Thursday, 5 May 2016

Manasataramgini on the Aryan Invasion Theory



A well-wisher from the Rajiv Malhotra discussion group just sent me the link to an article or blog by a blogger who apparently chooses to remain anonymous, and calls himself (or rather, his blog) Manasataramgini.
The article "A Note on the Early Expansions of the Indo-Europeans" at https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/a-note-on-the-early-expansions-of-the-indo-europeans/, stridently supports the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) and strongly condemns the proponents of the OIT (the Out-of-India Theory), namely "S. Talageri, S. Kak, N.S. Rajaram, V. Agrawal, B.B. Lal, S. Kalyanaraman, D. Frawley, R. Malhotra, M. Danino, K. Elst, N. Kazanas and so on", "as idiots".  This article deserves a fitting reply.
I. A Racist-Casteist Mindset
I went through the article, and was amazed at the kind of rubbish which some fervent Hindus can write so seriously and at the intensity with which they can embrace the AIT for racist caste reasons. Just as there are rabid pseudo-dalit writers who promote the AIT out of racist caste obsessions, there are a large number of intensely religious brahmins who promote the AIT out of equally rabid racist caste sentiments. In my second book (The Rigveda - A historical Analysis), I have devoted a section to the "Hindu Imperialist" writers who promoted the AIT out of racist brahmin caste obsessions. Earlier, the main culprits were a section of Maharashtrian brahmins (notably Lokmanya Tilak). Today, I find sometimes on the internet that it is some stray Tamil brahmins (both Iyers and Iyengars, one example being Kalavai Venkat), who are not leftists but fervent religious Hindus, who promote the idea that the Aryans were a race of people who invaded India from some ultimate homeland situated far outside India, and that they themselves are scions of the invader race. I am almost 100% sure this blogger, who is supposed to be anonymous, is a Tamil brahmin, but he proudly declares: "Much of this work is done from a Eurocentric viewpoint but it has tremendous implications for us because we are the “other branch of Indo-European"", thereby firmly proclaiming his bid to be accepted as a member of the Indian "branch" of the European race (since it is his insistence that this is a racial issue involving DNA), inspite of being linguistically a speaker probably of a Dravidian language. These rabid writers are staunch Vedic Hindus, staunch ritualists and staunch opponents and critics of Abrahamic religions, but they are also staunch casteist brahmins and staunch proponents of the AIT/AMT. They represent the present brood of the brahmin scholars whom Dr Ambedkar referred to when he wrote: "As Hindus they should ordinarily show a dislike for the Aryan theory with its expressed avowal of the superiority of the Aryan races over the Asiatic races. But the Brahmin scholar has not only no such aversion, but he most willingly hails it.  The reasons are obvious.  The Brahmin... claims to be a representative of the Aryan race and he regards the rest of the Hindus as descendants of the non-Aryans.  The theory helps him to establish his kinship with the European races and share their arrogance and their superiority.  He likes particularly that part of the theory which makes the Aryan an invader and a conqueror of the non-Aryan races.  For it helps him to maintain his overlordship over the non-Brahmins" (Vol.7, p.80). 
Amazingly, after reading the article, I scoured the net to find out more about this manasataramgini blog, and I find that India Facts refers to this blog as the best Hindu blog on the internet!
Note that the only thing he has to say about the OIT as detailed in my books is as follows:
"About 21-22 years ago a strange, new aberration in Hindu thought came to our attention: The Out-of-India-theory (OIT), which posited that the Indo-Aryans were autochthons of the Indian subcontinent. At first we brushed it aside as being a mere fantasy of some ill-educated raconteurs, who might simultaneously see Tipoo Sultan as a freedom fighter. But as the 1990s came to an end the the 2000s began this stream of thinking became dominant among the Hindus. So much so that most politically pro-Hindu individuals also tied themselves to some version of OIT. Across different fora you would see them thundering as though they were Parjanya: “The Aryan invasion is a myth.” They started seeing it as an instrument created by the English or more generally the Leukosphere to sow dissension among the autochthonous Hindus. We can provide a long list of prominent Hindus on the internet and associates of Hindus who were proponents of some form OIT: S. Talageri, S. Kak, N.S. Rajaram, V. Agrawal, B.B. Lal, S. Kalyanaraman, D. Frawley, R. Malhotra, M. Danino, K. Elst, N. Kazanas and so on.
However, only a few of those who took a stand against the Aryan invasion theory (AIT) ever had a clear idea of what form the alternative hypothesis, i.e. OIT was to take. If we ignore its more nonsensical manifestations that deny the Indo-European monophyly then we are left with few clear formulations. OIT’s basic form was explicitly spelled out by Frawley and Talageri. They held the view that the Indo-Europeans originated in India and expanded westwards and eastwards from India. Talageri equated the Indo-Europeans with the Vedic pañcajana: The Druhyu-s and the Anu-s formed the non-Indian branches of Indo-European, whereas the Turvaśa-s, the Yadu and the Pūru-s formed the Indo-Aryan branches. Of them he ascribed Vedic culture purely to the Pūru-s. Talageri’s confidence in his scheme was so high that he titled his book: “Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence”; i.e. final evidence for OIT – this was after genetics had prepared the coffin for OIT. By 2009 Kazanas had climbed down to propose more confused alternatives: he proposed either a “continuum” from the Pontic steppes to the Sapta-Sindhu in India or an invasion around 4500 BCE or before............ 
it alarmed us that if Hindus were unable to understand a theory as AIT with a great weight of evidence behind it – if they failed to grasp something so clear-cut then what could one say of the complex droha-s the mlecchas were hatching on the Hindus."
After "thundering" the above pontifications "as though he were Parjanya", nowhere does he even pretend to make the slightest attempt to show how the case presented by me (which is backed by all the data, evidence and facts, and which I insist on referring to as "unchallengeable" and "irrefutable" to the irritation of many such people) is wrong  ̶  after all, I had not just pompously "thundered" out my conclusion from a pulpit in front of Agni as some kind of a revelation I had received from the Gods: my conclusions are backed by massive and unchallengeable data and evidence. Instead, he simply launches into a long monologue with the usual mumbo-jumbo jargon about "DNA", "genetic evidence", "haplogroups", "genomes", "chromosomes" and the rest, and thinks his readers will be mesmerized into believing his gobbledygook actually means and proves something. Among other things, above, he falsely brands me as one of the writers who have treated the AIT as "an instrument created by the English or more generally the Leukosphere to sow dissension among the autochthonous Hindus", which I have not only never done but which I have explicitly rejected in all three of my books.
II. The Genetic Evidence
He calls the AIT  a "clear-cut" theory "with a great weight of evidence behind it" and claims that "genetics had prepared the coffin for OIT". And that "Yet, the Hindus including Talageri went on as though nothing had happened."
