Aryans, Muslim invaders, etc they can’t even build enough toilets let alone conquer anything. It’s a complete and utter shithole, otherwise there wouldn’t even be “desis” in the West and the term wouldn’t even exist.

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          This is where I used to pipe up and defend them (because of my interest in Hinduism) but not anymore. I’ve had too many negative experiences with Desis. Not just Hindus, Muslims as well. So that’s why I want an answer from Jaipal. So many of them seem to want India and Hinduism to be accepted or even praised, but they don’t reciprocate that.

          Jaipal – answers!

        • Pepperoncini

          Probably lifted most all from the Hindutva playbook, though might have modified it be in his own words.

          The IVC was the 1st civilization to have plumbing for the masses and not just the elites, it was a society that rather than build a few ostentatious glorious structures for the benefit of the few decided to build a city that tried to provide comfortable living for the many. It is very modern in this regard.

          While most places progress, India regressed such that hundreds of millions now don’t even have the luxury their forefathers had 4 millenia ago. We go from a civilization known for providing toilets and plumbing to the masses to a country known all over the world for lack of plumbing and filth. Indian upper class should feel shame and embrassement at the state of the country but that assumes they have the ability to feel shame.

        • Truth sayer

          You people dont know anything except repeating of your Hindutva gossip!!
          So,you mean to say those with talking with most scientific basis using recent archaeology and genetics of the experts as HIndutva while talking all kind of rubbish opinions and approximations as history is non HIndutva! Is it?
          Better,than we proud to be Hindutva than to be a brainless creature!

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          What’s “hindutva”? First time I’m seeing that word.

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          “It’s a complete and utter shithole, otherwise there wouldn’t even be “desis” in the West and the term wouldn’t even exist.”

          Deshi is an Indian word that has existed long before you ever heard of “desi”. Deshi ghee!

        • Jaipal

          Xera,
          The linguistic points I mentioned above are arguments against AIT.
          I only posted it for the benefit of Pepperoncini so he could read the arguments
          and see from where I am coming from! The reason so we could have an informed
          debate. He is free to provide a rebuttal if he can. The ball is in his court.

          As for your historical pronouncements go about British, Aryans, Muslim Invaders etc,
          maybe you haven’t been following the debate. Whether an Aryan invasion actually happened or not is a debatable issue and not really proven fact. There is no hard evidence
          that proves this alleged invasion. So it may not be true at all.
          The Muslim invaders of the Medieval period were defeated in hundreds of battles and
          finally put-down by the Marathas in the final round. We had this discussion already
          in the Bangladesh thread. The Mughals were simply no match for the Marathas.
          That may be hard for you to digest as a Muslim!

          Your talk is quite rich for an Egyptian. Your Egypt is actually a real shit-hole
          cause thats why you are in America in the first place! If Egypt is that great, why don’t
          you stay there, Xera?? You Egyptians were conquered by everybody so you guys shouldn’t be talking about strenght!

      • Jaipal

        @Hindu Work Ethic,

        Actually I am a very simple, down to earth type of a guy without
        any of that superiority feeling. I personally like Western people
        just for who they are. The reason I am posting about these topics is
        to help in demystifying erroneus aspects of Indian history that have
        clouded the understanding of Indian culture/Hinduism etc. That is all.

        I really admire your down to earth way of thinking, Hindu Work Ethic.
        I Wish you the best in your continued studies on Hinduism.

        • Hindu Work Ethic

          Thanks for the best wishes Jaipal and same to you. I know that there are some really nice and down to earth desis out there. But the others give a bad name to all. I’ve heard that the really good, simple and kind ones are in India. Maybe I’ll make a trip someday. I’ve always wanted to see the magnificent temples and Ellora caves.

          My sanskrit studies are coming along slowly but regularly. It makes me cry that I spent so much time reading sub standard english translations, even including some academic ones that simply did not have the philosophical background to translate some concepts accurately. Oh well, live and learn.

  44. Hindu Work Ethic

    Jaipal, good stuff but sooooooooo long. Too long for a comments section. Its more appropriate if you start your own blog. If you do I’ll read it. 🙂

  45. Pepperoncini

    Jaipal
    I see you repeating the tired old Hindutva canard that there is no hard evidence for an Aryan invasion. What is this hard evidence supposed to be? There is no ‘hard evidence’ for Scythian, Arab, Persian , Greek conquests either but who is going to argue that these groups didn’t conquer parts of Northern India.

    What entails hard evidence.

    The reason North Indian Shudra can be fairer skinned than South Indian Brahmins is because the North saw the brunt of the Aryan colonisation, and invasions by umpteen other fair skinned groups, most of whom were Caucasoids . South Indian Brahmins mixed with Dravidians and owing to the South’s geographical position, it did not expereince the multitudes of invaders the North did.

    Rape, slavery, concubines, Temple prostitution were all part and parcel of Aryan culture so why is it any wonder that Shudra Northerners would be fairer than many Brahmin southerners. Hinduism has a history of high caste men raping lower caste women and Shudra was the 4th caste, the ones who were not considered the twice born. Also Caste system allowed for lower caste women to marry upper caste men but not vice versa.

    Throughout history invading males often rape and take/procreate with local females while killing and or otherwise preventing (as best they can) the vanquished local males from passing on their genes. Does any seriously question why there are soo many Mexicans and South Americans who while having visible Amerindian phenotypes also display European phenotypes such as light skin. Or why Penninsula Arab Y-Hap group J1c mirrors the spread of Islam in North Afica and the Middle East .

    • Jaipal

      Pepperoncini said: “Jaipal
      I see you repeating the tired old Hindutva canard that there is no hard evidence for an Aryan invasion. What is this hard evidence supposed to be? There is no ‘hard evidence’ for Scythian, Arab, Persian , Greek conquests either but who is going to argue that these groups didn’t conquer parts of Northern India.

