Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

[ukumar]

Not at all.

You are speaking only from the viewpoint of genetics, but when a genetics paper cites a reference which is in turn based on a nonsense archaeo-linguistic document it counts as a "cite". Sooner or later this genetics paper will be used as a cite in an archaeological or linguistics paper and then we have a gradual ecosystem of ever increasing "cites" of nonsense about language spread.

Unfortunately genetics can never ever prove language spread, but genetics papers that show migration of people from point A to point B are used to "prove" nonsensical hypotheses about language spread. The rigor of proof that geneticists and other scientists require for their work simply does not exist for linguists and archaeologists, but they often pass off nonsense as science. So it is important to call out and critique every single genetics paper (or any other paper) that cites nonsense references so people know and a red flag goes up the minute that reference is cited

We can agree to disagree here. I think ancient DNA would establish with confidence if Indo aryan came to India after IVC collapsed or were already well established in India during mature harrapa time. Everybody would have to adjust the theories accordingly irrespective of tribal pride or biases.

But let's not doubt genetic findings. They are coming our way...ready or not.

[johneeG]

Not at all.

You are speaking only from the viewpoint of genetics, but when a genetics paper cites a reference which is in turn based on a nonsense archaeo-linguistic document it counts as a "cite". Sooner or later this genetics paper will be used as a cite in an archaeological or linguistics paper and then we have a gradual ecosystem of ever increasing "cites" of nonsense about language spread.

Unfortunately genetics can never ever prove language spread, but genetics papers that show migration of people from point A to point B are used to "prove" nonsensical hypotheses about language spread. The rigor of proof that geneticists and other scientists require for their work simply does not exist for linguists and archaeologists, but they often pass off nonsense as science. So it is important to call out and critique every single genetics paper (or any other paper) that cites nonsense references so people know and a red flag goes up the minute that reference is cited

We can agree to disagree here. I think ancient DNA would establish with confidence if Indo aryan came to India after IVC collapsed or were already well established in India during mature harrapa time. Everybody would have to adjust the theories accordingly irrespective of tribal pride or biases.

But let's not doubt genetic findings. They are coming our way...ready or not.

I dont know much about genetics field, so please tell me how genetics is going to establish the history of events?

[shiv]

We can agree to disagree here. I think ancient DNA would establish with confidence if Indo aryan came to India after IVC collapsed or were already well established in India during mature harrapa time. Everybody would have to adjust the theories accordingly irrespective of tribal pride or biases.

But let's not doubt genetic findings. They are coming our way...ready or not.

Sorry. You are completely missing the point.

Genetics from ancient DNA may prove that ancient people came this way or went that way but genetic studies will never ever prove what language they were speaking. Your use of the term Indo-Aryan suggests that you have already internalized in your mind the existence of such a group. Please show me which genetic studies have established who Indo-Aryans might be and what language they spoke.

Or else please accept gracefully that genetics cannot provide proof of language spoken.

[shiv]

I want to point out how 150 years of cooking up history has inserted itself into academics and how academicians and scholars take some things for granted as if those things are established fact.

The idea that there existed a group of people called "Indo-Aryans" is entirely cooked up. It was cooked up by European "Indologists" from the use of the Sanskrit word "Arya" in the Rig Veda. The idea that there were a group of people called "Indo-Aryans" who migrated to India is also cooked up. There is no historic or archaeological evidence of such migration. If genetic evidence of a migration is found, the genes will also have to prove the language spoken to say that the migrating people were "Indo-Aryans" because by definition, "Indo-Aryans" are claimed to be a group of migrants from the North and West who brought Indo-European language to India. Geneticists who do not know this definition use the name at their own risk because the onus will be on them to prove language spoken from the genetic signature. If the language cannot be pinned to the genes, do not use the term Indo-Aryan. Indo-Aryan is a group that allegedly spoke a specific type of pre-Sanskrit language or Sanskrit that linguists conjured up to explain their version of history. If genetics cannot find out the language they have no business using the term in their work.

Tomorrow, genetics may prove migrations into or out of India. But unless we find Persian or Sanskrit letters stamped on genes, no one can ever say that the people who carried those genes spoke a particular language. If you cannot say what language they spoke you cannot call them by the name "Indo-Aryan" which is a name that has been conjured up writing history based on linguistic conjecture. The fact that geneticists, for all their smartness, can't understand this is illustrative of how the weight of a racist past and cooked up history still has echoes down the ages, Looking for "Indo-Aryan genes" is a classic example of circular logic - assuming that the conclusion is the same as the premise. Indo Aryans existed and any genes we find will be Indo-Aryan genes.

One more word about "ancient genes" . I think the techniques of extracting very ancient genes is getting better and better. But the fact is that the environment in which human (or animal) remains are found are crucial to whether we can find genetic material or not. As far as I know, the chances of finding ancient genes in dry hot climactic conditions like India is far far lower than the moist cold environs like Ice man and that Siberian genetic material. Maybe we will find some. maybe we won't. Maybe people will find some in central Asia where such things tend to stay preserved. But I am not holding my breath.