As a matter of fact, a) it is the OIT which has not just a great but a humongously great weight of all the relevant evidence behind it, b) genetics has nothing whatsoever to do with the Aryan/Indo-European issue (and is in no position to prepare a coffin for the OIT or even for the AIT), and c) it is people like this racist/casteist blogger who are going on as though nothing has happened even after an irrefutable case for the OIT has been presented.
He fails to take into account two basic points:
1. The theory of Aryan/Indo-European migrations came into existence out of thin air not because someone discovered that the people of Europe and northern India shared common racial characteristics like "genes", "DNA", "haplogroups", "chromosomes", etc. None of these things were known then. It came into existence from the discovery that the languages of Europe, Central Asia, Iran and northern India were related to each other and must have had a common ancestry and origin. And it was in fact the total failure to discover common racial characteristics (even as per the definition of racial characteristics of that time, like skin color, eye color, shapes of the nose and cranium, etc) to support the linguistic case that led to plenty of confusion and frustration among scholars and gave birth to all kinds of crank racial theories. Ultimately, the whole problem of Aryan/Indo-European language origins has been based on detailed studies of linguistics/philology, textual and inscriptional data, and archaeological evidence, and not racial studies of any kind. This racist/casteist blogger completely avoids dealing with the exhaustive mass of linguistic, textual/inscriptional and archaeological data, facts and evidence presented by me in my books, and turns this into a purely racist discussion in present-day racist jargon.
2. Recent and present racial studies in the name of DNA, genomes, chromosomes and haplogroups have presented a huge mass of confused and confusing data which different people have twisted in diametrically opposite ways to "prove" to their own satisfaction (and that of their admirers) the AIT or the OIT. But actually no-one is able to explain logically how all this data "proves" either the AIT or OIT, nor fit this in with the linguistic, textual and archaeological data. This racist/casteist blogger's attempt at the game are pathetic. If and when anyone is able to produce any coherent "genetic" evidence in any direction, they will only be able to prove or suggest the movement of some particular historical groups or communities in one direction or the other, but this will be totally irrelevant to and unconnected with the question of the origin or movements of the Aryan/IE languages.
The general position as to genetic data has been summarized by Michel Danino in his article at https://www.academia.edu/23325989/Aryans_and_the_Indus_Civilization_Archaeological_Skeletal_and_Molecular_Evidence. What it shows again is that:
1. There is absolutely no direct correlation between genetic studies on the one hand, and caste and linguistic identities on the other.
2. The question of Aryan/IE origins and migrations has no connection with genetic data, genetic categories, and any movements of some of the ancestors of simply any group of Indians in any direction (east-to-west, west-to-east, north-to-south, south-to-north, India-to-outside, outside-into-India, etc) bear no connection with the movements of language groups which could corroborate either the OIT or the AIT.
3. Almost all groups of Indians fall within one broad category of genetic type. Of course there will be differences and variations (sometimes very marked ones) in different local groups or particular communities (based on both internal migrations and admixtures with different migrating groups of people from outside India throughout history), but these are totally unconnected with both broad caste identities as well as with the question of the origins and movements of the Aryan/IE languages.
When he is not babbling about genomes, haplogroups and chromosomes, this racist/casteist blogger makes some really pathetic gaffes in his article whenever he tries to refer to the linguistic or textual data (which is all clearly beyond his ken, and definitely shows that he has simply not even glanced at the conclusive evidence in my books), and, in his own words, exposes his brand of racist/casteists "as idiots". But first see his understanding of some basic things:
III. A Pedestrian Level of Understanding
1. Using the royal pronoun, he tells us "We sat in front of Agni making the preliminary offering with the ancient mantra-s, where Agni is described as being that of Bhṛgu, Apnavāna, and Aurva, our illustrious ancestors. The observant individual would note, as we had done, that these mantra-s contain a key reference that gives the identity of the original homeland of the Indo-Iranians, and now likely all Indo-Europeans. We have never been to that place, but if one realizes those mantra-s of the Bhṛgu-s, or the Bharadvāja-s or the Vaiśvāmitra-s one immediately sees the land it corresponds to – the land where there is fire within water." This is the level of his understanding of the question of Aryan/Indo-European origins: that it is proved by some clue about a "land where there is fire within water", which can be realized from ancient mantras chanted in front of Agni!
2.  He refers to "...the Out-of-India-theory (OIT), which posited that the Indo-Aryans were autochthons of the Indian subcontinent. At first we brushed it aside as being a mere fantasy of some ill-educated raconteurs, who might simultaneously see Tipoo Sultan as a freedom fighter." This is his level of understanding of the ideology or the personal prejudices of proponents of the OIT: that OIT supporters would "simultaneously see Tipoo Sultan as a freedom fighter"!
Now some examples of his pseudo-scholarly gaffes:
1. "Without any shadow of doubt Indo-Aryan is related most closely related to Iranian and the philological evidence from the oldest Iranian text the Avesta closely matches that from the early Vedic period of the Indo-Aryans." This is after my book proves  beyond any shadow of doubt that "the philological evidence from the oldest Iranian text the Avesta closely matches that from the New Books of the Rigveda and is completely posterior to the philological evidence from the Old Books of the Rigveda - evidence which he safely avoids attempting to disprove.
2. "Early Finno-Ugric shows several loans specifically from Indo-Iranian. Notably, loans of the word ārya, the ethnonym of the Indo-Iranians designates a southerner and the southwestern direction in some Finno-Ugric tongues of the Saami group. This indicates that early Indo-Iranian was in proximity to Finno-Ugric and to its south or southwest." To buttress this view he makes a blatantly false reference to "the shared loans into and from Finno-Ugric". Actually, all linguists are unanimous that there are only loans from Indo-Iranian into Finno-Ugric, and none whatsoever from Finno-Ugric into Indo-Iranian. What does this situation prove? If you were to suddenly come upon a lost tribe deep inside an African jungle speaking an African language and using many Tamil words (when no words from that African language are found in the Tamil spoken in India), would this logically prove that Tamil people originally came to India from that part of Africa? Or would it prove that some Tamil people from India must have gone and settled down in that part of Africa long ago and, although the Tamil language is no more spoken there, left traces of their language in the local African speech?