      What entails hard evidence. ” (Quote)

      Pepperoncini,

      I had answered these points in many posts above, but it seems you didn’t read it. So, I’m going to repeat for you.
      The reason I am repeating the “hindutva canard” of there being no hard evidence for an Aryan Invasion is because
      that is the reality and without evidence of any kind you can’t just assume that such a scenario ever happened!
      There has to be something going for it at some level to warrant such a view. Now, you and I never lived in 1500 BC
      or 2000 BC to see what really happened, so how can you say that there was an invasion, in the absence of any
      conclusive evidence?? Therefore, we have to look at whatever evidence may exist on this topic and try to intelligently
      extrapolate, without going off on a tangent! Looking at the evidence-based part of the debate, where existing,
      it can be said that the OIT has more going for it than the AIT. The scales tip in favor of OIT rather than
      the AIT. You can read carefully my linguistic posts above to see that! If you can, try and refute it!

      As far as those invaders are concerned, there is in fact “hard evidence” for these invasions in the form of epigraphs/
      inscriptions, numismatic evidence and even written records which prove them. But there is none for “Aryan invasion”.

  46. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini said: ” There is no ‘hard evidence’ for Scythian, Arab, Persian , Greek conquests either but who is going to argue that these groups didn’t conquer parts of Northern India. ” (Quote)

    @Pepperoncini,

    In addition to there actually being evidence for these invasions, if there was no evidence of any kind, then how do you
    know that these invasions even happened in the first place?? How did you get to know about it?? Obviously,
    because there is SOME evidence. Thats why.

    The last part of your statement is factually wrong. The invaders managed to invade some parts of what is
    present day Pakistan, not really Northern India! So, please be a little geography specific. Those parts
    they managed to invade were peripheral, unimportant parts of the frontier. Those areas were largely depopulated
    after the decline of Indus Valley Civilization. That is why you don’t see any large states in that region historically.
    The Indian Imperial powers were located well to the east of the Indus river, in what is present Northern India.
    The Invaders could never really get that far and if they did manage to make it, they were driven back to the Northwest
    and kept contained there.

  47. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini said: “The reason North Indian Shudra can be fairer skinned than South Indian Brahmins is because the North saw the brunt of the Aryan colonisation, and invasions by umpteen other fair skinned groups, most of whom were Caucasoids . South Indian Brahmins mixed with Dravidians and owing to the South’s geographical position, it did not expereince the multitudes of invaders the North did. ” (Quote)

    @Pepperoncini,

    No, I’m afraid you are mistaken. As for the Aryan colonisation, I already pointed out that there is no evidence for that,
    so you’re simply assuming something that never happened. As far as North Indian Shudra being fairer than South Indian
    Brahmins, that is because North Indians as a whole, are on average, much lighter than Southern Indians.
    The South Indian Brahmins are mostly locally raised priesthood that were trained by small migrating North Indian
    brahmin clans from the North. Only SOME Brahmin clans of the South are from the North, not all or even the majority.
    Being a Brahmin has nothing to do with race, it has to do with performing certain duties and rituals to the greater
    Hindu society. A Brahmin who neglects his duties is no longer considered a Brahmin, according to Hindu scriptures!
    Therefore, it is not race based criteria to be a Brahmin.

    As for the Shudras, they are not the product of any rape as you falsely claim. They are also considered as part of the
    Hindu society. The Shudras are simply, what we would call in modern times, “blue collared workers” of the society!
    They did the labor jobs as well as farming and other manual type of labor. That is all. This is because Hindu society
    being a civilized society needed these types of people too, just as any modern civilization needs such people even today!
    The Shudras have no connection with any invaders as you claim as they are part of Hindu society. Invaders could
    never become a part of Hindu society as the Hindu society fought them and finally eliminated them from the
    country! Northern Indians have always been lighter skinned and this has nothing to do with any mixing with any
    caucasoid invader as you claim. Also, you over-exaggerate the impact of these invaders. I pointed out that they
    never affected present Northern India, only parts of Pakistan were affected! Indian society has been largely
    endogamous and not exogamous by nature, therefore it is quite pure!

  48. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini said: “Rape, slavery, concubines, Temple prostitution were all part and parcel of Aryan culture so why is it any wonder that Shudra Northerners would be fairer than many Brahmin southerners. Hinduism has a history of high caste men raping lower caste women and Shudra was the 4th caste, the ones who were not considered the twice born. Also Caste system allowed for lower caste women to marry upper caste men but not vice versa.” (Quote)

    @Pepperoncini,

    There are quite a few errors in your above statement. First of all, Hindu society never practised slavery.
    This is confirmed by a Greek visitor by the name of Megasthenes who writes in his work “Indika”, that
    “the Indians are a peculiar and strange people in that the institution of slavery is Absent among them” !
    Hindu society was one of the few societies in the world where slavery was never practised! Think about it.

    Rape is considered a big crime in Aryan culture and there are strict punishments for it in the Hindu scriptures.
    In the Hindu scriptures, there are 6 characteristics that have been mentioned as defining a gangster/criminal
    and being a rapist is one of them! The Sanskrit word is “Atatayi” which means criminal/gangster. The punishment
    is immediate death for the gangster. It is a duty to kill a gangster as soon as he is spotted! It is not considered a sin
    to kill a gangster. As for concubines and Temple prostitution, these were never encouraged and were practised by few
    people, not by the society as a whole. There is no sanction for these practises in Hindu scriptures.

    Again, being Shudra is not about race or color but about occupation. They were the manual workers of the society.
    Based on their job, they were classified accordingly. North Indian Shudras are fairer than South Indian Brahmins
    simply because they are North Indians and north Indians as a whole are fairer than South Indians. Thats all there
    is to it. This has nothing to do with any race-mixing with any invaders as you imagine!

  49. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini said: “Hinduism has a history of high caste men raping lower caste women and Shudra was the 4th caste, the ones who were not considered the twice born. Also Caste system allowed for lower caste women to marry upper caste men but not vice versa.” (Quote)

    Complete fiction. The Caste system was never hiearchical as you think. The terms “higher caste” and “lower caste” were
    coined by the British to make sense of the Hindu caste system from their own feudal “gentlemanly” perspective.
    There are no Sanskrit equivalents of “Higher caste” and “lower caste” simply because the system was never hierarchical in
    reality! It is an occupational based system, with a thrust on specialization and division of labor. It was similar to
    the Guild system of medieval Europe. The Shudras were the blue-collar workers and NOT the product of rape
    between so-called “high caste men” and “lower caste women”. All civilized societies need such manual laborers to do the
    basic jobs that others may not do. There is nothing degrading about that.

