The out of India myth
This article will provide an overview of the subject. For technical details about the topics discussed, please see the references.
TL;DR
The out-of-India (OIT), also known as the Indigenous Aryans theory, proposes that the Aryans are native to the Indian subcontinent. The proponents of this theory believe that Indo-European languages evolved in India and travelled west as Aryans migrated to the west. According to this theory, Aryans migrated out of India to settle in different parts of Europe and that sanskrit is the mother of all European languages.
Origins of the OIT
To trace the origin of the OIT, we will have to understand how sanskrit came to be classified as an Indo-European language[1][2][3].
In 1583, an English Jesuit travelling to India noted the similarities between Greek, Latin and sanskrit. Two years later, in 1585, an Italian merchant by the name Filippo Sassetti noted the similarities between the words for numbers in sanskrit and Italian. In 1768, a French Jesuit, upon studying sanskrit concluded that Greek, Latin and sanskrit must have a common ancestor. In 1780's, an English judge, one William Jones, sent to Calcutta to study native Indian laws turned into a sanskrit enthusiast. He too was educated in Greek and Latin and he too arrived at the conclusion that "no philologer could examine them all three [languages] without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists."
Linguists learned of Jones' finding and flocked to India to trace the origin of these languages. Their initial theory was that these languages originated in India and travelled westward, in short, the Out-of-India Theory. The claim of a long oral tradition for sanskrit seemed to have been the basis for this theory. And linguists set out to prove this.
We know from this that the OIT theory was the first homeland theory of Indo-European languages and it was the western scholarship that put forward this idea. So, why was it dismissed in favour of the Aryan Invasion theory (AIT)?
The Aryan Invasion theory
Through the 19th century, linguists worked towards establishing relationships between languages and classifying them. They used grammar, semantics, vocabulary, sound structures among other things to classify two languages as sister languages or mother-daughter languages. These linguists also worked towards identifying languages that did not belong to the Indo-European language family even when it was spoken within the geographical vicinity of Indo-European lands.
The term Indo-European was coined in 1813 and in the first few decades of the 19th century, the OIT was the dominant theory for the homeland of Indo-Europeans (IE). This changed when comparative linguistics study of sanskrit, Greek and Latin failed to throw up any evidence to suggest that sanskrit was the mother languages to these European languages.
This was the time Max Muller arrived on scene. In 1840's he began studying sanskrit. First in Paris, then in England. During this time, under the influence of his mentor Eugene Burnhof, Muller began studying the Rig Veda (Upon detailed linguistic study, Max Muller dated Rig Veda between 1500 BCE and 500 BCE) too. Like most scholars of his time, be held the belief that the evolution of languages has to be studied in relation to cultural development. So, to him, the study of Rig Veda was not merely the study of sanskrit, but also the study of Vedic culture also known as the Aryan culture. The term was not coined by Max Muller, but by the Rig Veda itself. The Rig Veda referred to the people depicted in its pages as Aryas. (Note: It is known that the term "Aryanism" was thought of to represent a race and was used to commit great atrocities. We will not get into that now).
During this period, the out of India theory lost traction due to the lack of linguistic evidence to suggest that sanskrit was the mother of all Indo-European languages. Historians suggested other alternatives. One theory gained pace over the others - the Aryan Invasion Theory. The early proponents of this theory suggested that movements/invasions of Indo-Iranians, the similarities between sanskrit and the Avestan language, sanskritised names of Mittani rulers, the semi-nomadic nature of Vedic culture, and shared cultural elements across the different Indo-European languages were evidence that the Aryan invasion/migration happened. These pieces of evidence convinced the scholarship of the late 19th and early 20th century and AIT became the dominant working theory.
It was this that led Mortimer Wheeler, who came to India in 1944 to be the director of Archeological Survey of India(ASI) to link Aryan migration/invasion to the decline of Indus valley civilisation. Mortimer Wheeler directed several excavations in the valley and upon studying the artefacts unearthed, discovered that the Indus Valley civilisation began to decline in 1900 BCE and was completely abandoned by 1300-1200 BCE. He linked the decline of the Indus Valley civilisation to the invasion of Aryans and arrived at the time of this invasion. His time of 1800 BCE for Aryan invasion fit perfectly with the timelines Max Muller had given for the Rig Veda. He also went on to claim that Dravidians were the natives of India and that they were the original inhabitants of the Harappan cities. He further claimed that displaced by the invasion, Dravidians settled in Southern India.
It must also be noted here that Mortimer Wheeler was not the first one to connect the decline of Harappan with the Invasion of Aryans. Before him, in the early 1900's, Ramprasad Chanda, an archaeologist with the ASI also had come to this conclusion upon investigating Vedic literature and the Indus Valley Civilization. It is not known if Mortimer Wheeler was influenced by Ramprasad Chanda's theories or not [4].
3500 BCE to 1800 BCE: Indus Valley civilisation thrives
1800 BCE: Aryan Invasion, Indus Valley civilisation begins to decline
1300 BCE: Indus Valley is abandoned
1200 BCE: Rig Veda is compiled (not in written form)
The timelines made sense to the scholarship then.
However, when archaeology could not produce more evidence to signs of war in the Indus valley civilisation, the scholarship moved towards a milder version of the AIT known as the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT). While AIT was the dominant theory in the first half of the 20th century, the AMT garnered more support in the later half. Several hypotheses for the Indo-European homeland were proposed during this period. The Kurgan hypothesis (Pontic steppe as IE homeland) and the Anatolian hypothesis (Modern-day Eastern Turkey as IE homeland) have garnered more critical support (We shall discuss these in a later section).
However, both AIT and AMT theories took a serious blow in the late 20th century. Why?
The genetics
Using advancements in genetic studies, scientists were able to conclude that no major migrations into or out of India happened in the last 12500 years and the genetic makeup of Indians have remained so, for at least 40,000 years (sample size used - 132 people). Proponents of AIT/AMT who were confident that science would back their theory were taken aback.
These genetic studies also settled the debate on whether Indo-Aryans and Europeans were related. Yes, they were genetically related. The R1a haplogroup [18] that is common among modern-day North Indians is also found in a significant population of the Europeans. This, scholars believe is definitive proof of a relation and common ancestry.
With science debunking the Aryan invasion and migration theories, once again the question of the Indo-European homeland came into question again. This is when hindu nationalists and hindu revivalists (referred collectively as hindutvas) began proposing the out of India theory that the scholars rejected several decades ago. Two people were forefront in this - Koenraad Elst, a linguist with hindutva sympathy and Shrikant Talageri, an amateur historian turned author. Indologists like Nicholas Kazanas, B.B. Lal (student of Mortimer Wheeler), computer scientist Subash Kak, mathematician N.S. Rajaram and hindutva sympathiser David Frawley are some of the other prominent proponents of this theory [5][6][7][8].
The OIT arguments
The arguments put forward by OIT proponents can be broadly classified as
1. Arguments against the AIT
2. Arguments to re-date the Vedic period and the Vedas.
3. Other scientific arguments
Arguments against AIT: These arguments range from calling it a Christian conspiracy to calling it a flawed theory. Most Indian proponents of OIT prefer the former argument. They claim that the AIT was a Christian conspiracy of colonialists to cover the true origins of hinduism, deny the nativity of hindus, discredit the Vedas, and create the impression among Indians disillusioned with hinduism that they were the true natives of India and were suppressed by Invaders. It is racist and casteist. Some argue that the Christian scholars were unsympathetic to the Vedas and that they did not understand the astronomical details in them. While others point towards the lack of archaeological or genetical evidence to support the AIT.
Arguments to re-date Vedas: These arguments are put forward based on faith and supposition not on facts. Some want the Rig Veda to be dated to 7000 BCE based on astronomical events described in the text, the estimated time of the legendary river Sarasvati's demise among other things. While others want to date it to times long before that (4000 BCE, 15500 BCE, 27000 BCE are some the dates suggested and interestingly all of them have a scientific basis). There are also a few who believe Rig Veda has been there since the inception of the universe.
There are many reasons the OIT proponents want the Vedas to be dated earlier, we will see them in a different section later.
Note: Max Muller and scholars who dated Rig Veda between 1500 BCE and 500 BCE did so for the following reasons:
1. Vedic sanskrit's close relation to Avestan - the oldest Indo-Iranian language - that is dated to late bronze age (~1500 BCE) and Iron Age (1200 BCE to 200 BCE).
2. Similarities between the Vedic culture and Mittani kingdom (Mittani kings who ruled parts of modern-day Syria between 1500 BCE and 1200 BCE had sanskritised names, horses and war chariots were used by both cultures extensively, a book on war chariots titled Kikkuli written in Mittani contains Indo-Aryan words, presence of Rig Vedic deities like Indra, Mitra, Varuna in both cultures) [12].
3. Similarities/differences with Zoroastrianism - the religion of Avestan. Both Zoroastrianism and Vedic religion have Devas and Asura. (Devas are the good beings in Vedic Religions. Asuras are the good beings in Zoroastrianism).
Other scientific evidence:
1. The genetic centre of gravity principle states that the most likely origin of the gene pool is in the area of its
2. Similar to the genetic centre of gravity principle, the linguistic centre of gravity principle states that the most likely origin of a language is in the area of its greatest diversity. While many branches of Indo-European like Anatolian, Hellenic, Italian, Germanic, and Greek languages can found on the European continent, only one branch of IE is found in India: Indo-Aryan. Shrikant Talageri has suggested that Prakrit is a sister language of sanskrit and not a daughter language as earlier thought (There are claims that Indologist Thomas Oberlies and Prakrit scholar K.R.Norman agree with him). This is to some proof that more than one branch of IE is found in India.