3. After describing a scenario of Indo-Iranians moving from the Sintashta and Androvo cultures in the north and northwest of Central Asia after 1900 BCE and bringing the Indo-Aryans into India from the northwest "after the collapse of the Harappan civilization" a few hundred years after that, he concludes: "the dates would [be] consistent with the attestation of Indo-Aryan in West Asia in the Mitanni culture." Here he demonstrates to the best extent how a prejudiced writer can stick to his old discredited ideas and go on "as though nothing had happened" while steadfastly refusing to either accept or try to disprove irrefutable evidence to the contrary:
In my third book in 2008 (already now 8 years old) I have proved with massive data from the Rigveda and the Mitanni inscriptions that:
1. The Mitanni and the related Kassites in West Asia were present in West Asia as early as 1750 BCE, and already, at that point of time, the Indo-Aryan linguistic element in their culture represented what western scholars like Witzel and Mallory call "the residue of a dead language" representing a "symbiosis"  that "may have taken place centuries earlier".
2. The ten books (Mandalas) of the Rigveda have been classified by all the scholars as Old Books (books 2-4, 6-7) and New Books (books 1, 5, 8-10), and the vocabulary common to the Rigveda and the Mitanni Indo-Aryans is completely missing in the Old Books and massively represented in the New Books and in all subsequent Vedic and Sanskrit texts. This shows that the common culture of the Rigveda and the Mitanni ancestors belongs to the period of the New Books rather than to some pre-Rigvedic period, and that the Mitanni ancestors parted company from the other Vedic Indo-Aryans during the period of the New Books.
3. The geography of the New Books extends from Haryana and westernmost UP in the east to southern and easternmost Afghanistan in the west, but the earlier geography of the Old Books is restricted only to the areas of Haryana and westernmost UP to the east of the Sarasvati, and the historical data and events in the Old Books describe the movement of the Vedic Aryans westwards from Haryana. [Central Asia is nowhere in the picture anywhere here].
4. This shows that the ancestors of the Mitanni migrated from India during the period of composition of the New Books of the Rigveda many centuries before their recorded presence in West Asia (i.e. long before 2000 BCE), and in periods even and far earlier than that (i.e. during the period of composition of the Old Books of the Rigveda) they (as part of the Vedic Aryan population of India) lived even deeper inside India.
IV. A Shaky Foundation
This blogger's basic premise is in fact pathetically rooted in the most primitive and outdated era of Indo-European-origin studies: his primary arguments are based on what was referred to as "linguistic paleontology". He writes: "What was the language of architect of these invasions from the steppes? - Both philology and linguistics indicate that the ancestral Indo-Europeans likely practiced an economy that had a major pastoral component and at least some agriculture. Further they also practiced honey-harvesting/bee-keeping which had its roots in old hunter-gatherer tradition. The pastoral component included cattle-rearing with the cow being an important cultural symbol or a holy animal or a sign of 'wealth'; goat-rearing and sheep-rearing with the latter supplying wool from which garments were made; horse-rearing, with the horse like the cow being an important cultural symbol.
- The early IE society was familiar with the birch tree and lived in place with cold winters during which it snowed.
"  Further, he later adds: "The oldest Indo-Aryan text the Ṛgveda has a unmistakable steppe-land imprint on it with a dominant role for cow-horse-sheep-centric pastoralism and some amount of agriculture. Rivers seem more important than large cities and all evidence is in favor of it being a bronze age text. Its culture was a heroic and warlike one, with fortified structures playing a key role. Horse-drawn chariots with spoked-wheels were central elements of the culture. The burial practice mentioned in the RV is mirrored in the Kurgan burials from the steppe sites. Grasses play multiple important roles in the religion, including being the seat where the gods sit." And even later: "Without any shadow of doubt Indo-Aryan is related most closely related to Iranian and the philological evidence from the oldest Iranian text the Avesta closely matches that from the early Vedic period of the Indo-Aryans. Thus, Indo-Aryan and Iranian arose in a common milieu. Further, they share the Soma cult, which distinguishes them from all other branches of IE, suggesting a phase of shared development (proto-Indo-Iranian) distinct from other IE groups."
Here he makes three fundamental mistakes: 1. He fails to distinguish between things native to a homeland and things imported into that homeland from outside. Today, and since the last few hundred years, potatoes and chillies have become an integral part of Indian cuisine: they are a central ingredient in many of the most typical regional culinary items from every single part of India. Would a researcher examining the traditional cuisine of Indians spread out all over the world 200 years from now (assuming these culinary items retain their popularity till then, or at least remain alive in traditional memory) be justified in concluding from this that the original homeland of all Indians was in America, since potatoes and chillies are native to America? This at least would be "Manasatarangini's" logic! As I have pointed out in my book, The Druhyus and Anus had spread out westwards from their primary homeland in northern India in ancient times and spread out so that the three IE (Indo-European) groups (Purus, Anus and Druhyus) for a long period occupied a contiguous area from Haryana (and adjacent parts of western UP) to Central Asia. It was in this contiguous area (the secondary homeland) that most of the common features of the IE languages and culture developed, including names for items imported into that common culture from outside. 2. He fails again to distinguish between different chronological periods and jumbles them together in his arguments. 3. He demonstrates to the hilt that he has either not read my books at all, or else everything has just gone over his head.