[partha]

Vedic Sanskrit older than Avesta, Baudhayana mentions westward migrations from India: Dr N Kazanas

In the linked articles section, there is a 2 part interview of B B Lal which is also very good - http://www.newsgram.com/no-evidence-for ... h-b-b-lal/

[Nilesh Oak]

We can agree to disagree here. I think ancient DNA would establish with confidence if Indo aryan came to India after IVC collapsed or were already well established in India during mature harrapa time. Everybody would have to adjust the theories accordingly irrespective of tribal pride or biases.

But let's not doubt genetic findings. They are coming our way...ready or not.

Everybody would have to adjust the theories. True. But will they?

Because frankly evidence is coming from various quarters (not limited to Genetics). I eagerly look forward to a clash (if that happens) of different inferences due to different theories.

--
For the record, I am stating the timing of Ramayana as 12209 BCE (Ram-Ravana Yuddha) and timing of Mahabharata war (5561 BCE). Both of them long before 'proposal of Aryan migration into India'.

Both of them based on astronomy evidence (specific astronomy evidence that is unambiguous). Of course this can be proved to be wrong, too, but not unless astronomy theories including rate of precession of equinoxes are modified.

Thus, IVC is post Mahabharata and post Ramayana. (early phases of IVC do coincide with Mahabharata times).

No need to doubt anything. Genetic findings or astronomy findings (or any other).
--
“The most convincing statements are those in which you stand to lose.” – Nassim Nicholas Taleb

[shiv]

]

Everybody would have to adjust the theories. True. But will they?

Because frankly evidence is coming from various quarters (not limited to Genetics). I eagerly look forward to a clash (if that happens) of different inferences due to different theories.

Nilesh genetics cannot prove language. Period.

The problem is that people casually assume that there was a migration of Aryans carrying language and that theory has no basis whatsoever and it was simply conjured up by philologists and Indologists. So any scientifically minded person who uses the name "Indo-Aryan" would be expected to know what he is talking about. But typically they don't. No one goes that far back in history to test for the truth of an accepted idea. This is like the old ideas about flat earth and phlogiston that causes combustion in air. It requires many scientific heads to be knocked together to wake them up.

Even if genetics shows a huge migration of people from Sweden to Punjab staring January 1st 1500 BC and ending on Dec 31st 1200 BC it means bugger all because the language cannot be proven by genetics. The language as you say has many other references . You have some and I have some independent metrics of how old the language is in India and it is definitely older than the dates that "Indo Aryans" are supposed to have come. Note that if Indo Aryans are stated to have come earlier, say 2500 or 3000 BC then the entire AIT structure collapses because all the dates get screwed up. They can never do that. If genetics finds people coming into India in 10,000 BC they cannot be called Indo Aryans because all the "proofs" of language in other areas will be missing but there is proof of Sanskrit in India going back to at least 5000 BC an earlier as per your research

[ukumar]

We can agree to disagree here. I think ancient DNA would establish with confidence if Indo aryan came to India after IVC collapsed or were already well established in India during mature harrapa time. Everybody would have to adjust the theories accordingly irrespective of tribal pride or biases.

But let's not doubt genetic findings. They are coming our way...ready or not.

Sorry. You are completely missing the point.

Genetics from ancient DNA may prove that ancient people came this way or went that way but genetic studies will never ever prove what language they were speaking. Your use of the term Indo-Aryan suggests that you have already internalized in your mind the existence of such a group. Please show me which genetic studies have established who Indo-Aryans might be and what language they spoke.

Or else please accept gracefully that genetics cannot provide proof of language spoken.

Sorry, I casually used Indo Aryan which is a loaded world and failed to convey what I meant accurately. By Indo aryan I mean ancestors of people in India who speak Sanskrit related language. No proof is required for their existence.

It is obvious that genetics can't directly prove Language spoken. However Correlation between people movement and language spread can provide indirect proof. Talking specifically about OIT/AIT, both propose people movement with spread of language and genetics is clear that people movement has taken place.

I think main disconnect between us is that I am coming primariliy from genetics side where as you from linguistic side. I have given up on linguists and am of opinion that genetics+Archeology would be bedrock around which truth would emerge. I would ignore linguists untill that happens.

[ukumar]

We can agree to disagree here. I think ancient DNA would establish with confidence if Indo aryan came to India after IVC collapsed or were already well.......
They are coming our way...ready or not.

Everybody would have to adjust the theories. True. But will they?

Because frankly evidence is coming from various quarters (not limited to Genetics). I eagerly look forward to a clash (if that happens) of different inferences due to different theories.

--
For the record, I am stating the timing of Ramayana as 12209 BCE (Ram-Ravana Yuddha) and timing of Mahabharata war (5561 BCE). Both of them long before 'proposal of Aryan migration into India'.

Both of them based on astronomy evidence (specific astronomy evidence that is unambiguous). Of course this can be proved to be wrong, too, but not unless astronomy theories including rate of precession of equinoxes are modified.

Thus, IVC is post Mahabharata and post Ramayana. (early phases of IVC do coincide with Mahabharata times).