3. Centum-Satem languages [15]: Languages of the IE family are classified as centum or satem languages according to how the dorsal consonants (sounds of 'K' and 'G' type) developed from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language. This classification has arrived at by identifying how the word for "hundred" developed with the evolution of IE languages. While European languages are centum languages, the Asian languages in the IE family are found to be satem. Linguists consider that the centum languages were the first to evolve and over a period of time and movement, these languages were satemised. Because sanskrit is a satem language they consider it be younger than some of the European languages.
However, proponents of OIT point to the curious case of Tocharian and claim that Satem languages were the first to evolve in northwestern India and then spread out in either direction - one into Europe and another into the Chinese region. Some other proponents will also point to the curious case of Bangani - a centum language spoken in the Indian subcontinent.
4. There is no archaeological evidence to suggest an invasion into India. The 37 skeletons found in Mohenjadaro only suggest that these people were retreating and fast, it does not prove an invasion. If there was no invasion, then the only plausible theory is OIT.
The counter-arguments
Various arguments put forward in favour of other hypothesis stands at odds with the OIT.
1. Various genetic studies undertaken over the years seems to suggest various locations for the highest frequency and oldest specimen of the R1a haplogroup.
2. A couple genetic studies undertaken in 2015 seems to support the Kurgan hypothesis and Pontic steppes as IE homeland [16],[17]. A study conducted by author Horolma Pamjav in 2012 also seems to suggest that the Pontic steppes have the greatest diversity of R1a haplogroup.
3. While Shrikant Talageri [11] has attempted to show that Prakrit is a sister language of sanskrit and other amateur OIT proponents have suggested even Magadi, Maharashtri, Pali, and even Sinhalese as sister languages of sanskrit, Koenraad Elst [10] the only notable linguist proponent of OIT agrees that it is the linguistic evidence that is inconclusive and at times against the OIT. However, he also argues that linguistic does not rule out an Indian homeland for IE. You can read about it on his blog listed in the references.
4. There might not be enough archaeological evidence to support an invasion into India, but there is enough evidence to show that Europe was populated by people who moved westward from the black sea area. Burial artefacts, pottery remnants, and the introduction of fauna attest to this. Cultural anthropology and to some extent, genetics, also support this.
From the above arguments and counter-arguments, a few things become clear.
1. Genetic evidence identified so far seemed to suggest the black sea homeland. If one were to debate that genetic commonalities do not show the direction of migration, then these studies become inconclusive.
2. The linguistic evidence favours the black sea homeland or is inconclusive.
3. There is not enough archaeological evidence to support the AIT or OIT.
4. Archaeological and cultural anthropological evidence suggests the black sea homeland for at least the European languages.
So far, there is no evidence to support an Indian homeland for IE languages. However, OIT proponents still keep peddling their theory. Simply because they have one more card to play and it is their ultimate weapon, their brahmastra - The Rig Veda.
OIT's ultimate weapon - The Rig Veda
OIT proponents have used the Rig Veda to suggest that IE languages and at times, humankind originated from India during the Vedic period. They use references in the Rig Vedic text to infer the geography and time period of this Vedic period. They also use lineages of kings/chieftains who controlled the Vedic area, authors of various hymns in the texts, metals, food and crops mentioned in the texts tp place it in history. They sometimes compare it with the history of areas around the Vedic region to suggest that their deductions are irrefutable. In this, they are aided by Vedists who want to give the Vedas a longer antiquity, hindutvas who wish to establish an Akhand Bharat and uphold the glory of hinduism, and some Indo-Aryan language speakers.
There is a slew of articles on the internet written by hindutvas and Vedists claiming a longer antiquity for the Rig Veda. You can read one such article here [27]. In this short article, the author makes numerous mistakes (Avesta and Rig Veda have nothing to do with each other, mention of silver and cotton are proof Veda is older, etc.) You will also see that the article desperately tries to discredit Western scholarship as colonialist, Christian agenda. Even if we assume the western scholars has an agenda, how can one be sure the author has no agenda? I will not waste too much time dwelling upon this. It should suffice to say that sanskrit enthusiasts, hindutvas and amateur writers let their emotion cloud their judgement and they will not heed to facts. Neither will they provide evidence to convince scholarship that their claims are more than just claims [28]. Ameteurs are not alone in this [40]. Though Vedists have been trying to do this for long, a lot more of these articles started cropping up on the internet after Shrikant Talageri, one of the staunch proponents of the OIT, published two books titled:
1. Rig Veda - A historical analysis (2000) [24]
2. Rig Veda and Avesta - The final evidence (2008) [25]
I read both the books, the second one before and more closely than the first. I will try to sum up Shrikant's Talageri's argument for an early Rig Veda and OIT below.
Book 1:
Rig Veda's internal chronology: Mr Talageri begins books by detailing the composers of the Rig Veda and their lineage. He also discusses kings and their lineages as described in the Rig Veda. He then explains the consensus among scholars on the chronology of Rig Vedic books.
Early books: 2-7 (Also known as family books as all the hymns in a book are attributed to various members of a single family. Book 2 is attributed to Grtsamada family, 3 to Vishvamitra family and so on)
Late books: 1, 8-10(Non-family books)
While Talageri agrees with other scholars that family books came earlier, he does not agree with their chronology of family book (Book 2 is generally considered the oldest). He further classifies the family books into pure family books (the hymns in a book are attributed to only one branch of the family) and other family books (the hymns in a book are attributed to more than one branch of the family). Using this he classifies books 6, 3 and 7 as pure family books and assigns an earlier time to them. He classifies 4 and 2 to be middle period books because 2 and 4 hymns respectively are attributed to a different branch of a family. He mentions that using linguistic study, books 5 (a pure family book) belongs with the late books. Thus he arrives at the following classification.
Early books: 6, 3, 7
Middle books: 4, 2
Late books, 5, 1, 8, 9, 10
Rig Veda's geography: Mr Talageri begins explaining the geography of Rig Veda by asserting that
"The Geography of the Rigveda has been the most misrepresented aspect of the text in the hands of the scholars: the geographical information in the Rigveda, to put it in a nutshell, more or less pertains to the area from Uttar Pradesh in the east to Afghanistan in the west, the easternmost river mentioned in the text being the Ganga, and the westernmost being the western tributaries of the Indus."
Using the names of rivers, places, and animals described in the Rig Vedic books, Mr Talageri arrives at the following conclusion:
1. Pre-Rigvedic Period: Haryana and areas cast.
2. Early Rigvedic Period: Haryana and areas east, eastern and central Punjab.
3. Middle Rigvedic Period: Haryana and areas east, Punjab.
4. Late Rigvedic Period: Haryana and areas east, Punjab, southern Afghanistan.
He also dismisses "so-called negative evidences - the tiger, rice and soma drinking" as baseless allegations of invasion theorists.
Indo-Iranian homeland: Here, Mr Talageri begins by interpreting certain portions of the Rig Veda and tells us that this is historically accurate based on descriptions in Puranas. He then interprets Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrians in this "historical context".
He then claims that the theories of western scholars about Indo-Iranian homeland are incorrect. He asserts that the following are the theories of western scholars.
1. Indo-Iranians migrated into Central Asia from the West (from an original Indo-European homeland in South Russia) and then they split into two: the Iranians moving southwestwards into Iran, and the Indoaryans moving southeastwards into India.
2. Indo-Iranians first migrated into the Caucasus region, from where they moved southwards into western Iran. From there, they moved eastwards, with the Indoaryans separating from the Iranians somewhere in eastern Iran and continuing eastwards into India.
While he asserts that the second theory has already been debunked, the first holds no truth because there is no textual evidence for Iranians before 800 BCE in Iran and 500 BCE is central Asia. He then tells the readers that Avesta is the only source of Iranians before this and the geography of Avesta indicates an east to west migration.
He also points to the mention of Manusha in Avesta, the battle of ten kings in Rig Veda and then, he links the tribal kings mentioned in the battle to Vedic Aryans(Puru tribe), Iranians (Anu tribe), Persians (Parsus tribe).
He asserts that reference to Manusha is a memory carried by Iranians and the battle of ten kings gives rise to socio-cultural differences between Vedic Aryans and Iranians.
He then asserts the geography of Avesta as
1. Pre-Avestan Period: Punjab, southern Afghanistan.
2. Early and Late Avestan Periods: Punjab, Afghanistan, Central Asia, northeastern Iran.
3. Post-Avestan Period: Afghanistan, Central Asia, Iran.
Talageri also claims that Kashmir to be the Airyanem Vaejah, the homeland of Zoroastrians who consider Avesta their holy book.
Once again, he suggests a westward migration of Iranians from India.
Indo-European homeland: Here, using the inferences from his previous chapter, Talageri claims that AIT is a flawed theory and presents a heap of evidence against it. He then discusses the various tribes discussed in Rig Veda, comparative mythology and asserts that the evidences favour India as the homeland for IE.
The rest of the book is Witzel-rant.
Book 2:
Rig Veda and Avesta: Mr Talageri begins by telling his readers that the 10 mandalas(books/chapters) of the Rig Veda can be arranged chronologically as
Early books: 6, 3, 7
Middle books: 4, 2
Late books, 5, 1, 8, 9, 10
He then goes on to show that late rig Vedic books and Avesta share a lot of common names, while early Rig Vedic books share anything at all. He also tells us that while the early books are aware of only the geography around Sarasvati river, the later books seem to know the geography of the western regions as well. (In fact, he lists references from all hymns in all the books). This he asserts is evidence that the Vedic people/religion were migrating from east to west through the Vedic period. He also asserts that the language used in late Vedic books have a close linguistic relationship with the Avestan language while the language used in the early and middle books are older.