An examination of the different arguments made by him here will demonstrate these three mistakes:
1. The argument that the animal names common to the IE languages of India and Europe indicate a homeland in the steppes has long been discarded by serious scholars: these animals (cow, horse, goat, sheep, dog, wolf, fox, bear, etc) are found in both India as well as in Europe, so their presence in all the IE languages indicates absolutely nothing about the location of the original homeland. On the other hand (as pointed out by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov), certain other common names, not previously noted by earlier scholars, include common names for the elephant, ape and leopard, as well as for the camel (the Central Asian or Bactrian camel, not the Arabian one), which rules out the steppes and points towards India.
2. The argument that "honey-harvesting/bee-keeping" was an occupation in the original homeland has also been discarded, since the IE languages have a common word for "honey" but no common word for "bee", indicating that honey was originally an import into the original homeland (i.e. into the secondary homeland in the northwest of India from its origins in the bee-keeping lands of West Asia and the Caucasus).
3. The argument that the original homeland of the IE people must lie in the steppe homeland of the wild horse has also been sharply called into question (Blažek, etc) since the IE languages have a common word for the domesticated horse, but none for the wild horse; and this common word for the domesticated horse is also accepted as a word borrowed from a non-IE language. So the horse was clearly an import into the (secondary) homeland of the IE languages. Further, the idea that invading Aryans introduced the horse to indigenous Dravidian and Austric people is disproved by the fact that those languages have distinctive names for the horse completely unrelated to the IE words. As the evidence shows, the horse was a rare imported animal in the period of the Old Books of the Rigveda, which is why the ashvamedha of that period (not even called by that name then) merely had a horse being let loose into neighbouring areas to herald the imperialist activities of expansionist kings like Sudas. Horses became prolific only in the period of the New Books, when we find references to the slaughter of the sacrificial horse, the word ashvamedha, and the proliferance of new types of personal names with the elements "ashva" and "ratha".    
4. The argument that "Both philology and linguistics indicate that the ancestral Indo-Europeans likely practiced an economy that had a major pastoral component... The pastoral component included cattle-rearing with the cow being an important cultural symbol or a holy animal or a sign of 'wealth'" is ironically right: no scholar will deny it. Ironically, since cattle are accepted to have been separately domesticated in two centres: in the Indus Valley and in Turkey, the two homeland locations rejected by this blogger, but not in the steppe region championed by him!
5. The argument that "the Soma cult" shows that "Indo-Aryan and Iranian arose in a common milieu... suggesting a phase of shared development (proto-Indo-Iranian) distinct from other IE groups", and that this shared development took place in Central Asia (the home of ephedra or Soma) in a pre-Rigvedic period, again shows his inability to read or understand the evidence. In my book, I have shown, from the data in the Rigveda, that Soma was originally introduced to the Vedic Aryans (the Purus) by the priests of the proto-Iranians (i.e. the Bhrigus, originally the priests of the Anus) to their northwest, that Soma was a rare imported item from the northwest in the period of the Old Books and that the westward expansion of the Vedic Aryans (the Puru Bharatas) under Sudas in that period, on the direct testimony of the Rigveda, was partly in the quest for the source lands of Soma, and that it was only after this, in the period of the New Books, after the new geographical data in the Rigveda shows this expansion westwards into more northwestern areas, that Soma became temporarily a central part of Rigvedic ritual.
6. The argument that "goat-rearing and sheep-rearing" was a part of the original proto-IE milieu "with the latter supplying wool from which garments were made" again indicates the same disdain for the evidence of the actual data. Wool is known in the Old Books of the Rigveda, but actual sheep and goats (along with the geographical areas of the northwest where they are found) appear only in the New Books of the Rigveda.
7. Similarly the argument that "The early IE society was familiar with the birch tree and lived in place with cold winters during which it snowed" again shows this same disdain for the evidence. "winters" are certainly known in the Old Books of the Rigveda but then winters are a feature of the climate even in South India. Ice and snow appear only in the New Books of the Rigveda after the Vedic expansion into the northwest, and birch trees appear only in post-Rigvedic texts!
8. The argument that "Horse-drawn chariots with spoked-wheels were central elements of the culture" and that this indicates a steppe origin is a bit strange, since no linguist or philologist has ever suggested that the proto-IE people used such chariots in their original homeland. In the Rigveda, spokes are totally unknown in the Old Books, and first appear only in the New Books of the Rigveda!
Needless to say, "some agriculture", some particular "burial practice", the important role of grasses (and that too, grasses native to India) in religion, etc. have nothing to indicate about geographical origins in the steppe regions!