No need to doubt anything. Genetic findings or astronomy findings (or any other).
--
“The most convincing statements are those in which you stand to lose.” – Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Yes sir. I am familiar with your proposal. I am hopeful that ancient genetics would clearly establish chronology of genetic make up of our ancestors and emerging truth would be consistent with our literature and archeology. Some people may still carry on with outdated pet theories but they would be carrying a dead monkey on their back.

[ukumar]

problem is that people casually assume that there was a migration of Aryans carrying language and that theory has no basis whatsoever and it was simply conjured up by philologists and Indologists. So any scientifically minded person who uses the name "Indo-Aryan" would be expected to know what he is talking about.

Pls ignore "Indo-aryan". All I meant was genetic ancestors of people in India who speak sanskrit related language. R1a1a yDNA and High ANI/ASI ratio are their main markers. ancient DNA would tell us their antiquity in India.

Even if genetics shows a huge migration of people from Sweden to Punjab staring January 1st 1500 BC and ending on Dec 31st 1200 BC it means bugger all because the language cannot be proven by genetics.

Of course. But if same markers coelates with other areas speaking IE language, it would be a strong indirect proof.

Note that if Indo Aryans are stated to have come earlier, say 2500 or 3000 BC then the entire AIT structure collapses because all the dates get screwed up.

Completely agree. This scenario shouldn't be called AIT and should be named something different. The way narrative is going today, AITians would unjustifiably call it as victory though in reality they would be more wrong than OIT proponents.

If genetics finds people coming into India in 10,000 BC they cannot be called Indo Aryans because all the "proofs" of language in other areas will be missing but there is proof of Sanskrit in India going back to at least 5000 BC an earlier as per your research

In this case, OIT would be proven since European IE genetic markers shows up in Europe around 3000bc.

[shiv]

Sorry, I casually used Indo Aryan which is a loaded world and failed to convey what I meant accurately. By Indo aryan I mean ancestors of people in India who speak Sanskrit related language. No proof is required for their existence.

It is obvious that genetics can't directly prove Language spoken. However Correlation between people movement and language spread can provide indirect proof. Talking specifically about OIT/AIT, both propose people movement with spread of language and genetics is clear that people movement has taken place.

I think main disconnect between us is that I am coming primariliy from genetics side where as you from linguistic side. I have given up on linguists and am of opinion that genetics+Archeology would be bedrock around which truth would emerge. I would ignore linguists until that happens.

ukumar I am humbled by your frankness and honesty. Fact is that my own background is medicine - which is neither linguistics nor genetics. But it gives me some background in IE languages (like Greek and Latin) and in things like anthropology (my bullshit meter gets switched on) and biochemistry, microbiology, medicine and forensics which give me a smattering of information about genetics.

But for the last two years I have been putting in some intense reading (which technically counts as research) in all the fields related to AIT/OIT/whatever

Genetics plus archaeology is fascinating - but genetics researchers tend to be precise and self critical. Archaeologists are not necessarily scientists despite the way they work and write. And they pick up their cues from linguists, sociologists, historians and anthropologists all of whom are intense and obligatory bullshitters.

I can see that modern genetic studies involve much processing of data and the lengths that geneticists go to try and avoid errors that might creep in. This is obvious from the fact that genetics papers typically state the sorts of errors that they tried to avoid or the errors that could have crept in. But show me historians and other social "scientists" doing that? So Genetics+archaeology could be like the combination of cardiac surgeon and voodoo doctor (or chess player and soothsayer, take your pick) unless one is ready to call out fake archaeological assumptions.

I am not actually interested in proving OIT, but if it proves to be correct I anticipate the weight of 200 years of scholarly obfuscation to come down heavily with taunts of "Jingoism", "right wing Hindutva" etc from social "sciences" authors who have based their life's work on rubbish.

[A_Gupta]

To me, OIT is secondary, at best. The language and culture of the Saraswati-Sindhu civilization are of far greater interest.

[Prem Kumar]

Each of us is entitled to our priorities. Here are mine for why OIT (if we can place it on strong foundations) is just as important as negation of AIT:

1) A defensive game consumes far more energy than an offensive one. Something we see in Kashmir

2) Intellectual vacuums get quickly filled. If we disprove AIT, some other theory has to take its place to explain language-similarities, genetic linkages & archaeological findings. If its not OIT, then more variants of AIT will attempt to do this. That's why we have AIT --> AMT --> Aryan Tourist Theory etc

OIT is more than just a theory. It will lead to an entirely different worldview. Not just about India but about Europe as well. So, a solid OIT is just a first step towards larger goals (Example: defeating Western Universalism)

[Nilesh Oak]

Each of us is entitled to our priorities. Here are mine for why OIT (if we can place it on strong foundations) is just as important as negation of AIT:

1) A defensive game consumes far more energy than an offensive one. Something we see in Kashmir

2) Intellectual vacuums get quickly filled. If we disprove AIT, some other theory has to take its place to explain language-similarities, genetic linkages & archaeological findings. If its not OIT, then more variants of AIT will attempt to do this. That's why we have AIT --> AMT --> Aryan Tourist Theory etc

OIT is more than just a theory. It will lead to an entirely different worldview. Not just about India but about Europe as well. So, a solid OIT is just a first step towards larger goals (Example: defeating Western Universalism)

+108

[member_29218]

This is a fascinating thread and resonates with my own readings and thoughts on the matter.