He uses the above inferences to conclude that the early and middle Rig Vedic books predate the Avestan times, the Vedic people were indigenous and they began migrating westward.
To further show that the original home to Vedic Aryans is to the east of Saravasti, Talageri states the following.
1. The Rig Vedic climate is monsoonal. This is evident because the Indra - the storm god gets the more hymns.
2. Most Rig Vedic hymns mention only South Asian trees. Vedic Aryans used only Indian wood for their chariots.
3. Rice mentioned in the Rig Veda. Wheat isn't. This places Rig Veda to the northern plain of India.
Rig Vedic meters: Then Mr Talageri discusses meters used in the Rig Veda and tells us that the meters used in the fifth book are similar to the one used in the eighth book. This he uses to make the claim that the fifth book and the eighth books were written together and so, the fifth book is a later book. He also tells us that metres used in Avestan are similar/same as the meters used in the late Rig Vedic books.
Rig Veda's internal chronology: I was surprised this topic was discussed half way through the book. For over 100 pages, Mr Talageri had been impressing (if not beating to death) upon his readers that early Rig Vedic geography is the Sarasvati river and Avestan corresponds to late Rig Vedic period. Readers who pick this first like I did would be fooled into forming an opinion on the comparative timelines for Rig Vedic books and Avesta even before knowing the reasons behind it.
Then Mr Talageri tells us that Rig Veda was compiled in "tidy sequential patterns" and description of geography is evidence enough to show that Vedic Aryans moved westward from their homes and they migrated out of India. He suggests the following times for these books, once again without showing any evidence.
Early Rig Vedic period: 3400 BCE to 2600 BCE
Middle Rig Vedic period: 2600 BCE to 2200 BCE
Late Rig Vedic period: 2200 BCE to 1400 BCE
Looking at the dates, something seemed strange and suspicious.
Archaeology of OIT: In the final chapter of his book, he beats to death the archaeological evidence against the AIT. Then he begins the archaeology for OIT with the following line:
"The AIT-vs.-OIT debate must, strictly speaking, be conducted totally without reference to archaeology, until actual decipherable inscriptional evidence is discovered, either in the Harappan sites, conclusively proving the language of the Harappans to be Indo-European or non-Indo-European, or in archaeological sites further west and north, in Central Asia or further, in a language which can be conclusively shown to be a form of pre-Rigvedic."
He then suggests that the Harappan civilisation is a good candidate for the Vedic culture and asserts that scholars have rejected this idea in the past because they are either biased or proponents of AIT. He, however, does not give one evidence to support his suggestion, not even the ones internet sleuths present.
And that is the prize Talageri is looking for: the Harappan civilisation. And that is a big one. In recent times, Indian scholars and some Indo-Aryan speakers have started replacing the term the Indus valley civilisation with Indus-Sarasvati civilisation.
So in his books, Talageri has claimed all the following:
1. Vedic Aryans are indigenous to India.
2. They migrated from eastern India to western India and eventually out of India.
3. The earliest book of Rig Veda was compiled in 3400 BCE. He gives it an air of credibility by not dating it much older than that like other internet sleuths.
4. Harappan civilisation is Vedic civilisation.
The problems with Talageri's Rig Vedic arguments:
[9][29][30][34]
To a casual, naive reader, Talageri's arguments might be overwhelming and to some extent, convincing. However, a closer look at his arguments will reveal the flaws in it.
Let's begin with Internal chronology: [31]
637: Talageri states that while the early books 6 and 3 doesn't mention any composer from any other book, 7 does. So 6 and 3 come before 7. Book 6 mentions the ancestral Bharata king once. So this predates 3. This is definitely flimsy evidence if it can be considered as evidence at all.
Talageri also claims Divodatsa and his son Sudas is contemporaneous to early books. Divodatsa is mentioned only in book 6 and neither in 3 or 7. He appears in book 4 a few times and in book 2 once. Sudas doesn't appear in book 6, makes a few appearances in 3 and is present quite a lot in 7. Even if we discount Divodatsa's appearances in book 4 and 2, books 6, 3 and 7 must have been written within a span of two generation, at best 100 years. Not the 800 years time Talageri suggests (There are claims that Sudas was a descendant not a direct son of Divodatsa. However, the wording in Rig Veda seems to imply a direct son).
42: Talageri then states that book 4 mentions two composers from other books, but it is still close to a pure family book because it shows cultural continuity. He also states book 2 is a neutral period between Bharata kings and the general puru period.
Language: [33] He doesn't discuss the language in any of these early or middle books, but he discusses the language in book 5 and discounts it to the late period. There might be a reason for this. Book 5, hymn 62 contains the following verse:
There is a great debate on whether iron is mentioned in the Rig Veda are not. Some claim "Ayas" mentioned in the Rig Veda is a generic term used for metal. While others claim it refers to copper. In this verse, this term is used to describe pillars and their might/strength. Iron seems to fit. However, Rig Vedic scholars claim that Iron is not mentioned in the Rig Veda [32].
What is the problem with Iron and Rig Veda? Iron wasn't discovered in India until 1200 BCE. Technology to use it for columns would have come much later. If Rig Veda mentions iron, it loses its antiquity.
I wonder if Talageri added book 5 (even though it is considered a pure family book) to the later period books to ensure that the mention of "Ayas" is not further questioned.
Tidy Sequential patterns: We saw earlier that Talageri claims the Rig Vedic books were written in tidy sequential patterns. I will give the example of Sudhanvan who is mentioned in books 3 and 4 and nowhere else. According to Talageri's sequential pattern, books 3 and 4 should be separated by at least a few decades if not centuries. However, that doesn't seem to be the case with Sudhanvan. There are many examples such as this.
Early and Late hymns: While Talageri agrees that some earlier books might contain late hymns, he disputes that later books contain earlier hymns. One reason might be that it goes against his migration narrative. The other might be just to disagree with philologist Michael Witzel (the guys seem to hate each other) who contends that some early hymns may be found in later books. Talageri himself agrees that the books 3 and 7 have hymns compiled at a later date. Yet he still classifies them with early books. One more blow to "tidy sequential patterns"
As can be seen, a close look reveals that Talageri's chronology of Rig Veda is not irrefutable. Without this chronology, Talageri's migration narrative can simply be dismissed until archaeology uncovers something.
Dating: Talageri shows linguistic similarities to show that Avestan belongs to the late Vedic period. But is he really? No, he is simply showing similarities in vocabulary and cultural elements to arrive at this conclusion. He does not discuss the aspects of linguistics that matter like sentence structure, syntax, grammar, morphology, etc. It is not without reason linguistics say Vedic sanskrit is closer to Avestan and old Persian. These languages share a common ancestor.
Talageri also claims that the early Vedic period happened during Harappan times. Assuming they are the same cultures, artefacts from Harappan sites should have contained something related to the Vedic culture. Other than something that resembles a fire altar, a corpse of a donkey nothing has been found. This cannot be the remains of a culture that was obsessed with fire and horses. If Harappan and Vedic cultures were two different cultures in the geographic vicinity, it is strange one does not know the other. Given that Harappans had connections with all other major civilisations of its times, it would indeed be strange they did not know about its neighbours. The only explanation is that Vedic culture and Harappans did not co-exist in the same period.
So, Talageri's dating has no scientific basis. He is just aiming for the big prize - Harappan civilisation.
Avestan geography:
One of Talageri's masterstroke is interpreting the Avestan geography to fit in the OIT.
1. He begins the Indo-Iranian homeland discussion by telling an half-truth that Western scholars consider a south-western movement into Iran. However, as can be seen in the map below, some Western scholars consider the westward movement to be the first one to happen (serial numbers indicating the order of movement).
2. He then shifts the Airyanem Vaejah a bit south to Kashmir from "Central Asia". He uses the term "Central Asia" in a such a way as to distance it from Kashmir as possible, but in reality, the Ariyanem Vajeah that the scholarship has accepted is only about 1000 kilometres to the North. The terrain is similar.
3. He then claims one reference to "Manusha" in Avesta as early memory from Indian homeland. However, he doesn't explain why the migrating Aryans don't carry the Rig Veda into Iran.
4. By "establishing" an earlier date (which is neither conclusive nor irrefutable) for the Rig Veda, he avoids explanation for BMAC names in the Rig Veda. He uses the same to avoid explanations about early memory in the Rig Veda.
[35][36][37][38][39]
I-agree-with-me bias: Reading the books, I got this strange feeling. Mr Talageri seems to accept the views of western scholars if it agrees with his own. However, if they don't he resorts to name calling the western scholar. Through his book, he calls them colonialists, missionaries, people with anti-hindu agenda, racist, frauds, AIT fanatics etc. His enmity with Michael Witzel is quite apparent. He terms every argument Witzel puts forward as fraudulent or crazy. I also learnt that N.S. Rajaram another OIT proponent rebuked him for dedicating two chapters in his first book to indulge in name-calling. This man is the staunchest OIT proponent. Meanwhile, Talageri also keeps mentioning that his evidence is irrefutable and conclusive.
Note: I also learnt that he does not know sanskrit.
Let me tell you, the problem is not with Talageri. The problem is using Rig Veda to advance OIT. The Rig Veda was not penned down before 4th century AD and the oldest version we have is from 1040 AD.
Using Rig Veda, a religious text, to interpret geography of the Vedic region, history of Vedic Aryans and their migration patterns is like attempting to perform a heart surgery using a class XII biology book because the book details the anatomy of a heart.
Same would be the case with Avesta. Though both can give us a picture of the socio-cultural settings of their times, they can give nothing more. Using them to arrive at historical conclusions is not the right thing to do. Though such an activity can make for great fiction.
Without the Rig Veda, OIT has no legs to stand upon. It fails as a theory. So, how do we explain the Vedic religion ?