In short, if racist/casteist writers like this blogger were to take the trouble of examining the data and evidence, instead of sitting pompously in front of Agni chanting mantras and ruminating on the greatness of their wishfully "European" brahmin ancestors, they would be able to understand the facts better.

112 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. May be you would like to read about some genetic evidence in favour of OIT. Here is our response:
    http://yugaparivartan.com/2016/01/23/aryan-invasion-theory-the-genetics-part-ii/

    and this:
    http://yugaparivartan.com/2016/04/03/aryan-invasion-theory-genetics-revisited/

    Please let us know what you think and if there are other articles you would like to recommend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry for the late reply. I am reading your articles as well as some others on the genetic evidence against the AIT. Great work. I will probably write a blog on the subject later, but it will obviously not be based on my my own original research (as in the case of the clinching linguistic and textual evidence for the OIT), but on research by true scholars like yourself and some others.

      Delete
    2. Superb political tactic! You waited for me to write the above mail before accusing me on your blog today of "mudslinging" and "character assassination" of Manasatarangini!

      Delete
  3. My own research provides a key asset. A group of "Balikha" became the Mitanni and they knew the Ramayana! And it is from this mix that the Puranic Connection the Middle East is so clear and beautiful. My book "The H-Source of the Bible" lays the road forward for setting aside colonial dogma and reopen the dialog with the West.On equal terms.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This Guy, Manasataringini, is Aravind L: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/staff/aravind/

    Aravind Lakshminarayanan Iyer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really cheap...why blow his cover unnecessarily if he wants annoymity

      Delete
    2. It is cheaper to anonymously call other people "idiots". All while giving outdated and discredited linguistic arguments to buttress genetic data which is irrelevant to the subject of the origins and migrations of the IE languages.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Is he and @AgentSaffron on the twitter are the same person? As I have seen @AgentSaffron too supporting AIT and bashing Rajiv Malhotra and others.

      Delete
    5. Yugal, unless I see all of his tweets, I can't confirm. However, he has deleted his twitter account as of now. So, this can confirm your suspicion. He has been a nuisance on many different forums: the old defunct indiancivilization yahoo group to others.

      Delete
    6. Akash R,

      "[I] sat in front of Agni making the preliminary offering with the ancient mantra-s', and meditated on who is Manasatarangini. Boom, Agni appeared and divined me who is behind Manasatarangini.

      Delete
    7. Yugal, Agentsaffron is not Manasatarangini; this is based on his tweets, etc.

      Delete
  5. Poorly written, probably the reason why OIT should be discarded run by emotionalism such as this. Have you even read the Arya's Blog properly? Where does he say that the Brahmins are exclusively of Aryan Ancestry? On the other hand he has maintained that both Inso-Aryan and Dravidian speakers across the caste spectrum have significant 'Aryan' ancestry. A calm unemotional rebuttal could have been written. This article is merely another example of H cretinism

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. If you think My comments are "run by emotionalism" and "the Arya's" racist assertions in front of his Agni, and your defence of "the Arya", are "run" by a scientific disposition, I pity you and others of your kind. I don't think you have read his blog properly. Well, I am prepared for much more such abuse from his fans. This is the first and last time I am responding to quibbling on "caste" rather than on the linguistic, textual and archaeological data on which any debate should be based.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Manasataramgini is a very good blog... I regularly follow it...
    I have also read one of your books...
    I have only 2 comments on this article
    ----
    1) Yes, Manasataramgini endorses AIT and outright rejects OIT... But his stand is mainly based on genetics, while your arguments are mainly based on Linguistics and interpretation of texts...
    Your article would have been good if you had critically rejected his arguments which are based on Genetics as well...

    Instead, this is what you wrote--->
    [quote]
    "Recent and present racial studies in the name of DNA, genomes, chromosomes and haplogroups have presented a huge mass of confused and confusing data which different people have twisted in diametrically opposite ways to "prove" to their own satisfaction (and that of their admirers) the AIT or the OIT."

    "he [Manasataramgini] simply launches into a long monologue with the usual mumbo-jumbo jargon about "DNA", "genetic evidence", "haplogroups", "genomes", "chromosomes" and the rest, and thinks his readers will be mesmerized into believing his gobbledygook actually means and proves something."
    [unquote]

    Effectively, you are discrediting the entire field of Genetics...

    I have discussed with him before, and he, being a professional biologist, has more knowledge of this... He provided research papers which support his arguement... He even pointed out mistakes in the research papers which Nationalist Hindus widely share...
    [Ex.: One research paper which Sanjeev Sanyal shared as proof of rejection of AIT was based on false interpretation of data which was later superceded by a different paper... Sanjeev Sanyal is totally unaware of that...]

    You provided rebuttal against Manasataramgini's linguistic and interpretation claims...
    But I also expected to see a detailed rebuttal of Mansataramgini's stand based on Genetics and explaining to us where exactly he is wrong... But instead of doing that, you are discrediting the entire field of Genetics...

    Merely discrediting a Branch of Science is not enough...
    ----
    2) Apart from the above, you outright started branding him as "Brahminical", "Castiest", "Racist" etc. which is not at all required...

    You're saying that they're promoting AIT due to their Caste obsession, without completely rebutting their evidence... This is not much different from branding people as "Right-Wing" etc. by our Enemy camp...

    These people are not Castiest... Manasataramgini is genuinely concerned about Hindus being overly obsessive about OIT (which he says is a false theory)...
    What if he is right...???
    ----

    This issue has major political implications... What we can not afford is a bad scholarship...
    I wish some professional biologist studies Manasataramgini's arguments and systematically rebutts him...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me repeat if you did not get it from my above blog: it is not a question of DNA and genes but of language. The common point between a Sinhalese person, a Scandinavian, and a black Afro-American citizen of the USA is not their chromosomes and genomes, but the IE languages they speak today. All that the evidence of genetics shows is that movements of people took place in countless directions, resulting in different permutations and combinations of admixtures. It does not tell us about the movements of the IE languages. It is only linguistics, textual evidence and archaeology that can tell us about the movement of the IE languages, and it is Manasatarangini who must try to "rebut" the irrefutable phalanx of data,facts and evidence in those fields that I have given in my books. Before calling me, and so many other serious scholars, "idiots"!