    The reason that Shudra women could marry Brahmin men and not vice-versa is due to a very valid reason.
    The Brahmins were the intellectuals/teachers of Hindu society whereas the Shudras were Manual workers.
    To maintain a good balance between the the pool of intellectuals as opposed to the pool of laborers, the ratio
    between intellectuals to laborers should always be in favor of the intellectuals! That is how societies thrive,
    namely when knowledge producers/seekers outnumber the number of manual laborers and the society in general
    is a knowledge generating society. That is how societies advance and get ahead! This can be seen even today
    in our own times when you compare America, a knowledge producing society as compared to Mexico, a manual labor
    based country with too less of an intellectual class. That is why both countries are at different levels of advancement!
    Its all about the ratio between intellectuals to laborers !

    • You really need to read the Manu Smiriti and Atharva Veda. The progression from flexibility to rigidity of the varna system wasn’t a British import, but a completely Indianised one.

      • Truth sayer

        Manu Smirthi and Atherva Veda are reference to you?Is it?
        Why Atherva Veda completely eliminated as less important Veda!
        That is why it is always taught that God Shiva plucked on head of Brahma and allowed him function with only three head.
        The fourth head of Brahma representation of Atharva Veda!
        Do you know what Smirthi means.
        Smirthi rules allows addition of later details but not altercation of original.It is proved that many things in Manu Smithi are original and many are added later misusing the rule itself!
        Why great Acharyas(Sankara,Madhva and Ramanuja) never written expansion texts to Smirthi but only to Vedas and Upanishads.
        The problem here is you people simply brainwashed cunts by vested interest to spread lies on India.

        • Manu Smriti was used as a default docrine BEFORE the British came to India. Whether it was a ‘later addition’ is irrelevant. The British actually civilised Hindu societies by banning the practice of widow burning, pouring lac into lower caste ears, human sacrifices and what not.

          What is it with Hindus and Sand Niggers coming up with alternate reality histories to prove that their culture was oh-so-great?

        • Xera

          I don’t understand where I was inventing alternate histories. I don’t have to invent any alternate histories, my civilization is great, it was one of the key civilizations that played the basis of the modern Western world. I don’t have anything to brag about, I know I am great and the place I come from is great because we matter in the big picture of the world in both the present and the past; whereras someone here comes from a place that no one gives a shit about, where people are nasty off-spring of austroloid-chink ass worst genetics in the world and Indian monkeys and do all sorts of shit while being opressed by the same monkeys.

          Also this nasty off-spring Chink small-penis thing has to feel good about himself on the internet by being a pseudo-intellectual, making hillariously wrong statements sometimes while also making stupidly simplistic analogies with flawed causual logic about places he hasn’t personally lived in or actually researched except from cheap internet sources. Then the same nasty-chinky off-spring denies basic facts and assertions made by people about places they have actually lived in and are from, but simply ignores them by virtue of being an actual ugly ass chink off-spring. He deosn’t have the working capacity to see he is wrong and then doesn’t have the simple brains or the intelligence to find out why he is wrong factually; when he is being told by the people from said places who have actually lived in said places, that he really doesn’t know shit and just pretending to, the guy vehemtly denies with racial insults, dubious sources, incorrect-vaguely connected wrong statements and just further illustrates what he a truly is: an ugly Indian chink-monkey hybrid off-spring.

          Now calling me a sand-nigger is pretty funny!!! HA HA I mean that’s a good one since where now, you just proved all the above. Because by your stupid vaunted hyprid-chink-monkey indian brain logic where you stupidly lump people into a single category (something really common to Indian monkeys and U.S rednecks I hear,) you are basically saying that the Greeks, Libyans, Berbers, Nubians, Italians, Circassians, Turks, Phoencians, Persians, Assyrians and even ALBANIANS occupy the same realm and are sand-niggers. Yes my place has those bloodlines running heavily throughout the population but you probably didn’t know any of this except maybe for the first few ones. It’s also plain obvious you are fucking stupid when Lindsay himself made it clear then most modern egyptians are like the ancient Egyptians, they are a different race then Arabs (only some blood) and are like Copts (a unique caucasoid race); but it’s really funny where you pretend to know shit about my country and think you know more then me, even though I’ve actually lived and from here, by basing everything on really stupid regional stereotypes. The more you throw stupid insults at me and trying to base actual historical and social facts from that, the more you are just proving you don’t know absolute shit about my where I am from or about my place’s ancient history. Please stop being a stupid ass chink Indian-hybrid off-spring shit, it’s really irritating and embarassing.

        • Truth sayer

          What do you know on civilization!
          You people are barbarians copying everything from ancient India.It is proved by most reliable archaeology and genetics as
          ancient Indians are founders of all civilization!!
          Where comes opinion in that!

          You are here showing you hate and foolishness!
          If I stoop to your level and start writing, it will be indigestible to you!!
          Get a life moron!

        • Mr. Xera, if present day Egypt is all so great and not the shithole it is, why do you obsess over your ‘glories’ in 2000 B.C. while living in a western country? Face it, I have been to the Egypt and see what Ya Habibis are like. And from your 400 word twaddles and bizarre unsourced alternate realities, I know what your brain is (in)capable of.

          I’ll ignore your personal attacks as the idyllic bark of a two-bit low-IQ sand nigger.

  50. Pepperoncini

    Jaipal , you are presenting an alternate universe bizarro world interpretation of the Caste system. It is absolutely hiearrchical and oppressive and only apologists for it are going to engage in mental gymnastics to try and rationalize it as some benign system.

  51. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini said: “You are outright lying here, with this comment.
    ” There are quite a few errors in your above statement. First of all, Hindu society never practised slavery. ” (Quote)

    @Pepperoncini,

    I am not lying. I even quoted a Greek account, namely Indika, written by a Greek
    ambassador by name Megasthenes. He himself pointed out in his observations of
    Indian society of the time that there was no system of slavery practised or known.
    This is a primary witness, by the way. So, you are wrong.