Vedic Religion's origins:
(I don't claim it to be the absolute truth, but it makes sense to me).
If we set our biases aside, the Kurgan hypothesis or the revised steppe theory makes sense, but only if it is seen as a migration of the cultures not as a migration of the races.
[19][20][21][22][23]
Hunter-gatherers from Yamna culture (Black and Caspian sea area) start fanning out in all directions to establish settlements in adjacent areas. This happens over a long period of time and in waves. One such tribe that migrates to the east settles in parts of modern-day Kazakhstan and Russia. This is known to us now as the Sinhasta and Andronovo cultures. Like the Yamna culture, the Andronovo is a burial culture. However, agriculture plays a bigger part in Andronovo than in Yamna. This culture also shows sign of livestock domestication and chariots.
Over a period of time, another subculture emerges to the south of Andronovo in parts of modern day Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Afganistan known as the BMAC culture. This is mountain valley culture, marked by extreme climates. It is a potential candidate for the Airyanem Vijaeh described in the Avesta. People here spoke Proto-Indo-Iranian. People from this region might have been at the mercy of nature and would have personified it as deities. Indra, Mithra and Varuna might have been worshipped. Burial might not have been feasible in this mountainous region and people would have switched to cremation instead.
A tribe leaves the BMAC region and heads west. A little later, another small tribe moves towards the south-west. The first tribe reaches modern-day Syria region and establishes the Mitanni kingdom. The Mittani Kings have sanskritised names. They worship Indra, Mithra and Varuna. However, they speak Hurrian. A third tribe leaves BMAC and heads into the mountains - the toughest path out of BMAC. The second tribe reaches eastern Iran. They also worship Indra Mithra and Varuna. The third tribe reaches the northwestern borders of the Harappan civilisation and establishes the Cemetery H culture. A cemetery dated between 1900 BCE and 1300 BCE. These people also invoke the same gods as the other two cultures.
The second tribe travels further west into Iran. The third tribe travels further east into India. The farther these tribes move away from each other, so do their languages and religions. The second tribe incorporates Zoroaster's teaching and become Iranians. These people speak Avestan. The third tribe incorporates Harappan deities into its pantheon and becomes the Vedic Aryans. These people speak sanskrit. These cultures borrow socio-cultural and religious elements from each other, fight and make peace with each other, refine their languages, add literature about each other and adapt literature from each other. Over a period of time, their religions and languages go their separate way.
There is no genetic change in these migrations. Religions and languages that were accepted by natives to a region thrived in the region while others would have fizzled out.
Let's look at the case of Christianity. It began as a small movement. In less than 300 years, it had a sizeable following in region and the Roman emperor Constantine decreed tolerance. I less than 70 years from then, it became the state religion of Romans when Roman emperor Theodosius adopted the religion. Over the next few decades, it grew in strength and began incorporating Pagan customs too. This did not change any genetic makeup of anyone. After Ashoka embraced Buddhism, the religion grew in the Deccan and Srilanka. When Emperor Ming of the Han dynasty embraced Buddhism, the religion became to spread in China. None of this changed the genetics. In fact, Zoroastrianism gained momentum only after the King Vishtapsa embraced it. It is possible that some tribes(possibly Bharatas) in Gangetic plains embraced the Vedic religion before it began spreading.
Cultural migration does not require a mass people migration. A few people carry their culture to a new land. If the rulers of those lands embrace these new cultures, the culture will survive and grow. Else the culture dies out.
Approximate chronology:
2000 BCE: Beginnings of Andronovo and BMAC cultures.
1900 BCE: First tribe from BMAC leaves to the west.
1800 BCE: Drought hits Harappan civilization.
1700 BCE: Second tribe leaves BMAC.
1500 BCE: First tribe arrives in Mittani. They've made quite a few stops on the way. Third tribe leaves BMAC
1400 BCE: Second tribe arrives in Eastern Iran. Third tribe arrives in Cemetery H cultural region.
1300 BCE: Mitttani kings defeated. Harappan civilisation is abandoned completely.
1100 BCE: Second tribe moves into Western Iran.
1000 BCE: Third tribe moves into Eastern India. Zoroaster arrives on scene. Early Avestan period. Painted grey ware culture begins.
900 BCE: Beginnings of Vedic period.
700 BCE to 500 BCE: Early Vedic and Iranian cultures clash. Old Persian period.
300 BCE: Late Avestan period. Aledander had conquered most parts of Asia. Persia and Vedic regions under one reign. Middle/late Vedic period.
200 AD: Satvahanas embrace Vedic religion and brings it to Deccan India.
Spread of IE languages:
At present, there is not enough evidence to even consider OIT as a possibility. If in the future, more evidence in uncovered, this might change.
References:
1. http://www.applet-magic.com/indoeuropean.htm
2. https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/IE_Main4_Sanskrit.html
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_vocabulary
4. https://www.harappa.com/blog/ramprasad-chanda-and-aryan-invasion-theory
5. http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/how-genetics-is-settling-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19090301.ece
6. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-problematics-of-genetics-and-the-aryan-issue/article19165320.ece
7. http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/genetics-aryan-debate
8. https://scroll.in/article/827636/even-the-greatest-specialists-have-failed-to-prove-the-aryan-invasion-theory-koenraad-elst
9. http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2015/06/the-only-unassailable-truth-in-shrikant-talageris-book-is-that-the-book-is-ill-written-ill-worded-ill-founded-unprofessional-gibberish/
10. http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in
11. http://talageri.blogspot.in
12. https://scroll.in/article/737715/fact-check-india-wasnt-the-first-place-sanskrit-was-recorded-it-was-syria
13. http://yugaparivartan.com/2016/01/23/aryan-invasion-theory-the-genetics-part-ii/
14. http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/oct25/articles20.htm
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum_and_satem_languages
16. http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433
17. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14507.html
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a
19. http://www.gcisd-k12.org/cms/lib/TX01000829/Centricity/Domain/829/3.1.pdf
20. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/mysterious-indo-european-homeland-may-have-been-steppes-ukraine-and-russia
21. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150304075334.htm
22. https://www.mpg.de/9005184/humans-migration-indo-european-languages
23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations
24. http://tri-murti.com/ancientindia/rigHistory/
25. http://ancientvoice.wdfiles.com/local--files/article%3Arigveda-and-avesta-the-final-evidence/Rigveda%20and%20The%20Avestha.pdf
26. http://diachronica.pagesperso-orange.fr/TMCJ_vol_2.1_Fournet_Review_of_Talageri.pdf
27. https://controversialhistory.blogspot.in/2008/01/date-of-rig-veda.html
28. https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/hindutva-crazies-on-the-dating-of-the-rig-vedas/
29. http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2015/06/sanjay-sonawanis-origins-of-the-vedic-religion-and-indus-ghaggar-civilisation-1/
30. http://ssonawani.blogspot.in/2014/06/shrikant-talageri-and-his-dubious-theory.html
31. https://www.slideshare.net/rajeshkochhar1/rigveda-chronology-and-geography
32. https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/11678/description-of-metals-in-vedas-and-itihasas
33. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
34. http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2015/06/avesta-is-older-than-the-rig-veda-key-proofs-and-why-talageris-work-doesnt-demonstrate-any-scholarly-acumen/
35. https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/index.htm#languages
36. https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm
37. https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/location.htm
38. https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion.htm
39. https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion2.htm
40. http://suvratk.blogspot.in/2016/01/5300-year-old-icemans-bacteria-genome.html
41. http://historum.com/asian-history/49116-out-india-theory.html
42. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/240999-out-of-india-theory/
TL;DR
- The Out of India theory is an alternative theory to the Aryan migration theory. It claims that India is the homeland to all Indo-Europeans and sanskrit is the oldest of all Indo-European languages.
- The arguments of OIT proponents are the lack of evidence to support Aryan Invasion theory, lack of genetic evidence to support the Aryan Migration theory, claims in hindu literature to longer antiquity for Vedas and cultural similarities to Iranians and Mittani rulers.
- So far, linguistic, genetic, historical, cultural anthropological studies have lent no evidence in favour of the OIT.
- As a last resort, OIT proponents infer parts of Rig Veda to stake a claim for the OIT. Unfortunately, it lacks any scholarly value.
- Based on evidences discovered so far, the OIT is just a myth, but the hindutvas continue to peddle it.
The out-of-India (OIT), also known as the Indigenous Aryans theory, proposes that the Aryans are native to the Indian subcontinent. The proponents of this theory believe that Indo-European languages evolved in India and travelled west as Aryans migrated to the west. According to this theory, Aryans migrated out of India to settle in different parts of Europe and that sanskrit is the mother of all European languages.
Origins of the OIT
To trace the origin of the OIT, we will have to understand how sanskrit came to be classified as an Indo-European language[1][2][3].
In 1583, an English Jesuit travelling to India noted the similarities between Greek, Latin and sanskrit. Two years later, in 1585, an Italian merchant by the name Filippo Sassetti noted the similarities between the words for numbers in sanskrit and Italian. In 1768, a French Jesuit, upon studying sanskrit concluded that Greek, Latin and sanskrit must have a common ancestor. In 1780's, an English judge, one William Jones, sent to Calcutta to study native Indian laws turned into a sanskrit enthusiast. He too was educated in Greek and Latin and he too arrived at the conclusion that "no philologer could examine them all three [languages] without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists."
Linguists learned of Jones' finding and flocked to India to trace the origin of these languages. Their initial theory was that these languages originated in India and travelled westward, in short, the Out-of-India Theory. The claim of a long oral tradition for sanskrit seemed to have been the basis for this theory. And linguists set out to prove this.