      Delete
    2. You talk of linguistics, sir, but is it not true that you yourself do NOT know Sanskrit? And that you rely on Griffith for that? Given the fact that his ilk deliberately (and sometimes not) mistranslate our texts so often, are not your own findings inaccurate?

      Also, I strongly object to your allowing the violation of this "Manasataramgini"'s privacy, by not deleting the comment identifying him. Defeat him using debate like our scholars used to, if you consider his arguments specious!

      Delete
    3. Thank you for bringing up this point. Let me proudly declare that yes, I do NOT know Sanskrit. When I have managed to completely demolish the arguments of the topmost Sanskrit AIT scholars and sent them running for cover "without knowing Sanskrit", what would not have been possible if I had been a top Sanskrit scholar?

      I do not "rely on Griffith", although his is the best, and in fact the only complete, English translation (although his language and moral scruples are Victorian). I rely on the words in the Rigveda, not on their "translations" by any particular person: my source is the Sanskrit word concordance of Vishwabandhu.

      I have not deleted anyone's comments (as yet, at least), some deleted comments have been deleted by the authors of those comments themselves. Manasatarangiri could have tried to defeat me by using debate (like our scholars used to) by actually taking up the data, facts and evidence in my books and disproving them, rather than simply calling me and many other serious scholars "idiots".

      Delete
    4. He is not discarding the science of genetics. He is only saying that Genetics have no role to play in this debate. It's the language that's the common and the strongest link. Lets see whoever this MT is to show the evidence provided by Talageri ji is incorrect.

      Delete
    5. The accusation of not knowing Sanskrit does not hold water. Frankly, the same logic is used by Islamic sympathizers that those who do not know Arabic cannot comment on the Koran. When has that stopped others from commented on that text? This of all, not knowing Sanskrit, is the weakest counter argument.

      Delete
    6. Actually if looked at the genetic evidence also, the author of the blog in Manastarangini takes papers based on research about the Stepe region then combines it with the 2013 paper written by Pooja Moorjani and then some how locates some markers such as R1a with in the DNA and then concludes the Aryan Invasion Theory, however Pooja Moorjani clearly states in her paper that even though the admixture of the 2 primary populations of ANI and ASI is between 1900 to 4200 years back it does not suggest an Aryan Invasion Theory for the simple reason that the ANI stayed in the subcontinent way before the admixture had happened. Pooja Moorjani also points out in her paper that for such a major mass migration to happen would be problematic since the Indian Subcontinent was quite densely populated with agriculture already being established. Plus I would also like to add that even this theory of the Indian population only being comprised of ANI and ASI mixture is also debated in the genetic papers as recent as 2016, they argue that the admixture is not just ANI and ASI but add another 2 ancestries. So this is also another problem with the way Data is actually taken. Genetics needs inputs from archaeology and linguistics for cases to be made.

      Delete
  9. A good reply would go only into the arguments that Manasataramgini provides, and leave his motivations (we can't read his mind, after all) as an afterthought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hinduism is under siege as never before in its history. We can not afford any more the luxury of thinking our enemies and their Trojan horses have good motives. And in this case, the motives are as clear as daylight: what Ambedkar had said about a small clique of (at that time) Maharashtrian brahmin scholars fits like a glove the present small clique of Tamil brahmin scholars, all very fervent Hindus and not leftists or secularists.

      Delete
  10. Sir, Very good analysis. I have read all 3 of your books (also saw your video on Youtube) and with regards to the last two books - each and every point is solidly backed by evidence, and explains almost all conceivable doubts one could raise against OIT.

    I confess, I used to be a fan of Manasataramgini in my initial years - impressed by his "erudition" and "Sanskrit scholarship" - till I learned Sanskrit myself, got training and started reading originals, and realized that all the sitting in front of Agni and meditating on Indra etc was B.S. Anyway I digress.

    Some of his articles are really very good and useful. But then his views on AIT were troublesome from the beginning - ignoring as it did all possible evidence, and twisting facts to suit a hypothesis. I mean, AIT/ OIT is big divide - the equivalent of South Asia/ Indian sub-continent, oppressive/ sacredness etc.

    In fact, my first feeling when I read the article in question sometime back was, has this gentleman gone completely bonkers? What is he talking about? Jargons dont make an essay.

    Your response is excellent and every point is convincing. But for Hindu-phobes, communists and racists, facts don't matter, and they will focus on some irrelevant minutiae and try to divert the issue. It is only in the OIT camp now that I find sane voices like you, Shri Danino and RM. The AIT camp (Invasion, Migration, Trickle In whatever) is filled with communists, racists and rabid Hindu-haters (and morons).

    Regards ..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Today evening (I am in a hurry to go to my office at the moment) I will upload an article I had sent to a western scholar on the Indology List who wanted to start a debate on the AIT/OIT. But after that, there was a dead silence on his part. Koenraad Elst wrote to me that they were expecting me to make some mistake they could use to discredit me, but my article left them speechless, so they backed out of the discussion.