As has been pointed out, there is a long history of Western Imperialism and arrogance that has become so entrenched not only in their psyche but more importantly in our own. The shackles of colonialism are very hard to shake off even after all these years. As the old saying goes, Rassi jal gayi, bal nahin gaye"

Anybody who has worked in England during the pre-IT era can testify to this fact. There is a subtle (sometimes not so) condescension in the attitude, the assumption being that anything the brown man can do, the white man can do better and that anything the brown man knows was taught to him by the white man. This is not racism as is normally understood, but an all pervasive atmosphere that stifles and suffocates. I was always 'holding my breath' as it were.

It is vitally important, IMHO that we define our own history and culture the way it really was. Truth is very important to me personally for I suspect that it is actually quite different from what I've been fed for most of my life. The IT age has given us a huge advantage that growing up in India otherwise did, the world of information is at our fingertips. No longer do I have to schlep to the poorly equipped local library and fight for the only copy of Index Medicus. It is now the great equalizer.

I think we are on the cusp of something wonderful, if we all put our heart and shoulders in it.

Great discussion folks. Missed it for a long time. Good to be back.

[Prem]

Each of us is entitled to our priorities. Here are mine for why OIT (if we can place it on strong foundations) is just as important as negation of AIT:
OIT is more than just a theory. It will lead to an entirely different worldview. Not just about India but about Europe as well. So, a solid OIT is just a first step towards larger goals (Example: defeating Western Universalism)

We must learn this art of offense when few Deracinated fellows alongside Non indian Pseudo Scholars but certified Idiots were/are and will keep arrogating themselves the right to define who we are and demand to make their opinion officially binding on ancient civilisational people.

[A_Gupta]

Whatever the truth is, it is, and I am prepared to accept it. I'm really not interested in offensive/defensive games.

Incidentally, Robin Bradley Kar's idea seems well-founded to me; but I have not found anyone who likes it. Summary here:
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2015/0 ... opean.html

[Nilesh Oak]

Whatever the truth is, it is, and I am prepared to accept it. I'm really not interested in offensive/defensive games.

Incidentally, Robin Bradley Kar's idea seems well-founded to me; but I have not found anyone who likes it. Summary here:
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2015/0 ... opean.html

A gupta ji,

Are you familiar with work of my friend, Wim Borsboom?

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wim-bors ... 8534450306

[A_Gupta]

A gupta ji,

Are you familiar with work of my friend, Wim Borsboom?

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wim-bors ... 8534450306

No, thanks!

[A_Gupta]

Each of us is entitled to our priorities. Here are mine for why OIT (if we can place it on strong foundations) is just as important as negation of AIT:

1) A defensive game consumes far more energy than an offensive one. Something we see in Kashmir

2) Intellectual vacuums get quickly filled. If we disprove AIT, some other theory has to take its place to explain language-similarities, genetic linkages & archaeological findings. If its not OIT, then more variants of AIT will attempt to do this. That's why we have AIT --> AMT --> Aryan Tourist Theory etc

OIT is more than just a theory. It will lead to an entirely different worldview. Not just about India but about Europe as well. So, a solid OIT is just a first step towards larger goals (Example: defeating Western Universalism)

Here is Manasataramgini, calling for creating a new worldview, but arguing that OIT is a mistake.
https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2 ... -conflict/

[ukumar]

.......
I can see that modern genetic studies involve much processing of data and the lengths that geneticists go to try and avoid errors that might creep in. This is obvious from the fact that genetics papers typically state the sorts of errors that they tried to avoid or the errors that could have crept in. But show me historians and other social "scientists" doing that? So Genetics+archaeology could be like the combination of cardiac surgeon and voodoo doctor (or chess player and soothsayer, take your pick) unless one is ready to call out fake archaeological assumptions.

First of all Thank you. I am glad that we seem to be on same page now. I share your skepticism of archeologists. IMO, archeology is a great tool to understand spread and development of material culture. Complemented with genetics it could provide a high level framework for spread of IE languages. Literature and linguistsic theories would then provide finer details to the framework.

I am not actually interested in proving OIT, but if it proves to be correct I anticipate the weight of 200 years of scholarly obfuscation to come down heavily with taunts of "Jingoism", "right wing Hindutva" etc from social "sciences" authors who have based their life's work on rubbish.

I would submit that OIT is not required for this. antiquity of Indo Aryan language in India before 2000bc on Sarasvati river will achieve same goal to very large extent.