We know from this that the OIT theory was the first homeland theory of Indo-European languages and it was the western scholarship that put forward this idea. So, why was it dismissed in favour of the Aryan Invasion theory (AIT)?
The Aryan Invasion theory
Through the 19th century, linguists worked towards establishing relationships between languages and classifying them. They used grammar, semantics, vocabulary, sound structures among other things to classify two languages as sister languages or mother-daughter languages. These linguists also worked towards identifying languages that did not belong to the Indo-European language family even when it was spoken within the geographical vicinity of Indo-European lands.
The term Indo-European was coined in 1813 and in the first few decades of the 19th century, the OIT was the dominant theory for the homeland of Indo-Europeans (IE). This changed when comparative linguistics study of sanskrit, Greek and Latin failed to throw up any evidence to suggest that sanskrit was the mother languages to these European languages.
This was the time Max Muller arrived on scene. In 1840's he began studying sanskrit. First in Paris, then in England. During this time, under the influence of his mentor Eugene Burnhof, Muller began studying the Rig Veda (Upon detailed linguistic study, Max Muller dated Rig Veda between 1500 BCE and 500 BCE) too. Like most scholars of his time, be held the belief that the evolution of languages has to be studied in relation to cultural development. So, to him, the study of Rig Veda was not merely the study of sanskrit, but also the study of Vedic culture also known as the Aryan culture. The term was not coined by Max Muller, but by the Rig Veda itself. The Rig Veda referred to the people depicted in its pages as Aryas. (Note: It is known that the term "Aryanism" was thought of to represent a race and was used to commit great atrocities. We will not get into that now).
During this period, the out of India theory lost traction due to the lack of linguistic evidence to suggest that sanskrit was the mother of all Indo-European languages. Historians suggested other alternatives. One theory gained pace over the others - the Aryan Invasion Theory. The early proponents of this theory suggested that movements/invasions of Indo-Iranians, the similarities between sanskrit and the Avestan language, sanskritised names of Mittani rulers, the semi-nomadic nature of Vedic culture, and shared cultural elements across the different Indo-European languages were evidence that the Aryan invasion/migration happened. These pieces of evidence convinced the scholarship of the late 19th and early 20th century and AIT became the dominant working theory.
It was this that led Mortimer Wheeler, who came to India in 1944 to be the director of Archeological Survey of India(ASI) to link Aryan migration/invasion to the decline of Indus valley civilisation. Mortimer Wheeler directed several excavations in the valley and upon studying the artefacts unearthed, discovered that the Indus Valley civilisation began to decline in 1900 BCE and was completely abandoned by 1300-1200 BCE. He linked the decline of the Indus Valley civilisation to the invasion of Aryans and arrived at the time of this invasion. His time of 1800 BCE for Aryan invasion fit perfectly with the timelines Max Muller had given for the Rig Veda. He also went on to claim that Dravidians were the natives of India and that they were the original inhabitants of the Harappan cities. He further claimed that displaced by the invasion, Dravidians settled in Southern India.
It must also be noted here that Mortimer Wheeler was not the first one to connect the decline of Harappan with the Invasion of Aryans. Before him, in the early 1900's, Ramprasad Chanda, an archaeologist with the ASI also had come to this conclusion upon investigating Vedic literature and the Indus Valley Civilization. It is not known if Mortimer Wheeler was influenced by Ramprasad Chanda's theories or not [4].
3500 BCE to 1800 BCE: Indus Valley civilisation thrives
1800 BCE: Aryan Invasion, Indus Valley civilisation begins to decline
1300 BCE: Indus Valley is abandoned
1200 BCE: Rig Veda is compiled (not in written form)
The timelines made sense to the scholarship then.
However, when archaeology could not produce more evidence to signs of war in the Indus valley civilisation, the scholarship moved towards a milder version of the AIT known as the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT). While AIT was the dominant theory in the first half of the 20th century, the AMT garnered more support in the later half. Several hypotheses for the Indo-European homeland were proposed during this period. The Kurgan hypothesis (Pontic steppe as IE homeland) and the Anatolian hypothesis (Modern-day Eastern Turkey as IE homeland) have garnered more critical support (We shall discuss these in a later section).
However, both AIT and AMT theories took a serious blow in the late 20th century. Why?
The genetics
Using advancements in genetic studies, scientists were able to conclude that no major migrations into or out of India happened in the last 12500 years and the genetic makeup of Indians have remained so, for at least 40,000 years (sample size used - 132 people). Proponents of AIT/AMT who were confident that science would back their theory were taken aback.
These genetic studies also settled the debate on whether Indo-Aryans and Europeans were related. Yes, they were genetically related. The R1a haplogroup [18] that is common among modern-day North Indians is also found in a significant population of the Europeans. This, scholars believe is definitive proof of a relation and common ancestry.
With science debunking the Aryan invasion and migration theories, once again the question of the Indo-European homeland came into question again. This is when hindu nationalists and hindu revivalists (referred collectively as hindutvas) began proposing the out of India theory that the scholars rejected several decades ago. Two people were forefront in this - Koenraad Elst, a linguist with hindutva sympathy and Shrikant Talageri, an amateur historian turned author. Indologists like Nicholas Kazanas, B.B. Lal (student of Mortimer Wheeler), computer scientist Subash Kak, mathematician N.S. Rajaram and hindutva sympathiser David Frawley are some of the other prominent proponents of this theory [5][6][7][8].
The OIT arguments
The arguments put forward by OIT proponents can be broadly classified as
1. Arguments against the AIT
2. Arguments to re-date the Vedic period and the Vedas.
3. Other scientific arguments
Arguments against AIT: These arguments range from calling it a Christian conspiracy to calling it a flawed theory. Most Indian proponents of OIT prefer the former argument. They claim that the AIT was a Christian conspiracy of colonialists to cover the true origins of hinduism, deny the nativity of hindus, discredit the Vedas, and create the impression among Indians disillusioned with hinduism that they were the true natives of India and were suppressed by Invaders. It is racist and casteist. Some argue that the Christian scholars were unsympathetic to the Vedas and that they did not understand the astronomical details in them. While others point towards the lack of archaeological or genetical evidence to support the AIT.
Arguments to re-date Vedas: These arguments are put forward based on faith and supposition not on facts. Some want the Rig Veda to be dated to 7000 BCE based on astronomical events described in the text, the estimated time of the legendary river Sarasvati's demise among other things. While others want to date it to times long before that (4000 BCE, 15500 BCE, 27000 BCE are some the dates suggested and interestingly all of them have a scientific basis). There are also a few who believe Rig Veda has been there since the inception of the universe.
There are many reasons the OIT proponents want the Vedas to be dated earlier, we will see them in a different section later.
Note: Max Muller and scholars who dated Rig Veda between 1500 BCE and 500 BCE did so for the following reasons:
1. Vedic sanskrit's close relation to Avestan - the oldest Indo-Iranian language - that is dated to late bronze age (~1500 BCE) and Iron Age (1200 BCE to 200 BCE).
2. Similarities between the Vedic culture and Mittani kingdom (Mittani kings who ruled parts of modern-day Syria between 1500 BCE and 1200 BCE had sanskritised names, horses and war chariots were used by both cultures extensively, a book on war chariots titled Kikkuli written in Mittani contains Indo-Aryan words, presence of Rig Vedic deities like Indra, Mitra, Varuna in both cultures) [12].
3. Similarities/differences with Zoroastrianism - the religion of Avestan. Both Zoroastrianism and Vedic religion have Devas and Asura. (Devas are the good beings in Vedic Religions. Asuras are the good beings in Zoroastrianism).
Other scientific evidence:
1. The genetic centre of gravity principle states that the most likely origin of the gene pool is in the area of its
- Great diversity
- Highest frequency
- Oldest variation
2. Similar to the genetic centre of gravity principle, the linguistic centre of gravity principle states that the most likely origin of a language is in the area of its greatest diversity. While many branches of Indo-European like Anatolian, Hellenic, Italian, Germanic, and Greek languages can found on the European continent, only one branch of IE is found in India: Indo-Aryan. Shrikant Talageri has suggested that Prakrit is a sister language of sanskrit and not a daughter language as earlier thought (There are claims that Indologist Thomas Oberlies and Prakrit scholar K.R.Norman agree with him). This is to some proof that more than one branch of IE is found in India.
3. Centum-Satem languages [15]: Languages of the IE family are classified as centum or satem languages according to how the dorsal consonants (sounds of 'K' and 'G' type) developed from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language. This classification has arrived at by identifying how the word for "hundred" developed with the evolution of IE languages. While European languages are centum languages, the Asian languages in the IE family are found to be satem. Linguists consider that the centum languages were the first to evolve and over a period of time and movement, these languages were satemised. Because sanskrit is a satem language they consider it be younger than some of the European languages.
However, proponents of OIT point to the curious case of Tocharian and claim that Satem languages were the first to evolve in northwestern India and then spread out in either direction - one into Europe and another into the Chinese region. Some other proponents will also point to the curious case of Bangani - a centum language spoken in the Indian subcontinent.
4. There is no archaeological evidence to suggest an invasion into India. The 37 skeletons found in Mohenjadaro only suggest that these people were retreating and fast, it does not prove an invasion. If there was no invasion, then the only plausible theory is OIT.
The counter-arguments
Various arguments put forward in favour of other hypothesis stands at odds with the OIT.
1. Various genetic studies undertaken over the years seems to suggest various locations for the highest frequency and oldest specimen of the R1a haplogroup.
2. A couple genetic studies undertaken in 2015 seems to support the Kurgan hypothesis and Pontic steppes as IE homeland [16],[17]. A study conducted by author Horolma Pamjav in 2012 also seems to suggest that the Pontic steppes have the greatest diversity of R1a haplogroup.