      Delete
  11. Dear S.Talageri,

    You wrote:

    \\The article "A Note on the Early Expansions of the Indo-Europeans" at https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/a-note-on-the-early-expansions-of-the-indo-europeans/, stridently supports the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) and strongly condemns the proponents of the OIT (the Out-of-India Theory), namely "S. Talageri, S. Kak, N.S. Rajaram, V. Agrawal, B.B. Lal, S. Kalyanaraman, D. Frawley, R. Malhotra, M. Danino, K. Elst, N. Kazanas and so on", "as idiots". This article deserves a fitting reply.//

    Nowhere in his blog does Manasataramgini tagged you or other cited authors as 'idiots'. This is the only instance where he had used 'idiots', as referring to mainstream Indological POV :

    \\ On one hand it was exposing the Hindus “as idiots”, a suspicion or a belief which some white indologists had privately harbored. //

    I myself do not completely agree with all the points made by MT regarding AIT, but I feel this 'review' of yours should have avoided the frequent ad hominems like 'racist/caseteist' which MT clearly is not. Being an evolutionary biologist, he emphasizes on genetics and views AIT as just another pre-historic movement of humans (he also views other groups like Dravidians as intruders into India).

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When he names a list of supporters of the OIT, calls their OIT formulation "a strange new aberration in Hindu thought", and ("at first", of course) "a fantasy of some ill-educated raconteurs" and says this OIT was "exposing the Hindus 'as idiots'", and goes on to elaborate that list of supporters of the OIT as Hindus who "were unable to understand a theory as AIT with a great weight of evidence behind it" and who "failed to grasp something so clear-cut", then we do not require to be Einstein or Sherlock Holmes to know that the people whom he is describing as "idiots" are not Max Mueller or Romilla Thapar, but the list of OIT supporters named by him!

      Delete


    2. Dear Talageri,



      "a strange new aberration in Hindu thought" he's referring to the fact that the current version of OIT was a sudden response to the dominant AIT narrations which developed during last few decades.

      "ill-educated raconteurs, who might simultaneously see Tipoo Sultan as a freedom fighter. " Here he's referring to the left-liberals and compares the OIT narrations with the flawed historical claims of left-liberals (such as their whitewashing of abrahamist attrocites and glorication of ghazi terrorists). Here I too have to agree with him, since OIT indeed has flaws ( AIT isn't flawless either).

      "exposing the Hindus 'as idiots'" he's actually quoting the mainstream western Indological view. It is indeed true that many of the western Indologists reject anything coming from Indian authors (unless if it suits their view), technically viewing them as inferior sources. I'm sure you are well aware of it since you have encountered anti-Hindus like Witzel in the past.

      "were unable to understand a theory as AIT with a great weight of evidence behind it – if they failed to grasp something so clear-cut" here he's alluding to that fact that the mainstream AIT model is more well established than OIT. Indeed, AIT has more evidence than OIT since Kurgan theory brings IE from Yamnaya -> Sintashta -> Andronovo -> BMAC -> Swat valley even with all its speculative narrations. Recent genetic papers also support this expansion from the Pontic steppes. But I agree, there are many falws in this theory. And I have highlighted them in my blog. But just because this theory has flaws, it doesn't automatically make OIT true. In case of OIT, we don't even have such a model which brings IE from India all the way into far away regions including Scandinavia, Balkans, Western Europe and so on.

      Anyway, coming to the point, I feel you should have avoided the ad hominems and made the reply in a scholarly level (considering that both of you are popular Hindu authors).

      Delete
    3. I think you must be the only person able to draw all the strange meanings you have given above for the different phrases used by Manasatarangini to refer to the OIT proponents named by him, and to express his full support to the AIT! So when he wrote the OIT was "a mere fantasy of some ill-educated raconteurs", he was referring to the left-liberals? Likewise, with the rest of your above interpretations and conclusions. I am speechless!

      Delete
    4. If you go through his writings, it'd be obvious that he's pointing towards these meanings. As for '"ill-educated raconteurs' part, you must read it along with "who might simultaneously see Tipoo Sultan as a freedom fighter." part, which obviously refers to the left-liberal whitewashing of ghazis like Tipu.

      Delete
    5. Exactly! which is why I described his quote in that respect as demonstrating a pedestrian level of understanding. How could he possibly imagine that the people (pro-Hindu writers) who supported the OIT could also be the same people (left-liberals) who want to whitewash ghazis like Tipu?

      Delete
    6. He did not state that the people who supported OIT are same as the left liberals, but that OIT too is based on little evidence (We obviously have nothing to prove that few tribes from Haryana manged to Indo-Europeanize entire regions of Western Europe, Balkans, Scandinavia etc during Harappan or pre Harappan times) just like the claim of Tipu being 'freedom fighter'.

      Delete
    7. Yagna, What is wrong with you. Srikant Talageri has written three books, numerous blogs providing evidence for OIT. He has not only provided proper correlation on entire indology research for over 200 years but also has presented numerous new evidences in books and articles like "how the names in the new books of RV are similar to the indo-iranian, mittani names but not the names in the old books of RV"(just one example I have quoted), Either you have not read his works or lack scholarly aptitude to comprehend what is written in there!

      Delete
  12. I am not sure if the other related articles on the blog are examined, for instance https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/the-mandala-graph-for-rishi-sharing/ where a different basis is presented for a relative positioning of manDala-s.

    While this is certainly critical of OIT (and your) view, he does not call you an idiot anywhere in his blog that you are taking offense for.

    While I do not myself subscribe to an AIT position manasataramgini posits an important H-centric view of understanding the literature, namely vedic mantra instead of a relatively superficial linguistic/etymological approach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will be uploading, within an hour, an article sent by me to a western scholar on the Indology list. You will see that the evidence for my own "relative positioning of the Mandalas" covers a complete range of all kinds of evidence, and simply can not be challenged. All kinds of scholarly, semi-scholarly and crank "(mutually opposed) relative positioning of the Mandalas" has been suggested by umpteen scholars on the basis of the most ridiculous and flimsy criteria. My positiong moreover fits in with the standard relative positiong my the mainstream Indologists.