  52. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini said: “It mentions South Asian slavery as being primarily domestic as opposed to field work / agricultural like in the US. Slavery correlated strongly with caste with slaves mainly coming from the Shudra caste but Shudras not neccessarily being slaves. Untouchables were’t slaves because they were considered not good enough / clean enough to be slaves owing to the domestic nature of slavery in South Asia.” (Quote)

    @Pepperoncini,

    This proves what I have been saying all along. There was no real slavery worth the name
    being practised by Hindu society! The domestic slavery you are referring to is not
    slavery as such but more like servantship. The reason the servants were mostly from
    Shudra caste is because the Shudras specialized in Manual work which would be compatible
    with servantship. Also, they had a choice whether to work as servants or not.
    This is quite beningn. Compare this with the experience faced by African slaves in Americas and Middle East. Frankly speaking, there is no comparison.

    • phatimabibi

      “There was no real slavery worth the name
      being practised by Hindu society! ”

      Oh puke.
      India is listed in the Tier II list of the UN which includes countries which have failed to combat human trafficking. Human Traffickiing (formerly known as ‘slavery’) is an organized institution in India beginning with the recruiters or ‘dalals’ (who may be parents, relatives, neighbors, lovers) to a network of people often that often includes taxi/rickshaw drivers and even the police- Purposes include forced prostitution, marriage, domestic labour, bonded labour, agricultural labour, industrial labour, entertainment, begging, adoption, drug smuggling and peddling and even organ transplants.
      This isn’t anything new, it is a cultural practice that has continued for hundreds of years and has continued despite 60 yrs of ‘independence’.

      Really Jaipal- sit on your trishul and twirl.

      • Hacienda

        Boom!

        Nice one. Sometimes you got to drop a bomb down the silo. Bust it open, free the captives.

      • Exactly. Childine, a prominent child welfare organisation in Delhi rescues an average 2 children a week, working as low wage domestic labourers in upper class Delhi families. This particular incident got prominence after it blew –> http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-05/delhi/31293434_1_doctor-couple-lookout-notice-maid

        Being a servant in India is no paradise, starvation and abuse notwitstanding. A 35 year old woman was arrested last March for beating her housemaid to death, after she didn’t prepare breakfast early for her schoolgoing kids. It never made to the news, since she was a promiment ‘feminist’ who wrote for a prominent ‘national’ daily. Of course, in Jaipal’s ‘Desh’, these things don’t exist.

        • Jaipal

          @Atheist Indian,

          If Hindu values were to be properly followed and encouraged, these types of
          problems wouldn’t exist in the first place. Having a Hindu sounding name is no
          guarantee that they are practising real Hindu values. These types of crimes are the
          outcomes of the Secularism that has been enthroned at the expense of religious values!

        • @ Jaipal
          I am curious Jaipal, what part of ‘secular values’ emphasises enslaving kids as domestic helps? Admitting that your culture has flaws is the first step to solving socio-cultural problems. It is not a shame, it won’t make you ‘lose face’ in the global community and it definitely won’t make you a traitor. No culture on earth is perfect, including my own. Even the Chinese admitted their cultural flaws and took steps to remedy it.

      • Jaipal

        @Phatimabibi,

        Trafficking in women/children is considered illegal by the Indian laws.
        It is not a legal thing. India has large land borders so sometimes it may be difficult
        to catch each and every case. Also this is not an indictement of Hindu culture/religion
        as Hinduism has nothing in its theology that sanctions such behaviour and practises!
        This is done by crime syndicate groups clandestinely and not condoned or encouraged
        by the general Indian society. Now if your claiming that this is something unique to
        India, I’ll kindly inform you that trafficking is much more of a problem in your
        Islamic paradises like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan where women from all over the world
        are brought as sex slaves! Now, reflect on that over a glass of camel’s piss!

        • phatimabibi

          Jaipal-
          What
          do
          you
          not
          understand?
          Read this again-
          “India is listed in the Tier II list of the UN which includes countries which have failed to combat human trafficking.”

          FAILED TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING

          What can you not understand about this statement?
          Regardless of any laws against human trafficking India ‘inexplicably’ has failed to combat it?
          Jaipal you and I both know few laws are ever enforced in India.
          ‘Human trafficking” is imbedded in Indian culture.

          And don’t give me this crap-
          “India, I’ll kindly inform you that trafficking is much more of a problem in your
          Islamic paradises like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan where women from all over the world are brought as sex slaves”

          Because I know damned good and well the numbers don’t exist to prove that statement.

          I’ve lived in India and Nepal for over 10 yrs working in women and children’s healthcare and have never seen such a misogynistic, selfish, short sighted, stupid, superstitious, dishonest, crass, materialistic, worthless culture that was completely indifferent to human suffering and child welfare.
          – 47% of all Indian children are malnourished to the point of permanent mental & physical stunting. 30% of Indian children born underweight.
          Any sane culture would declare this a ‘humanitarian crisis’, in India we are more interested in the declaring Sachin the ‘master blaster’ a national hero.

          -There are 40 million more Indian males in India than Indian females- Why? well in this grand Hindu ‘culture’ with a woman president and female ‘goddesses’ are worshipped- About 50,000 female fetuses are aborted monthly, and untold numbers of infant girls are murdered or abandoned. Girls are considered a burden due to the Indian ‘cultural’ practice of dowry. We shan’t into the Indian ‘cultural’ practices of dowry death, bride burning, sati (widow burning) honor killing etc.

          So Jaipal, what are these ‘Hindu values’ you continuously espouse?

    • Pepperoncini

      “No real slavery”, what the heck is domestic slavery then. The slaves are owned by the upper caste men and were forced to serve their masters, plus it was heriditary. The domestic slaves were property, they did not have freedom to leave their master, that is the definition of slavery.

      Such an absurd comment to say that only people working in the fields are real slaves but slaves working inside aren’t. You know I was actually expecting you to come with this exact BS of a retort and you didn’t disappoint.

      Shudras were also artisans, craftsmen and business people. Shudras very likely were decendants of the IVC though the other castes probably had IVC people assimilated into it too.

      You calling South Asian slavery beningn is akin to how Arab apologists claim that Arab Islamic slavery was beningn because the slaves were allegedly treated better than slaves in the New World. You guys are 2 peas in the same pod.