[RoyG]

I'm fine with whichever way this goes. But it seems to me that the "origin" for ANI seems to be shifting 500 km south every year. Right now it seems like we're somewhere in Afghanistan. I mean at this point shouldn't this be enough to discredit MOST of the the holier than thou white protestant theories that have been forced down our throats. Even the "invasion" part of the acronym has been replaced with "immigration" in the broader conceptualization. To top it all off there is NO EVIDENCE in the form of Tamil classics mentioning an "invasion" and some subsequent trail of tears leading to the South.

I think we can all agree that we are made up of varying genetic proportions of many groups. If it turns out that AIT is true (again highly doubt it based on the evidence) so f*cking what? India is here to stay under primarily an overarching philosophical framework which stresses on recognition and reflection of personal experience and exploration of the nature consciousness.

To prove my point, simply ask some random "non-educated hindu dalit" to state his race and he'll either look at you funny or burst out laughing. Regardless, you'll end up feeling like an idiot.

[Prem Kumar]

Here is Manasataramgini, calling for creating a new worldview, but arguing that OIT is a mistake.
https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2 ... -conflict/

Manasataramgini is asking for a Hindu worldview, which I agree with. This is something which people like Rajiv Malhotra are doing a phenomenal job of!

But in the last paragraph, he states that OIT will undermine this worldview! This is a a ridiculous assertion. OIT is a theory that's on solid foundations, thanks to people like Talageri. To call it a "lazy effort" is pure hand-waving on his part.

1) He has not bothered to postulate what *his* version of AIT is
2) He doesn't engage with OIT theory/arguments because he thinks its a *non starter*

In my view, he is running away from the debate in spite of his considerable scholarship. I think this is because he is afraid he will lose the debate. He is happy preaching to his acolytes on Twitter

[Prem]

Manasataramgini is afraid Westernwalrass will control the narrative on OIT and eventually turn the table around . But Truth is truth and must be fingered in using all possible methods.
Bradshaw Foundation replied that soon they will be uploading the new updated map on human journey.

[Prem Kumar]

Even without going into the finer details, AIT fails the bullshit meter test for the following simple reasons:

1) The Saraswati-Sindhu civilization had an expanse that's the size of Germany & France put together. It was fairly heavily populated as far back as 3000 BC

2) Such a well-settled civilization was completely replaced by trickles of nomadic immigrants who left

2a) No genetic trace (no foreign genes in 12500 years)
2b) No archaeological trace (no sign of invasion)
2c) No linguistic trace (of foreign language replacing native one)
2d) No philological trace (no reference in Vedic or any other texts)

Therefore, one can safely conclude that the Aryans came in stealthy F-22s

[RoyG]

Even without going into the finer details, AIT fails the bullshit meter test for the following simple reasons:

1) The Saraswati-Sindhu civilization had an expanse that's the size of Germany & France put together. It was fairly heavily populated as far back as 3000 BC

2) Such a well-settled civilization was completely replaced by trickles of nomadic immigrants who left

2a) No genetic trace (no foreign genes in 12500 years)
2b) No archaeological trace (no sign of invasion)
2c) No linguistic trace (of foreign language replacing native one)
2d) No philological trace (no reference in Vedic or any other texts)

Therefore, one can safely conclude that the Aryans came in stealthy F-22s

Nicely put.

Jhujar,

Did Bradshaw Foundation make specific announcement about updates in migrations wrt OIT/AIT?

[Dipanker]

2c) No linguistic trace (of foreign language replacing native one)

Googling "substrate in vedic sanskrit" comes up with plenty of articles, I usually read Wikipedia as it is distilled "knowledge" from the existing references. Following article in Wikipedia has 48 reference, plenty of material for further esploration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratu ... c_Sanskrit

[Prem Kumar]

Wikipedia should be among the last resources we should trust when it comes to Indology or other "politically sensitive" topics. Why don't you type "Out of India" into Wikipedia and check its details. The very first paragraph calls it a "politicized theory" and its classfied under "Hindu Politics".

But the "oh so pure" AIT is an academically rigorous theory!

That's why even though Wikipedia begs for money, I don't contribute a dime. I hope it dies. India needs its own Wikipedia

P.S. Witzel has been pulling stuff out of his ass to try and find proto-Munda or some such nonsense substrate in Rig Veda.

[Prem]

Even without going into the finer details, AIT fails the bullshit meter test for the following simple reasons:
1) The Saraswati-Sindhu civilization had an expanse that's the size of Germany & France put together. It was fairly heavily populated as far back as 3000 BC
2) Such a well-settled civilization was completely replaced by trickles of nomadic immigrants who left.
Jhujar, Did Bradshaw Foundation make specific announcement about updates in migrations wrt OIT/AIT?

Nothing special, but they take interest in it. I was surprised they responded very fast.

[shiv]

2c) No linguistic trace (of foreign language replacing native one)

Googling "substrate in vedic sanskrit" comes up with plenty of articles, I usually read Wikipedia as it is distilled "knowledge" from the existing references. Following article in Wikipedia has 48 reference, plenty of material for further esploration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratu ... c_Sanskrit

Dipanker the "substrates" in Sanskrit do not amount to more than 5% (in fact I need to look it up it may be 2%). On the other hand the non IE substrate in German is something like 25-40%. I have refs for this in the book that I am editing. Will post relevant passages.