3. While Shrikant Talageri [11] has attempted to show that Prakrit is a sister language of sanskrit and other amateur OIT proponents have suggested even Magadi, Maharashtri, Pali, and even Sinhalese as sister languages of sanskrit, Koenraad Elst [10] the only notable linguist proponent of OIT agrees that it is the linguistic evidence that is inconclusive and at times against the OIT. However, he also argues that linguistic does not rule out an Indian homeland for IE. You can read about it on his blog listed in the references.
4. There might not be enough archaeological evidence to support an invasion into India, but there is enough evidence to show that Europe was populated by people who moved westward from the black sea area. Burial artefacts, pottery remnants, and the introduction of fauna attest to this. Cultural anthropology and to some extent, genetics, also support this.
From the above arguments and counter-arguments, a few things become clear.
1. Genetic evidence identified so far seemed to suggest the black sea homeland. If one were to debate that genetic commonalities do not show the direction of migration, then these studies become inconclusive.
2. The linguistic evidence favours the black sea homeland or is inconclusive.
3. There is not enough archaeological evidence to support the AIT or OIT.
4. Archaeological and cultural anthropological evidence suggests the black sea homeland for at least the European languages.
So far, there is no evidence to support an Indian homeland for IE languages. However, OIT proponents still keep peddling their theory. Simply because they have one more card to play and it is their ultimate weapon, their brahmastra - The Rig Veda.
OIT's ultimate weapon - The Rig Veda
OIT proponents have used the Rig Veda to suggest that IE languages and at times, humankind originated from India during the Vedic period. They use references in the Rig Vedic text to infer the geography and time period of this Vedic period. They also use lineages of kings/chieftains who controlled the Vedic area, authors of various hymns in the texts, metals, food and crops mentioned in the texts tp place it in history. They sometimes compare it with the history of areas around the Vedic region to suggest that their deductions are irrefutable. In this, they are aided by Vedists who want to give the Vedas a longer antiquity, hindutvas who wish to establish an Akhand Bharat and uphold the glory of hinduism, and some Indo-Aryan language speakers.
There is a slew of articles on the internet written by hindutvas and Vedists claiming a longer antiquity for the Rig Veda. You can read one such article here [27]. In this short article, the author makes numerous mistakes (Avesta and Rig Veda have nothing to do with each other, mention of silver and cotton are proof Veda is older, etc.) You will also see that the article desperately tries to discredit Western scholarship as colonialist, Christian agenda. Even if we assume the western scholars has an agenda, how can one be sure the author has no agenda? I will not waste too much time dwelling upon this. It should suffice to say that sanskrit enthusiasts, hindutvas and amateur writers let their emotion cloud their judgement and they will not heed to facts. Neither will they provide evidence to convince scholarship that their claims are more than just claims [28]. Ameteurs are not alone in this [40]. Though Vedists have been trying to do this for long, a lot more of these articles started cropping up on the internet after Shrikant Talageri, one of the staunch proponents of the OIT, published two books titled:
1. Rig Veda - A historical analysis (2000) [24]
2. Rig Veda and Avesta - The final evidence (2008) [25]
I read both the books, the second one before and more closely than the first. I will try to sum up Shrikant's Talageri's argument for an early Rig Veda and OIT below.
Book 1:
Rig Veda's internal chronology: Mr Talageri begins books by detailing the composers of the Rig Veda and their lineage. He also discusses kings and their lineages as described in the Rig Veda. He then explains the consensus among scholars on the chronology of Rig Vedic books.
Early books: 2-7 (Also known as family books as all the hymns in a book are attributed to various members of a single family. Book 2 is attributed to Grtsamada family, 3 to Vishvamitra family and so on)
Late books: 1, 8-10(Non-family books)
While Talageri agrees with other scholars that family books came earlier, he does not agree with their chronology of family book (Book 2 is generally considered the oldest). He further classifies the family books into pure family books (the hymns in a book are attributed to only one branch of the family) and other family books (the hymns in a book are attributed to more than one branch of the family). Using this he classifies books 6, 3 and 7 as pure family books and assigns an earlier time to them. He classifies 4 and 2 to be middle period books because 2 and 4 hymns respectively are attributed to a different branch of a family. He mentions that using linguistic study, books 5 (a pure family book) belongs with the late books. Thus he arrives at the following classification.
Early books: 6, 3, 7
Middle books: 4, 2
Late books, 5, 1, 8, 9, 10
Rig Veda's geography: Mr Talageri begins explaining the geography of Rig Veda by asserting that
"The Geography of the Rigveda has been the most misrepresented aspect of the text in the hands of the scholars: the geographical information in the Rigveda, to put it in a nutshell, more or less pertains to the area from Uttar Pradesh in the east to Afghanistan in the west, the easternmost river mentioned in the text being the Ganga, and the westernmost being the western tributaries of the Indus."
Using the names of rivers, places, and animals described in the Rig Vedic books, Mr Talageri arrives at the following conclusion:
1. Pre-Rigvedic Period: Haryana and areas cast.
2. Early Rigvedic Period: Haryana and areas east, eastern and central Punjab.
3. Middle Rigvedic Period: Haryana and areas east, Punjab.
4. Late Rigvedic Period: Haryana and areas east, Punjab, southern Afghanistan.
He also dismisses "so-called negative evidences - the tiger, rice and soma drinking" as baseless allegations of invasion theorists.
Indo-Iranian homeland: Here, Mr Talageri begins by interpreting certain portions of the Rig Veda and tells us that this is historically accurate based on descriptions in Puranas. He then interprets Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrians in this "historical context".
He then claims that the theories of western scholars about Indo-Iranian homeland are incorrect. He asserts that the following are the theories of western scholars.
1. Indo-Iranians migrated into Central Asia from the West (from an original Indo-European homeland in South Russia) and then they split into two: the Iranians moving southwestwards into Iran, and the Indoaryans moving southeastwards into India.
2. Indo-Iranians first migrated into the Caucasus region, from where they moved southwards into western Iran. From there, they moved eastwards, with the Indoaryans separating from the Iranians somewhere in eastern Iran and continuing eastwards into India.
While he asserts that the second theory has already been debunked, the first holds no truth because there is no textual evidence for Iranians before 800 BCE in Iran and 500 BCE is central Asia. He then tells the readers that Avesta is the only source of Iranians before this and the geography of Avesta indicates an east to west migration.
He also points to the mention of Manusha in Avesta, the battle of ten kings in Rig Veda and then, he links the tribal kings mentioned in the battle to Vedic Aryans(Puru tribe), Iranians (Anu tribe), Persians (Parsus tribe).
He asserts that reference to Manusha is a memory carried by Iranians and the battle of ten kings gives rise to socio-cultural differences between Vedic Aryans and Iranians.
He then asserts the geography of Avesta as
1. Pre-Avestan Period: Punjab, southern Afghanistan.
2. Early and Late Avestan Periods: Punjab, Afghanistan, Central Asia, northeastern Iran.
3. Post-Avestan Period: Afghanistan, Central Asia, Iran.
Talageri also claims that Kashmir to be the Airyanem Vaejah, the homeland of Zoroastrians who consider Avesta their holy book.
Once again, he suggests a westward migration of Iranians from India.
Indo-European homeland: Here, using the inferences from his previous chapter, Talageri claims that AIT is a flawed theory and presents a heap of evidence against it. He then discusses the various tribes discussed in Rig Veda, comparative mythology and asserts that the evidences favour India as the homeland for IE.
The rest of the book is Witzel-rant.
Book 2:
Rig Veda and Avesta: Mr Talageri begins by telling his readers that the 10 mandalas(books/chapters) of the Rig Veda can be arranged chronologically as
Early books: 6, 3, 7
Middle books: 4, 2
Late books, 5, 1, 8, 9, 10
He then goes on to show that late rig Vedic books and Avesta share a lot of common names, while early Rig Vedic books share anything at all. He also tells us that while the early books are aware of only the geography around Sarasvati river, the later books seem to know the geography of the western regions as well. (In fact, he lists references from all hymns in all the books). This he asserts is evidence that the Vedic people/religion were migrating from east to west through the Vedic period. He also asserts that the language used in late Vedic books have a close linguistic relationship with the Avestan language while the language used in the early and middle books are older.
He uses the above inferences to conclude that the early and middle Rig Vedic books predate the Avestan times, the Vedic people were indigenous and they began migrating westward.
To further show that the original home to Vedic Aryans is to the east of Saravasti, Talageri states the following.
1. The Rig Vedic climate is monsoonal. This is evident because the Indra - the storm god gets the more hymns.
2. Most Rig Vedic hymns mention only South Asian trees. Vedic Aryans used only Indian wood for their chariots.
3. Rice mentioned in the Rig Veda. Wheat isn't. This places Rig Veda to the northern plain of India.
Rig Vedic meters: Then Mr Talageri discusses meters used in the Rig Veda and tells us that the meters used in the fifth book are similar to the one used in the eighth book. This he uses to make the claim that the fifth book and the eighth books were written together and so, the fifth book is a later book. He also tells us that metres used in Avestan are similar/same as the meters used in the late Rig Vedic books.
Rig Veda's internal chronology: I was surprised this topic was discussed half way through the book. For over 100 pages, Mr Talageri had been impressing (if not beating to death) upon his readers that early Rig Vedic geography is the Sarasvati river and Avestan corresponds to late Rig Vedic period. Readers who pick this first like I did would be fooled into forming an opinion on the comparative timelines for Rig Vedic books and Avesta even before knowing the reasons behind it.