      • Jaipal

        It was not slavery in the technical sense but more like servantship because they
        were not forced into it by force but due to poverty and the need for economic
        security. In other words it was voluntary and limited. They could eventually
        leave if they had wanted to and become “freemen” again with freemen of their own caste!
        Whereas Arab slavery and European slavery was not voluntary but was forced upon the
        Africans against their will and the suffering was immense for the Afros! There was nothing
        comparable like it in India!

  53. Pepperoncini

    From Truth Sayer
    “What do you know on civilization!
    You people are barbarians copying everything from ancient India.It is proved by most reliable archaeology and genetics as
    ancient Indians are founders of all civilization!!”

    It’s true, Ancient Indians ( Aryans) invented everything, infact they invented FIRE and taught it to the rest of the world. Proof ? Well Hindu temples worship FIRE !!

    From Prof, Dipak Basu

    “Aryan Invasion: Aryan city under the sea near Japan:”

    “Another nail was struck on the British theory of Aryan invasion in 1500BC by the discovery of ruins of a city, at least 6000 years old, under the sea near Okinawa, Japan. The original people of Japan were Indo-Aryans and the structure of the ruins has close similarities to the ancient architecture of India, Iran, and Egypt ”

    See more proof that Ancient Indians (Ancient Aryans) civilized the world.

    http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_051212.htm

    • Jaipal

      @Pepperoncini,

      Pre-Christian European culture had more in common with Vedic India than you can imagine.
      This is because, pre-Christian Europe was not only Indo-European by language but also by culture,
      religion and comparative mythology! This no doubt is due to the Indo-European expansions of the prehistoric
      which largely shaped much of Western Eurasia. And the Indo-European homeland, based on evidence, seems
      to have been Northern India from where the expansions originated! So, yes perhaps in that sense, you could
      say that Ancient Indians did play a large role in spreading cultural influence towards the West.

      Also, fire-rituals and fire priests were quite popular among the Celts, a European people.
      So, next time you make fun of fire-rituals/priests, do keep in mind that your own ancestors may
      have once practised those very rituals that the Indians still practise today!

      • Pepperoncini

        Pre Christian Europe wasn’t limited to Indo-European culture, you are forgetting Basque, Finno Ugric, Etruscan, Sami and Minoan. Minoan civilization is not Indo-European and is older than any Indo-European civ. But as in India, Indo-European tribes largely dominated the non Indo-European peoples. Now Europe has been majority IE speaking for much of history (as far as we can tell) but since you said “pre christian”, it wouldn’t be accurate to ignore the non IE roots in Europe.

        For the umpteenth time, repeating ad-nauseum that IE came from India does not make it so. There are a lot of outlandish baseless theories out there that are not accepted by academia, yours is no different. The consensus favours the Eurasian steppes, around South Western Russia ,Ukraine , Siberia and Kazakstan. The only other theory given any credence is Renfrew’s Eastern Anatolia but the Steppes is pretty much the accepted theory. There isn’t any reputable Western scholar and indeed some Indian Scholars like Romila Thapar and Iravatham Mahadevan who DON’T subscribe to Hindutva delusions of a IE SubContient homeland. So NO, European accomplishments are NOT Indian accomplishments to claim.

        You also should realize that the dominant Y-DNA Hap in Western Europe are R1B1b clades, quite neglible in the SubContinent and R1B coincides with the centum branch of IE languages. While Eastern Europe is dominated by R1a1a clades and shares the satem IE branch with Indo-Iranian. Add this to the fact that South West Russia is generally accepted as the most plausible homeland of PIE.

        • Truth sayer

          “The consensus favours the Eurasian steppes, around South Western Russia ,Ukraine , Siberia and Kazakstan. The only other theory given any credence is Renfrew’s Eastern Anatolia but the Steppes is pretty much the accepted theory.”
          Who make consensus!!
          It is made on the basis of recent archaeology or genetics!!
          or else made on number of Euro centrics who write with their egoistic details!!
          Where comes those loose talks when genetics and most authentic archaeology debunk Aryan Invasion theory!!
          But all genetic studies confirm Aryan origin in India!!
          If you have guts verify and disprove those details which I have given here on dried Saraswathi river discovery and genetic studies with expert names that all are false!!
          Then say if possible,this is HIndutva
          You people trying to show your foolishness! and trying to fool others!
          Do you think even in 21st century you people can fool the world by your Euro centrism!!
          Iam sure,it is highly impossible!

        • Jaipal

          @Atheist Indian,

          I have nothing to hide or lose face. Secularism has lead to spiritual and moral/ethical
          corruption in our body politic which is why you see such degeneracy and bad behaviour
          all round you! What can you expect from a secularist political system that considers
          invoking God in a public place as a big crime, as if its the end of the world??

          At least religion and belief in God/religion keeps a person somewhat grounded in
          the fear of sin and thereby aids in good behaviour which benefits society in the long
          run.

          The only solution is to repudiate this secularism and teach religious values in the schools
          so that such social crimes can be controlled and perhaps eliminated to a certain extent!

  54. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini said: “Pre Christian Europe wasn’t limited to Indo-European culture, you are forgetting Basque, Finno Ugric, Etruscan, Sami and Minoan. Minoan civilization is not Indo-European and is older than any Indo-European civ. But as in India, Indo-European tribes largely dominated the non Indo-European peoples. Now Europe has been majority IE speaking for much of history (as far as we can tell) but since you said “pre christian”, it wouldn’t be accurate to ignore the non IE roots in Europe” (Quote)

    @Pepperoncini,

    I never denied that there were no non-Indo-European peoples/civilizations in pre-
    Christian Europe. Obviously they did exist but it seems that the Indo-Europeans
    exerted alot of influence, so my basic point wasn’t wrong.

  55. Jaipal

    Pepperoncini said: “repeating ad-nauseum that IE came from India does not make it so. There are a lot of outlandish baseless theories out there that are not accepted by academia, yours is no different. The consensus favours the Eurasian steppes, around South Western Russia ,Ukraine , Siberia and Kazakstan.” (Quote)

    @Pepperoncini,

    By the same argumentative logic, simply repeating that AIT is correct, ad nauseum,
    does not make it so in reality. This is even more so when you take into account that there is no
    evidence at all for AIT but enough for OIT! You couldn’t even refute those linguistic
    arguments which I posted above. You didn’t even make an attempt to counter those
    linguistic arguments. The mainstream view isn’t always the correct view.