The Munda substrate reference is bullshit - disproved by genetics for which I have refs.

The problem is not the presence of substrates, but
1. The dates that are cooked up for the languages
2. Proving that a word is a substrate and not borrowed.

This is where philologists have given themselves plenty of room to bullshit everyone else.

I will post relevant passages from my book (or at least my own research) which I promise will come online in my lifeltime

[peter]

Even without going into the finer details, AIT fails the bullshit meter test for the following simple reasons:

I like your approach where you are arguing about some litmus tests.

Let me nitpick some:

1) The Saraswati-Sindhu civilization had an expanse that's the size of Germany & France put together. It was fairly heavily populated as far back as 3000 BC
2) Such a well-settled civilization was completely replaced by trickles of nomadic immigrants who left

Bedouin Arabs , who are nomadic, waylaid persia, spain and what not. Mongol Nomads waylaid bunch of civilized land too. Can we use your points 1) and 2) as reliable markers?

2a) No genetic trace (no foreign genes in 12500 years)

The last word it seems is still to be written on this. Underhill's earlier paper were quite vehement with India as the origin of R1a* but their most recent paper puts the origin in Persia. Shiv has pointed out some weakness to the argument but the jury has not given the verdict on it yet i.e we cannot use data from earlier papers which are in contradiction to the newer data from same research labs.

2b) No archaeological trace (no sign of invasion)

. This one is powerful. And precisely the reason why the "I" has changed from invasion to immigration.

2c) No linguistic trace (of foreign language replacing native one)

Well based on how you look at it we are all PIE happy family. And the protolanguage was spoken outside of india (the current model). So if proto language came to India then those AIT "immigrants" would have replaced the language of natives. Or maybe the natives did not exist and the immigrants moved into a vaccum.
Any which way this argument is not solid yet.

2d) No philological trace (no reference in Vedic or any other texts)

What do you mean by this one?

[shiv]

Here is what I have written about "substrates". I need to get this damn book out and I dont friggin know when

As substrates go, 300 words is a miniscule number that hardly represents 4% of Vedic
Sanskrit words. In fact Austro­Asiatic languages are spoken all over South East Asia, and
Indo­European languages all over India. The boundary between the regions occupied by
speakers of those two language groups lies in eastern India. A certain amount of borrowing
from one language to the other where people of different cultures come into contact is
inevitable. So the “para­Munda substrate in Sanskrit” claim is justifiably looked at with
skepticism by many scholars. That skepticism stands on solid ground. As mentioned earlier,
Witzel has hypothesized that the migrating Aryans forming a “dominant elite” had mixed
thoroughly with the local and aboriginal elements (see quote above). If para Munda speakers
had been the “local and Aboriginal elements” when the Aryan elite migrated to the area, then
the genetic picture of the resultant mix should be detectable today. In fact Witzel’s theory is
wrong, but the details of genetic studies that disprove his “para­Munda” theory will be
discussed in chapter **

Prof. Witzel’s theory is that by about 1200 BC when the Atharva Veda was composed, the Rig
Veda was already complete. Witzel also says that in the early Vedic Period, when the Vedas
were being composed, the “Aryans” occupied Afghanistan, Punjab and an area of India no
further east than the Yamuna river (Map **). If Witzel is right, it means that by 1200 BC the
area to the east of the Yamuna all the way up to Bengal did not yet have Aryan influence, so
the Indo European language could not yet have gone as far east as Bihar and Bengal. Witzel
says that it was only in the “late Vedic period” ­ closer to 800 BC (the end of the Vedic period
according to Wizel) that Sanskrit appeared in Bengal.

These are surprising conclusions. A non Indo European component in Sanskrit consisting of
just 300 words gives rise to the implausible idea that all evidence of all previous languages in
the Punjab region were nearly wiped out by 1200 BC, in the Sanskritization of Punjab ­ all this
allegedly caused by a slow, clan by clan, tribe by tribe trickle of people from the west. For a
language to have such a low percentage of words from an earlier language, it can only mean
that the migrating Aryans moved into a fertile Punjab region which had no human beings in it,
with vast flood plains empty of all human occupation. And the humans who had been present
there just 200 years earlier must have conveniently vanished from the Indus valley civilization,
vacating the area just in time for the imagined invaders or migrants from the west appeared,
bringing an Indo European language which was to become Sanskrit, with them. No one is
making such a claim, because it would be laughably false. The 300 odd non Indo­European
words of Sanskrit are probably ancient words borrowed from equally ancient languages. But
that leaves us with only one alternate explanation ­ that Sanskrit or its precursor, some variant
of proto Indo­European was an indigenous language that developed in the area. This is not a
popular thought among philologists. Linguists say that toponyms (names of geographical
features) and hydronyms (names of rivers, lakes and seas) are often retained by a migrating
or invading population even if the language of the locals is replaced with that of the migrating
people. The name Mississippi is an example. However, in North India all hydronyms and
toponyms are Indo­European (Sanskritic) in origin. This would suggest that local people were
always speaking some Indo­European language ­ perhaps a precursor to Sanskrit.