Then Mr Talageri tells us that Rig Veda was compiled in "tidy sequential patterns" and description of geography is evidence enough to show that Vedic Aryans moved westward from their homes and they migrated out of India. He suggests the following times for these books, once again without showing any evidence.
Early Rig Vedic period: 3400 BCE to 2600 BCE
Middle Rig Vedic period: 2600 BCE to 2200 BCE
Late Rig Vedic period: 2200 BCE to 1400 BCE
Looking at the dates, something seemed strange and suspicious.
Archaeology of OIT: In the final chapter of his book, he beats to death the archaeological evidence against the AIT. Then he begins the archaeology for OIT with the following line:
"The AIT-vs.-OIT debate must, strictly speaking, be conducted totally without reference to archaeology, until actual decipherable inscriptional evidence is discovered, either in the Harappan sites, conclusively proving the language of the Harappans to be Indo-European or non-Indo-European, or in archaeological sites further west and north, in Central Asia or further, in a language which can be conclusively shown to be a form of pre-Rigvedic."
He then suggests that the Harappan civilisation is a good candidate for the Vedic culture and asserts that scholars have rejected this idea in the past because they are either biased or proponents of AIT. He, however, does not give one evidence to support his suggestion, not even the ones internet sleuths present.
And that is the prize Talageri is looking for: the Harappan civilisation. And that is a big one. In recent times, Indian scholars and some Indo-Aryan speakers have started replacing the term the Indus valley civilisation with Indus-Sarasvati civilisation.
So in his books, Talageri has claimed all the following:
1. Vedic Aryans are indigenous to India.
2. They migrated from eastern India to western India and eventually out of India.
3. The earliest book of Rig Veda was compiled in 3400 BCE. He gives it an air of credibility by not dating it much older than that like other internet sleuths.
4. Harappan civilisation is Vedic civilisation.
The problems with Talageri's Rig Vedic arguments:
[9][29][30][34]
To a casual, naive reader, Talageri's arguments might be overwhelming and to some extent, convincing. However, a closer look at his arguments will reveal the flaws in it.
Let's begin with Internal chronology: [31]
637: Talageri states that while the early books 6 and 3 doesn't mention any composer from any other book, 7 does. So 6 and 3 come before 7. Book 6 mentions the ancestral Bharata king once. So this predates 3. This is definitely flimsy evidence if it can be considered as evidence at all.
Talageri also claims Divodatsa and his son Sudas is contemporaneous to early books. Divodatsa is mentioned only in book 6 and neither in 3 or 7. He appears in book 4 a few times and in book 2 once. Sudas doesn't appear in book 6, makes a few appearances in 3 and is present quite a lot in 7. Even if we discount Divodatsa's appearances in book 4 and 2, books 6, 3 and 7 must have been written within a span of two generation, at best 100 years. Not the 800 years time Talageri suggests (There are claims that Sudas was a descendant not a direct son of Divodatsa. However, the wording in Rig Veda seems to imply a direct son).
42: Talageri then states that book 4 mentions two composers from other books, but it is still close to a pure family book because it shows cultural continuity. He also states book 2 is a neutral period between Bharata kings and the general puru period.
Language: [33] He doesn't discuss the language in any of these early or middle books, but he discusses the language in book 5 and discounts it to the late period. There might be a reason for this. Book 5, hymn 62 contains the following verse:
"hiraṇyanirṇigh ayo asya sthūṇā vi bhrājate divy aśvājanīva |"
"Adorned with gold, its columns are of iron. in heaven it glitters like a whip for horses;"
There is a great debate on whether iron is mentioned in the Rig Veda are not. Some claim "Ayas" mentioned in the Rig Veda is a generic term used for metal. While others claim it refers to copper. In this verse, this term is used to describe pillars and their might/strength. Iron seems to fit. However, Rig Vedic scholars claim that Iron is not mentioned in the Rig Veda [32].
What is the problem with Iron and Rig Veda? Iron wasn't discovered in India until 1200 BCE. Technology to use it for columns would have come much later. If Rig Veda mentions iron, it loses its antiquity.
I wonder if Talageri added book 5 (even though it is considered a pure family book) to the later period books to ensure that the mention of "Ayas" is not further questioned.
Tidy Sequential patterns: We saw earlier that Talageri claims the Rig Vedic books were written in tidy sequential patterns. I will give the example of Sudhanvan who is mentioned in books 3 and 4 and nowhere else. According to Talageri's sequential pattern, books 3 and 4 should be separated by at least a few decades if not centuries. However, that doesn't seem to be the case with Sudhanvan. There are many examples such as this.
Early and Late hymns: While Talageri agrees that some earlier books might contain late hymns, he disputes that later books contain earlier hymns. One reason might be that it goes against his migration narrative. The other might be just to disagree with philologist Michael Witzel (the guys seem to hate each other) who contends that some early hymns may be found in later books. Talageri himself agrees that the books 3 and 7 have hymns compiled at a later date. Yet he still classifies them with early books. One more blow to "tidy sequential patterns"
As can be seen, a close look reveals that Talageri's chronology of Rig Veda is not irrefutable. Without this chronology, Talageri's migration narrative can simply be dismissed until archaeology uncovers something.
Dating: Talageri shows linguistic similarities to show that Avestan belongs to the late Vedic period. But is he really? No, he is simply showing similarities in vocabulary and cultural elements to arrive at this conclusion. He does not discuss the aspects of linguistics that matter like sentence structure, syntax, grammar, morphology, etc. It is not without reason linguistics say Vedic sanskrit is closer to Avestan and old Persian. These languages share a common ancestor.
Talageri also claims that the early Vedic period happened during Harappan times. Assuming they are the same cultures, artefacts from Harappan sites should have contained something related to the Vedic culture. Other than something that resembles a fire altar, a corpse of a donkey nothing has been found. This cannot be the remains of a culture that was obsessed with fire and horses. If Harappan and Vedic cultures were two different cultures in the geographic vicinity, it is strange one does not know the other. Given that Harappans had connections with all other major civilisations of its times, it would indeed be strange they did not know about its neighbours. The only explanation is that Vedic culture and Harappans did not co-exist in the same period.
So, Talageri's dating has no scientific basis. He is just aiming for the big prize - Harappan civilisation.
Avestan geography:
One of Talageri's masterstroke is interpreting the Avestan geography to fit in the OIT.
1. He begins the Indo-Iranian homeland discussion by telling an half-truth that Western scholars consider a south-western movement into Iran. However, as can be seen in the map below, some Western scholars consider the westward movement to be the first one to happen (serial numbers indicating the order of movement).
2. He then shifts the Airyanem Vaejah a bit south to Kashmir from "Central Asia". He uses the term "Central Asia" in a such a way as to distance it from Kashmir as possible, but in reality, the Ariyanem Vajeah that the scholarship has accepted is only about 1000 kilometres to the North. The terrain is similar.
3. He then claims one reference to "Manusha" in Avesta as early memory from Indian homeland. However, he doesn't explain why the migrating Aryans don't carry the Rig Veda into Iran.
4. By "establishing" an earlier date (which is neither conclusive nor irrefutable) for the Rig Veda, he avoids explanation for BMAC names in the Rig Veda. He uses the same to avoid explanations about early memory in the Rig Veda.
[35][36][37][38][39]
I-agree-with-me bias: Reading the books, I got this strange feeling. Mr Talageri seems to accept the views of western scholars if it agrees with his own. However, if they don't he resorts to name calling the western scholar. Through his book, he calls them colonialists, missionaries, people with anti-hindu agenda, racist, frauds, AIT fanatics etc. His enmity with Michael Witzel is quite apparent. He terms every argument Witzel puts forward as fraudulent or crazy. I also learnt that N.S. Rajaram another OIT proponent rebuked him for dedicating two chapters in his first book to indulge in name-calling. This man is the staunchest OIT proponent. Meanwhile, Talageri also keeps mentioning that his evidence is irrefutable and conclusive.
Note: I also learnt that he does not know sanskrit.
Let me tell you, the problem is not with Talageri. The problem is using Rig Veda to advance OIT. The Rig Veda was not penned down before 4th century AD and the oldest version we have is from 1040 AD.
Using Rig Veda, a religious text, to interpret geography of the Vedic region, history of Vedic Aryans and their migration patterns is like attempting to perform a heart surgery using a class XII biology book because the book details the anatomy of a heart.
Same would be the case with Avesta. Though both can give us a picture of the socio-cultural settings of their times, they can give nothing more. Using them to arrive at historical conclusions is not the right thing to do. Though such an activity can make for great fiction.
Without the Rig Veda, OIT has no legs to stand upon. It fails as a theory. So, how do we explain the Vedic religion ?
Vedic Religion's origins:
(I don't claim it to be the absolute truth, but it makes sense to me).
If we set our biases aside, the Kurgan hypothesis or the revised steppe theory makes sense, but only if it is seen as a migration of the cultures not as a migration of the races.
[19][20][21][22][23]
Hunter-gatherers from Yamna culture (Black and Caspian sea area) start fanning out in all directions to establish settlements in adjacent areas. This happens over a long period of time and in waves. One such tribe that migrates to the east settles in parts of modern-day Kazakhstan and Russia. This is known to us now as the Sinhasta and Andronovo cultures. Like the Yamna culture, the Andronovo is a burial culture. However, agriculture plays a bigger part in Andronovo than in Yamna. This culture also shows sign of livestock domestication and chariots.
Over a period of time, another subculture emerges to the south of Andronovo in parts of modern day Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Afganistan known as the BMAC culture. This is mountain valley culture, marked by extreme climates. It is a potential candidate for the Airyanem Vijaeh described in the Avesta. People here spoke Proto-Indo-Iranian. People from this region might have been at the mercy of nature and would have personified it as deities. Indra, Mithra and Varuna might have been worshipped. Burial might not have been feasible in this mountainous region and people would have switched to cremation instead.