  56. Jaipal

    Pepperoncii said: “You also should realize that the dominant Y-DNA Hap in Western Europe are R1B1b clades, quite neglible in the SubContinent and R1B coincides with the centum branch of IE languages. While Eastern Europe is dominated by R1a1a clades and shares the satem IE branch with Indo-Iranian. Add this to the fact that South West Russia is generally accepted as the most plausible homeland of PIE.” (Quote)

    @Pepperoncini,

    This is the weakest argument of all. When the actual homeland of Indo-Europeans is
    not known at all with 100 percent certainty which is why the debate is still going on and
    has been so for last 150 years, you can’t know for sure what race/ethnicity the Proto-Indo-Europeans were. Without knowing that, you can’t obtain a proven, non-controversial, controlled genetic sample to compare and contrast. Without a standard PIE genetic sample, how do you know which haplotype they actually had?? Therefore, your argument is actually pseudo! Its a non-argument!

  57. Jaipal

    @Pepperoncini,

    As far as South Russia being the homeland of Proto-Indo-European, the only problem
    is there is simply no evidence of any kind proving this homeland theory.
    There is no archaeological or literary proof of PIE ever being spoken in this area.
    So how is it known that South Russia was the actual homeland??
    Again, your arguments suffer many shortcomings.

  58. Jaipal

    @ Pepperoncini,

    Horses were first domesticated in Central Asia around 4500 BC. If the Proto-Indo-
    Europeans were a horse based people, then Central Asia/Northern India would
    be a better bet for the original IE homeland, in other words, areas well to the east of
    South Russia. Even the Horse argument weakens the South Russian theory.

  59. Aryan


    This map shows where the density of Aryans(R1A halo group) is the most in India, Poland, Estonia and Lithuania. Some group of aryans migrated in 2 directions making a V formation having its lower tip at India, one went to eastern europe and a very small group went to northern asia. So ,thats all about genes.
    Some people in the start of the thread said that greeks invaded north india. The truth is that they were not able to invade it. Alexander had huge army no doubt after all they had greek as well as persian army. They attacked the small kingdom of taxila (present in current day pakistan) and defeated Porus (ruler of Taxila). At that time Dhanananda was the ruler of what we call India these days. Alexander tried to conquer this kingdom but failed and failed and failed and died of old age. He passed his kingdom to his 4 sucessors. Selucus got the part of kingdom near to India. But during this time Chandragupta Maurya defeated Dhana nanda(The ruler of India at time of Alexander). Then there was battle between selucus and Chandragupta Maurya. In the first fight itself selucus’s whole army was killed. He went to Chandragupta maurya and asked for shelter which young maurya king gave him generously. He offered to marry his daughter diodara (greek name)/Durdhara (Indian Name) and in exchange asked for 500 war elephants and 2 groups of his army. Chandragupta Maurya had about 20,000 war elephants and army divided into 26 groups. He gave selucus what he wanted expecting a peace agreement. Chandragupta Maurya’s grandson is what we call “Ashoka-the great”. He was the most ambitious king India has ever had. He acquired as much as he could. At an age of about 40 his kingdom extended from Myanmar to Greece.

    Here is the map of his kingdom.
    There are written records that the Gurus of India were even able to make bombs since 5000 BC to the age of mauryan empire. Chandragupta’s teacher Chanakya knew how to make a bomb which was as effective as Grenade of today. Along with knowing that knowledge one thing that accompanied the Aryans was GENEROUSITY. Even if the enemy is coming for a shelter they would give it to him and treat him as a Guest and we still have a saying in our country “Atithi Devo Bhava”-in sanskrit it means Guest is God. Aristotle (teacher of Alexander)-knew everything except things about India because it remained a mystery throughout as no one was able to conquer it until 1200 AD. Now that was the time when Aryans stopped doing Yoga and apply other teachings from Vedas in their daily life. Thats how there was a downfall in its Glory. That was the time when the gurus and teachers made Caste System permanent, that is if a person belongs to a particular caste, his generations will belong to that particular caste. Before this it was based on work, teacher-brahmin, kings and warriors-Kshatriya, Businessmen-Vaishya and labor-shudra. And a son of shudra could be a brahmin at that time by gaining knowledge and becoming as perfect as his teacher who is a brahmin. The gurus made the caste system permanent because they did not want the racial mixing of arabics and persians. NOW a so called rational person of today would think that the gurus and teachers of Aryans were racist and stuff. But they did not want the aryans to lose their facial structure for which their ancestors worked very hard. Now the very same so called rational person might ask “HOW IS THAT?” Now here is the thing, when you do anulom vilim(a yogic exercise), you hold you nose and breathe in such a way that your nose become of the way the aryan have. bhujangasana gives a tension in your chin and jaw, which makes it the way the aryans have. It is said to be the the most beautiful facial structure that homo sapiens have. A human of any race starts doing yoga, his facial features in generations to come will become as that of aryans no matter what race he is from. And yoga is healthy, thus any changes that will occur in your body would be beautiful. Thats why aryans considered everyone else inferior in olden time because any person with non-aryan facial features was considered to be a non-yogic person, which is not true these days of course.

    • jameson7

      “Now that was the time when Aryans stopped doing Yoga and apply other teachings from Vedas in their daily life. ”

      Third Reich Aryan Yoga, that would sell big time on the market. I think you got a good sales angle there.

      • jameson7

        Is saying Sieg Heil actually a secret breathing exercise for big cheekbones?

        • Aryan

          lemme again correct you. Neither is sieg Heil a secret breathing exercise for cheekbones nor are germans that pure of Aryans. I would recommend you to consult the map of R1A density area whenever you have any doubts related to the demographical distribution of Aryans.

          Have a good day.