There is no record whatsoever of migrations in the Vedas. Vedic Sanskrit is 96% Indo
European in origin, a claim that Greek and German cannot match with non Indo European
substrate words ranging from 25 to 40% in the latter languages. It is odd that Eurasians from
the steppe brought a pure Indo European language 3000 kilometers, all the way to India and
eliminated all other languages in Punjab in just a few centuries, but failed to keep that purity in
a relatively short 1500 kilometer migration towards western Europe.

..there is more - but I will leave that for the final volume..

[shiv]

1) The Saraswati-Sindhu civilization had an expanse that's the size of Germany & France put together. It was fairly heavily populated as far back as 3000 BC
2) Such a well-settled civilization was completely replaced by trickles of nomadic immigrants who left

Bedouin Arabs , who are nomadic, waylaid persia, spain and what not. Mongol Nomads waylaid bunch of civilized land too. Can we use your points 1) and 2) as reliable markers?

Peter, the issue is language. The Mongols and Arabs conquered but did not replace the language with their own. In the case of the Saraswati Sindhu civilization the story is that the language was completely replaced (at least it was 96% replaced). This has never happened anywhere else and the idea that invaders or migrants replaced all people speaking an earlier language is a fake premise unless all other possibilities are ruled out. Even after genocide in South America the original languages were not lost.

Has any linguist or historian bothered to ask if the original language in the Saraswati Sindhu may have been Sanskrit? Or proto-Sanskrit? Being unbiased means asking such questions. After all German and Greek have 25-40% non Indo-European words. And very very few Arabic words. Sanskrit has only 4% (300 words) non-IE. Sanskrit is 96% Indo-European - more than any other Indo European language anyone could care to name.

The argument that no one knows what language was spoken in Harappa is an equally weak one. What language was spoken in Eurasian steppe, or in Kurgan land in 2500 BC? At least in Harappa there are some seals with some language from 2500 BC. No such evidence of any language has been found from any other place where invaders or migrants are said to have come from. No seal. No sign. No DVDs No carvings. No nothing. So how can they say that a particular language moved from that areas with no evidence of any language to India? And then give their own dates for that movement? This is bullshit of the highest quality.

[peter]

1) The Saraswati-Sindhu civilization had an expanse that's the size of Germany & France put together. It was fairly heavily populated as far back as 3000 BC
2) Such a well-settled civilization was completely replaced by trickles of nomadic immigrants who left

Bedouin Arabs , who are nomadic, waylaid persia, spain and what not. Mongol Nomads waylaid bunch of civilized land too. Can we use your points 1) and 2) as reliable markers?

Peter, the issue is language. The Mongols and Arabs conquered but did not replace the language with their own. In the case of the Saraswati Sindhu civilization the story is that the language was completely replaced (at least it was 96% replaced). This has never happened anywhere else and the idea that invaders or migrants replaced all people speaking an earlier language is a fake premise unless all other possibilities are ruled out. Even after genocide in South America the original languages were not lost.

Is it untrue that most of south america is either spanish or portugese speaking?

Has any linguist or historian bothered to ask if the original language in the Saraswati Sindhu may have been Sanskrit? Or proto-Sanskrit? Being unbiased means asking such questions. After all German and Greek have 25-40% non Indo-European words. And very very few Arabic words. Sanskrit has only 4% (300 words) non-IE. Sanskrit is 96% Indo-European - more than any other Indo European language anyone could care to name.

People have tried asking these questions but the answers they seek from their own lens. Earliest written records of sanskrit are late in fact later than those written in prakrit. How does one devise a litmus test to nail that sanskrit was indeed the language spoken at a certain date in indian subcontinent?

The argument that no one knows what language was spoken in Harappa is an equally weak one. What language was spoken in Eurasian steppe, or in Kurgan land in 2500 BC? At least in Harappa there are some seals with some language from 2500 BC. No such evidence of any language has been found from any other place where invaders or migrants are said to have come from. No seal. No sign. No DVDs No carvings. No nothing. So how can they say that a particular language moved from that areas with no evidence of any language to India? And then give their own dates for that movement? This is bullshit of the highest quality.

All this is valid. Though between europe and asia there certainly were civilzations with writing as in egyptian, sumerian etc.

[shiv]

Peter, the issue is language. The Mongols and Arabs conquered but did not replace the language with their own. In the case of the Saraswati Sindhu civilization the story is that the language was completely replaced (at least it was 96% replaced). This has never happened anywhere else and the idea that invaders or migrants replaced all people speaking an earlier language is a fake premise unless all other possibilities are ruled out. Even after genocide in South America the original languages were not lost.

Is it untrue that most of south america is either spanish or portugese speaking?

In this day and age no one in his right senses would say what i said without checking with Googal unkal first There are millions of native language speakers despite European languages having been imposed.