A tribe leaves the BMAC region and heads west. A little later, another small tribe moves towards the south-west. The first tribe reaches modern-day Syria region and establishes the Mitanni kingdom. The Mittani Kings have sanskritised names. They worship Indra, Mithra and Varuna. However, they speak Hurrian. A third tribe leaves BMAC and heads into the mountains - the toughest path out of BMAC. The second tribe reaches eastern Iran. They also worship Indra Mithra and Varuna. The third tribe reaches the northwestern borders of the Harappan civilisation and establishes the Cemetery H culture. A cemetery dated between 1900 BCE and 1300 BCE. These people also invoke the same gods as the other two cultures.
The second tribe travels further west into Iran. The third tribe travels further east into India. The farther these tribes move away from each other, so do their languages and religions. The second tribe incorporates Zoroaster's teaching and become Iranians. These people speak Avestan. The third tribe incorporates Harappan deities into its pantheon and becomes the Vedic Aryans. These people speak sanskrit. These cultures borrow socio-cultural and religious elements from each other, fight and make peace with each other, refine their languages, add literature about each other and adapt literature from each other. Over a period of time, their religions and languages go their separate way.
There is no genetic change in these migrations. Religions and languages that were accepted by natives to a region thrived in the region while others would have fizzled out.
Let's look at the case of Christianity. It began as a small movement. In less than 300 years, it had a sizeable following in region and the Roman emperor Constantine decreed tolerance. I less than 70 years from then, it became the state religion of Romans when Roman emperor Theodosius adopted the religion. Over the next few decades, it grew in strength and began incorporating Pagan customs too. This did not change any genetic makeup of anyone. After Ashoka embraced Buddhism, the religion grew in the Deccan and Srilanka. When Emperor Ming of the Han dynasty embraced Buddhism, the religion became to spread in China. None of this changed the genetics. In fact, Zoroastrianism gained momentum only after the King Vishtapsa embraced it. It is possible that some tribes(possibly Bharatas) in Gangetic plains embraced the Vedic religion before it began spreading.
Cultural migration does not require a mass people migration. A few people carry their culture to a new land. If the rulers of those lands embrace these new cultures, the culture will survive and grow. Else the culture dies out.
Approximate chronology:
2000 BCE: Beginnings of Andronovo and BMAC cultures.
1900 BCE: First tribe from BMAC leaves to the west.
1800 BCE: Drought hits Harappan civilization.
1700 BCE: Second tribe leaves BMAC.
1500 BCE: First tribe arrives in Mittani. They've made quite a few stops on the way. Third tribe leaves BMAC
1400 BCE: Second tribe arrives in Eastern Iran. Third tribe arrives in Cemetery H cultural region.
1300 BCE: Mitttani kings defeated. Harappan civilisation is abandoned completely.
1100 BCE: Second tribe moves into Western Iran.
1000 BCE: Third tribe moves into Eastern India. Zoroaster arrives on scene. Early Avestan period. Painted grey ware culture begins.
900 BCE: Beginnings of Vedic period.
700 BCE to 500 BCE: Early Vedic and Iranian cultures clash. Old Persian period.
300 BCE: Late Avestan period. Aledander had conquered most parts of Asia. Persia and Vedic regions under one reign. Middle/late Vedic period.
200 AD: Satvahanas embrace Vedic religion and brings it to Deccan India.
Spread of IE languages:
 |
| 3500 BCE |
 |
| 3000 BCE |
 |
| 2000 BCE |
 |
| 500 BCE |
References:
1. http://www.applet-magic.com/indoeuropean.htm
2. https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/IE_Main4_Sanskrit.html
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_vocabulary
4. https://www.harappa.com/blog/ramprasad-chanda-and-aryan-invasion-theory
5. http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/how-genetics-is-settling-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19090301.ece
6. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-problematics-of-genetics-and-the-aryan-issue/article19165320.ece
7. http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/genetics-aryan-debate
8. https://scroll.in/article/827636/even-the-greatest-specialists-have-failed-to-prove-the-aryan-invasion-theory-koenraad-elst
9. http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2015/06/the-only-unassailable-truth-in-shrikant-talageris-book-is-that-the-book-is-ill-written-ill-worded-ill-founded-unprofessional-gibberish/
10. http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in
11. http://talageri.blogspot.in
12. https://scroll.in/article/737715/fact-check-india-wasnt-the-first-place-sanskrit-was-recorded-it-was-syria
13. http://yugaparivartan.com/2016/01/23/aryan-invasion-theory-the-genetics-part-ii/
14. http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/oct25/articles20.htm
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum_and_satem_languages
16. http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433
17. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14507.html
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a
19. http://www.gcisd-k12.org/cms/lib/TX01000829/Centricity/Domain/829/3.1.pdf
20. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/mysterious-indo-european-homeland-may-have-been-steppes-ukraine-and-russia
21. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150304075334.htm
22. https://www.mpg.de/9005184/humans-migration-indo-european-languages
23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations
24. http://tri-murti.com/ancientindia/rigHistory/
25. http://ancientvoice.wdfiles.com/local--files/article%3Arigveda-and-avesta-the-final-evidence/Rigveda%20and%20The%20Avestha.pdf
26. http://diachronica.pagesperso-orange.fr/TMCJ_vol_2.1_Fournet_Review_of_Talageri.pdf
27. https://controversialhistory.blogspot.in/2008/01/date-of-rig-veda.html
28. https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/hindutva-crazies-on-the-dating-of-the-rig-vedas/
29. http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2015/06/sanjay-sonawanis-origins-of-the-vedic-religion-and-indus-ghaggar-civilisation-1/
30. http://ssonawani.blogspot.in/2014/06/shrikant-talageri-and-his-dubious-theory.html
31. https://www.slideshare.net/rajeshkochhar1/rigveda-chronology-and-geography
32. https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/11678/description-of-metals-in-vedas-and-itihasas
33. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
34. http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2015/06/avesta-is-older-than-the-rig-veda-key-proofs-and-why-talageris-work-doesnt-demonstrate-any-scholarly-acumen/
35. https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/index.htm#languages
36. https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm
37. https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/location.htm
38. https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion.htm
39. https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion2.htm
40. http://suvratk.blogspot.in/2016/01/5300-year-old-icemans-bacteria-genome.html
41. http://historum.com/asian-history/49116-out-india-theory.html
42. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/240999-out-of-india-theory/
Comments
Ancient history is extremely complicated, and regrettably lacking in much physical evidence.
This probably leads us to apply theories to sparse data as it seems fit to our emotional biases.
I did notice that you have tried your best to remain unbiased, which is an accomplishment in itself.
The amount of information did overwhelm me at many places.
Nevertheless, I mostly read through both because of my interest in the topic and your convincing presentation of the information.
I do have a feedback, if possible, try to set aside a TL;DR of the article in the very beginning, so that the reader can remain anchored as he/she wades through the details.
I like the style update to the blog too, it's a lot easier on the eyes :)
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Buddha rejected the Vedas. Earliest Buddhist texts mention that he rejected the Vedic rituals. These texts were written at least 200 years after Buddha had died. The earliest Buddhist texts are dated to 3rd and 2nd century BCE.
There is also no evidence to suggest Buddha was even familiar with the Vedas. They had not been written yet. Sanskrit did not adopt a writing system before Christian era. It was the last of the early Indian languages to adopt a script a writing system.
Buddha is also said to have come from the Shakya clan. They were sun worshippers. Vedic religion was not prominent in their kingdom.
It is very much possible, in fact probable, that the later Buddhist scribes in order to compete with Vedic religion brought in the idea that Buddha rejected the Vedas.
Also, to think that Rig Veda suggests a movement from India into Iran is incorrect. It is the Vedic religion that is spreading around, not people. To assume it was peple moving around is incorrect. Read about how major religions of the world spread. There was never mass migration of people. A few took it further. It is Mr. Shrikant Talageri who is weaving a tale.
And finally, no serious historian uses religious texts to write history. If western scholars had simply believed the bible, they would still be considering the exodus from Egypt history. On the other hand, historians now deny that such an event ever happened.
Thank you.
https://bharatbhumika.blogspot.com/2014/08/puranic-chronology-of-india.html
Talageri clearly stated in all of his books that Divodasa was a distinct ancestor of Sudas, he was not his father then how tf you made this absurd claim ???
Your dating of vedas are completely absurd and unconvincing. The ṚgVeda is first of all a Bronze age text not an Iron age text. Iron age itself started around 1300 BCE so it's impossible to date it after 1300 BCE.
ṚgVeda except for the 10th Maṇḍala is older than 1900 BCE becoz nowhere in the ṚgVeda Rice crop is mentioned whereas rice was a popular crop in cemetery H culture, PGW, OCP and NWBP other cultures.
The ṚgVeda mentions a river called Saraswati which dried completely around 2000 BC so how tf Aryans arrive after 1500 BC ??? There's an emotional attachment to this great river in the ṚgVeda.
If Aryans came to India around 1500 BC then how come they mention floods caused by Saraswati river!? Sarasvati is not helmand of Afghanistan, Helmand is a frail insignificant river, if it was Saraswati then why Vedic people hailed it as mother of floods. They would have rather hailed Indus (Sindhu) as mother of floods not helmand.
All family books of RigVeda mention Sarasvati infact the oldest mandala is dedicated to Sarasvati river. Sarasvati is not mythical if it was how come there be so many Harappan sites in the vicinity of Cholistan desert, North Rajasthan which is outside Indus valley ??? Saraswati was indeed more significant than Indus as u can see in the map only taken from reliable sources that more sites flourished on the banks of Sarasvati river.