      • Aryan

        I think you got my statement the wrong way…they stopped doing yoga and stopped applying other teachings from vedas as well. And untill the end of 20th century majority of aryans were not doing yoga. So you might have to change your statement now

  60. Aryan

    @Jaipal I would like you to read my comment because you seem to be a sensible person.

  61. Aryan

    For people here…”jameson7″ serves as a pretty good example for “the so called rational” from my core comment.

    • jameson7

      Joking bro. Don’t get your swastika in a bunch.

      • Aryan

        Haha…i dont blame you for that, for whatever you are or portray yourself to be…but seriously hope you find peace.

        • Aryan

          i can certainly recommend something to you “yoga” ;). be healthy, be aryan 🙂

        • jameson7

          Well Namaste to you.

          I actually grew up around Yoga culture, and I can’t say I ever payed attention to peoples noses. You are saying they would become piped downward and thinner yes?

          I would say I notice a broadening of the forehead and cheekbones of the face on people who do yoga exercises correctly.

          How many kriyas are apart of Aryan tradition? Are you sayig all yoga has Aryan origins?

  62. Aryan

    Namaskaar to you (namaste is not what i use)…it will become of the perfect shape…neither too thin, nor too fat…it’ll become straight (neither up bent that nordics have and neither down bent that arabics have). And if you grew in yoga culture you must know that a person while exhaling should take 1.5 times the time that he took while inhaling. The shaping might not take place in one generation but it’ll definitely take place in about 4-8 generations. Today’s genetic scientists say that for changing a race it takes about 20,000 years. The yogis knew that but they also know that the pace of that change could be increased using your chi-flow along with shaping your face with asanas and pranayama.

    I personally never noticed that thing. Its not just yoga, you also have to practice other behavioral teachings too. For an example if a person does yoga everyday with correct postures and stuff but masturbates frequently, the effect of yoga would be cancelled out.

    I have seen many other traditions adopting some yogic exercises, like muslims pray doing vajrasana. But muslims date back to 5th century AD whereas all the activities that are a part of yoga were written in vedas 5000 years back that is 3000 BC. Even if any other culture used any yogic exercise, there is no written account. I am very keen reader and yet i have never come across any book that says anything about other cultures inventing yoga on their own.

    The vedas say it explicitly that your halogroups can be modified doing yoga. That means if you and your continuing generation keep doing yoga your halo group will modify into R1A and thus they will technically become aryans without any race mixing or anything. After all we all originated from from the same primates.

  63. Aryan

    my father on weekends would catch young poor kids and make them do yoga. those kids might not be able to do those yogic activities correctly but did them with greater mindset and that is what matters. isn’t it jameson. swasthika is nothing more than the representation of sun which means “to be good”…we have a saying that to make pure gold, the impure gold has to be heated (applicable to humans metaphorically) and what could be more pure than the continuous source of heat itself.

    • Arian

      There’s some good information you have left. However your history is our of order. The creation of Vedas, certainly as a book or way of life occurred in Indian Subcontinent, which is good enough. Yet it was made from knowledge gained from earlier generations that came from Persia and Central Asia. Since the migrations of homo sapien proven is from Africa, there were two sections, one that came to India (earliest Indians) and one that came via the gulf to Central Asia, and then to North West Frontier of India.

      The period of enlightenment was from Persia. Ones that came from Africa to India were though intelligent with societies and systems, more evolved, and probably were not tribal; who in fact ma have come to India with the breaking of Sub Continent from Africa. But these did not get holy enlightenment. Since everything is a hunch; read Zakaria Sitchin 12th Planet about Ancient Sumerian Tablets dating 5000 BC found near Iraq. It tells about creation of the modern advanced human “Missing Link”, and teachings of engineering, language ‘as we speak – not grunt – as African direct descendants did’, agriculture, astronomy, planets and civilized systems. These sciences were supposedly shared with humans in ancient Persia to the enlightened ones therefore, who came to be known as the Aryans. The job of Aryans was to spread across the planet to take this knowledge to all creatures and start the planetizing process of Earth.

      You speak of R1a. Thus R1a came to region of Kashmir, Tajikistan, and lowest was the top area of now Pakistan, then Hindustan right up from areas now in Kazakhstan, and Moscow.

      The R1 branches to R1b, in Moscow, which goes into Western Europe. R1a gave rise to the Aryans as they added their Gods as Indra, Vayu, Agni in Anatolya, which came into Indian side. Im tellin’ta because I got my geno done, and got the entire circuit with DNA markers taking my lineage migrations from last 100000 years to my father who was born in pre-partition India a region now in Islamabad, which was called Taxila.

      You shouldn’t depend a lot on generic maps. Get yourself tested at Genographic project. If you are from a typical upper class South Delhi Punjabi colony with people from military in past, you may mostly have the genetics. But you know its quite useless because Aryans in India have lost their values, influence and are a super minority who are more of less leaving the country to the ever exploding populations of original Indians. See, they dont need to kill you, they’ll just expand to squeeze you out and away.

  64. Juven

    Whatever the Indian historical revinisonists may feel about Indian Aryan history, a few facts do stand out which does destroy their theory of an indigenous Aryan history. Historical dates of 2500-3400 YBP proves that their languages, war tools and customs was something new to the subcontinent’s oldest inhabitants, the Dravidic tribes. There was conflicts followed by periods of peaces and interaction. Attempts to prove otherwise has only complicated India’s tortured history.