More important than those numbers are the non-Portuguese substrates (Creoles) where native languages deeply influenced Portuguese. This needs to be contrasted with almost no substrate of any non IE language in Sanskrit. The percentage is negligible. And, as I have indicated earlier migrants usually retain the old names of rivers and mountains even if they bring in a new language. In the case of the Saraswati Sindhu region there are no non IE names of rivers or mountains. Everything is of IE origin. Look at South American mountain names and river names and you find a whole lot that are derived from native South American languages.

Mountain names include: Aconcagua, Cotopaxi, Huascaran - etc - a Google search is what I used. Rivers are Orinoco, Parana, Putumayo, Pilcomayo, Ucayali etc.- all derived from native American languages. Where are the "native language" river names and mountain names in Saraswati Sindhu? None. All are IE

[SwamyG]

Subhas Kak on Indians migrating to Europe as early as 3300BC: http://swarajyamag.com/ideas/was-the-in ... europeans/

[shiv]

People have tried asking these questions but the answers they seek from their own lens. Earliest written records of sanskrit are late in fact later than those written in prakrit. How does one devise a litmus test to nail that sanskrit was indeed the language spoken at a certain date in indian subcontinent?

You will see that when my book comes out. I have started with dates of Panini (not the dates used by AIT authors), proof from Mitanni texts that is the exact opposite of what AIT people say (proof taken from European scholars and other evidence), proof relating to dates of Zoroastrians (from a variety of sources) - all giving fairly clear links to Sanskrit as a language going back to at around 1500 to 1800 BC. Dates for Mahabharata war, texts that speak of the people and land east, west and south of the Saraswati river can only date from a time before the river dried up - that is 1800 BC. Some well known astronomical records take the dates back even earlier. And I am not trying to contradict or compete or feed off the work of people like Nilesh Oak - my own sources are pretty much independent. Everything leads to some very ancient dates.

But you will have to wait for my book for details of what references I use for the evidence I have provided. In fact my original idea was to write a book on "Dating of Sanskrit language". The content is still exactly that but there is more than that - so I am struggling to gel together the various parts into one book

The funny thing is that if you pose the same questions that you have asked about Sanskrit but ask about Avestan - you will find that Avestan language itself is utter bullshit. It does not exist and is totally cooked up by linguists. it has simply been cooked up from Sanskrit texts. Funny that European scholars gave Avestan dates like 1200 BC without admitting that all the evidence they have is from the translation of a middle Persian book written in Sanskrit and the evidence of Anquetil du Perron who spent time with a Parsi priest in Gujarat! Those European scholars were right ba$tards. They have made Indians doubt things that are easy to see and cooked up stuff that is now taken as fact

[A_Gupta]

Sanskrit has only 4% (300 words) non-IE.

To be precise, it is the Rg Vedic Sanskrit that has only around 4% non-IE words. If I remember correctly, the Rg Vedic lexicon amounts to some 10,000 words.

PS:
Also, ancient Greek is roughly 35% non-IE (I think the reference to this can be found in Colin Renfrew's book).

[Prem Kumar]

A_Gupta: yes we are talking about Rig Vedic Sanskrit, not the Panin'an one

Shiv: you better hurry up with your book! Rajiv Malhotra has beaten you to it (his new Sanskrit book, taking on Pollock, is in pre-order stage and he is doing a book lecture tour in Chennai and Bangalore!)

[RoyG]

People have tried asking these questions but the answers they seek from their own lens. Earliest written records of sanskrit are late in fact later than those written in prakrit. How does one devise a litmus test to nail that sanskrit was indeed the language spoken at a certain date in indian subcontinent?

You will see that when my book comes out. I have started with dates of Panini (not the dates used by AIT authors), proof from Mitanni texts that is the exact opposite of what AIT people say (proof taken from European scholars and other evidence), proof relating to dates of Zoroastrians (from a variety of sources) - all giving fairly clear links to Sanskrit as a language going back to at around 1500 to 1800 BC. Dates for Mahabharata war, texts that speak of the people and land east, west and south of the Saraswati river can only date from a time before the river dried up - that is 1800 BC. Some well known astronomical records take the dates back even earlier. And I am not trying to contradict or compete or feed off the work of people like Nilesh Oak - my own sources are pretty much independent. Everything leads to some very ancient dates.

But you will have to wait for my book for details of what references I use for the evidence I have provided. In fact my original idea was to write a book on "Dating of Sanskrit language". The content is still exactly that but there is more than that - so I am struggling to gel together the various parts into one book

The funny thing is that if you pose the same questions that you have asked about Sanskrit but ask about Avestan - you will find that Avestan language itself is utter bullshit. It does not exist and is totally cooked up by linguists. it has simply been cooked up from Sanskrit texts. Funny that European scholars gave Avestan dates like 1200 BC without admitting that all the evidence they have is from the translation of a middle Persian book written in Sanskrit and the evidence of Anquetil du Perron who spent time with a Parsi priest in Gujarat! Those European scholars were right ba$tards. They have made Indians doubt things that are easy to see and cooked up stuff that is now taken as fact

How long has this project been running? Eager to see what you have to say. Any collaborations?