  65. narut00

    “All of these deities, though are under a supreme deity, which is an active positive force of truth, Rta, LATER to evolve into the Hindu concept of DHARMA”
    see that? in the post “hindu ethics” the critic against the concept of dharma and karma was strong,however we again witness how all the “hindu” dark side was actually absent from the original hinduism, i am happy to see that hinduism is really a good faith in its core, i admit after i read robert’s blog my feelings towards hinduism were colder and colder after an initial fascination;however i couldn’t get rid of my mind the subject 100%,and after a deep analysis i came to the conclusion all of you should know pretty well now;
    that the true hinduism is the shruti vedas and upanishads minus the castes,karma, dharma from the smriti
    this post was beautiful,free from the usual negative vibes and hard critic towards hinduism,thats because this post described the vedic world,a world without castes,karma,dharma
    “All of these deities, though are under a supreme deity” yayyyyy
    with that every attack against hinduism is defeated,that means agni,varuna,indra,etc could have some flaws,ok ,but the supreme hindu deity,the brahman from the upanishads is free from flaws,actually the brahman is more moral to the christian jehovas and muslim allah,because jehovah and allah killed many people! through orders to their worshippers, what bad deed did the brahman? none!
    with all of this i finally restored my full interest in hinduism =’)
    the maoist are called because mao right? they like mao,should conquer india and through a ruthless way,they should get rid of brahmins like in the chinese cultural revolution,and put them in jail forever,the perfect “karmic” equivalent of what they have been doing all their life 😉
    -as a westerner i have high interest in the hindu cause,i should be rich,one of my noble goals will be rich to help with my financial support the arya samaj,i should be the richest man on earth to have more power than all the brahmins of the world,and i want to be rich to support the grow in popularity of anime/manga in usa as well 😉 like him
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen_Fukunaga

  66. brahman

    The Brahmin priests and Indian scholars believe that the Sarasvati and Ganges valley region are the origin of Indian civilization and the Aryan society. This can be given some credence when we look at the cities in this region. For example, North of Delhi is the town of Kuruksetra where the great battle of the Mahabharata took place when Sri Krishna was still on the planet over 5,000 years ago. There is also the old city of Hastinapura that was once situated along the Ganges until the river changed its course and swept the city away in 800 B.C. This is the old capital of the Kuru dynasty in the Mahabharata.

    Pottery remains have been found near this location that are traced back to at least 1200 B.C. In New Delhi we find the Purana Qila site, which is known to have been part of the ancient city of Indraprastha. An interesting quote can be found in the ancient Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.72.13) which can give us some idea of how prominent Indraprastha had been. It states that during the time when Sri Krishna was on this planet 5,000 years ago, King Yudhisthira sent his brothers, the Pandavas, to conquer the world in all directions. This was for bringing all countries to participate in the great Rajasuya ceremony that was being held in ancient Indraprastha. All countries were to pay a tax to help the performance of the ceremony, and to send representatives to participate. If they did not wish to cooperate, then they would have to engage in battle with the Pandavas. Thus, the whole world came under the jurisdiction of the Vedic Aryan administration.
    South of New Delhi are the holy towns of Vrindavan and Mathura along the Yamuna River. Both of these towns are known for being places of Krishna=s pastimes and Vedic legends that go back thousands of years, which are also described in the Vedic literature. Farther south, located on the Yamuna, is the ancient city of Kaushambi. This city still has the remains of massive defense structures from the tenth century B.C. that are very similar to buildings in Harrappa and the Indus region that use baked brick for construction.

    TheYajur‑veda (Vajasaneyi Samhita 23.18) also mentions the town of Kampila, which is located about halfway between Hastinapur and Kaushambi. The next city is Allahabad (Prayag) where we find the confluence of the Yamuna and Ganges. This location abounds with importance and Vedic legends that are so remote in antiquity that no one can say when they originated. Then there is Varanasi along the Ganges that is another city filled with ancient Vedic legends of importance. A short distance north of Varanasi is Sarnath, where Buddha gave his first sermon after being enlightened. A four-hour train ride north of Varanasi is the town of Ayodhya, where Lord Ramachandra had His capital, as fully described in the ancient Ramayana. And, of course, there are the Himalayan mountains that have many Vedic stories connected with them. Furthermore, there are numerous other places that could be mentioned that are connected with the Vedic legends throughout the area. (Most of these have already been described in the Seeing Spiritual India sections in my previous books.)

    Though some archeologists claim they have discovered no evidence for the ancient existence of the Vedic Aryan culture in this Gangetic region, even a casual tour through this area, as mentioned above, makes it obvious that these towns and holy sites did not gain importance overnight, nor simply by an immigration of people who are said to have brought the Vedas with them. These places could not have become incorporated into the Vedic legends so quickly if the Vedic culture came from another location. Therefore, the argument that the early Vedic literature was brought from another region or describes a geographical location other than India cannot so easily be accepted. The fact is that the whole of India and up through the Indus region was the original home of the Vedic Aryan culture from which it spread its influence over much of the rest of the world. so SHUT UP Lindsay!!!

  67. Arian

    Ah. The historians on this page creating glorious past. Who knows what happened. Greeks poetricized their version and Indians theirs. The fact is since there are no Greeks in India. Debate on. Anyway Aryan myth is so deep and mystic that no one has the best answer just guesses. Not even this page has correct answer or the people who say Aryans did not exist.

    I’ve got DNA test done because I knew my lineage from the place where my grand parents stayed. It was sent to Texas to geno project. I always believed I had Aryan line but it was a hanging question for no proof. But the geno provided by entire ancestry migrations from Central Asia to north west indian frontier. The Indo Aryans have R1a Haplogroups, from M17 marker. Read this link for more info on Aryan genes. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml

  68. They were war lords, who rised or came from mountains, hence, were called rishis/risars too. They were also known as jotunns in nordic, and brahmans in sanskrit.

    Now, I know, many ‘hinduize’ brahmans, inspired by RSS philosophy, will call me a white man propagandist. But I don’t care. I know that I cannot belong to this inferior stock of indics.

  69. Daniel Boxie

    White people are Aryan. Lets first look at the word Aryan, originally is means people of the sun as in the Egyptian god Ra. Now look Ra is basically Ar but backwards, people of the sun also referred to as the master race. The sun is white thus are the white people. The master race are as well white people since really they are who invented everything, super-nations like Russia, etc. As well were the Tatars/Mongolians, Persians, and Slavs. Now you might think that for example China invented gunpowder but guess what its not true. Chinese history has been rewritten 3 times meaning that I can say, Hey nobody invented the lamp i’ll say that I did. You get the point. Really Aryans are white as well were the Vedes the ones you came to India. There is a whole new topic to Veds but for now that is it.

  70. peterparker123

    And one more thing, those people did not speak sanskrit. SAnskrit language was derived from the collection of languages which those aryans speak. It is the mix of hittie,mittani,andronovo, sintasha, avestan, and some old norse.
    But sanskrit is not a monolithic language of it’s own.

    Actually, these people are trying to create propganda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s