      Also, What we need is not subjective H-centric views which will be laughed out of the court. We require factual objective views which fit in with the data, facts and evidence, and also explain every new piece of data that comes up, and which will stand factual scrutiny.

      About the "idiot"-word, I have answered your objection in the above mail.

      Delete
    2. Why are you taking Manasataramgini's arguments against the AIT personally? Prominent Hindu writers attacking each other doesn't bode well for us. Actually MT has never called you an idiot, on the contrary sees you as one of the credible proponents of OIT

      Delete
    3. You probably mean "Manasatarangini's arguments for the AIT". I am not taking this personally. Like every other Hindu scholar, I am sure he is doing very great work, especially when he writes against the Abrahamic forces. But the number of people coming to his defence alone shows his influence, and this influence is being used here to spread disinformation among Hindu readers about the AIT/OIT. This has to be exposed. [He does not see me as "one of the credible proponents of OIT", but only as one of the "idiots" whose saving grace is that I do not support the "nonsensical manifestations that deny the Indo-European monophyly" (which indeed I do not)]

      Delete
  13. Thank you for being patient enough to reply. Some of his criticism against OIT is harsh and undignified. Likewise it seems to me that some of you're accusations against him are unjustified as well. As regards his racism you might like to read this https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2006/12/23/what-is-our-race/
    . AIT or OIT amply clear that Indians genetically belong to the same race. Perhaps it is time H scholars of all dispositions decide to be more controlled in their choice of words, given there have been far too many such spats that have taken an ugly turn recently

    ReplyDelete
  14. If it were a leftist, pseudo-dalit, missionary or secularist writing such things, or one of those crank bloggers or internet trolls, I would have ignored it, including any personal abuse. Here it is an erudite and popular Hindu writer writing this kind of nonsense and playing the enemies' game, and, worst of all, spreading disinformation among Hindus. Yes, there are crank Hindu writers who do write all kinds of rubbish, but my writings (even though I am saying this myself) is not rubbish, so much so that the topmost western AIT scholars choose to avoid taking me on (and not because I am a crank) or try to dismiss me by alluding to my academic status (B.Com), my (real or assumed) political opinions, my bank employee profession, or my "not knowing" various things (Sanskrit, Greek, German, the writings of some particular writer, etc), rather than daring to take on the impossible task of trying to disprove the data, facts and evidence presented by me. As I said, I can expect this cussedness from a determined anti-Hindu, but not from a popular Hindu-minded writer. And, whether you like it or not, this small group of staunchly Hindu writers who are also staunchly pro-AIT and anti-OIT are only impelled by the personal prejudice that Dr. Ambedkar had pinpointed. I am as averse as you are to intra-Hindu "spats" taking an ugly turn, but when our own soldiers turn their guns on us in the middle of a battle, it is not a situation to be ignored. And this is without prejudice to the good work they may be doing on other Hindu fronts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ^^ Sir, how can i get the article that you promised to post abv?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is already posted yesterday

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  16. Shrikant ji Excellent analysis by you. I have not seen a valid counter to your argument yet.
    All these folks supporting MT sound misguided in their criticism. OIT is irrefutable with 2-7 OLD RIGVEDIC evidences you pointed out.Could you please make more YouTube clips for layman about your important work. Dhanyavad

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sorry I do not have the financial, organisational or technical resources to make video-clips of my talks. The said videos were made by an organisation in Indore, which called me to give talks there. My talks (originally given in IIT Powai) were in five parts. The organisation was, however, only interested in having talks by some eminent Hindu writers when they called me for the first talk, in order to give a kick-start to their organisation. When they found out I was a friend of Koenraad Elst, they wanted to use my influence to get Koenraad in their programs, and my second and third talks were arranged only as a formal side-show to Koenraad Elst's talks. Beyond that, they had no further interest in completing the five-part talks, and I have none now.

      I am in fact grateful in a way to Manasatarangini for his criticism which compelled me to write a reply and then (when online Hindu journals showed reluctance to print an article criticizing him by name) compelled me to activate my long-dormant blog. I think this is the best way to publish my views and articles, and to answer doubts and questions.

      Delete
    2. Understood Shrikant ji. Will send an email to IndiaInspires team and see if they can help. Regarding this YANMAYA DNA, Subhash Kakji wrote an article. Manasatarangini missed the point that YANMAYA were NOT the first wave into Europe.

      From NYtimes article:
      DNA Deciphers Roots of Modern Europeans http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/science/dna-deciphers-roots-of-modern-europeans.

      "If the Yamnaya were the source of Indo-European languages, they would have had to have reached southern Europe soon after they had made it to Central Europe.

      Dr. Heggarty speculated instead that early European farmers, the second wave of immigrants, may have brought Indo-European to Europe from the Near East. Then, thousands of years later, the Yamnaya brought the language again to Central Europe.

      More ancient DNA could swing the balance of evidence in favor of one theory over the other, Dr. Heggarty said. A stronger case for a steppe origin of Indo-European might emerge, for example, if scientists discovered that Greeks around 4,500 years ago abruptly acquired Yamnaya DNA."

      “Let’s see whether they look like the steppe people or not,” he said.

      I feel Manasatarangini, if his Biology background is true as posted by someone above,is just trying to show-off his Biology background.He is acting like an expert and passing broad comments on all the Swadeshi Indology Experts. Now with his DNA argument not helping his case, will he learn?

      Delete
    3. AS I said in my above mail, I have no interest whatsoever now in completing that series of talks, and certainly not through the auspices of IndiaInspires. So please do not take up that matter.

      Delete
  17. Was The Indian Sub-Continent The Original Genetic Homeland Of The Europeans? http://swarajyamag.com/ideas/was-the-indian-sub-continent-the-original-genetic-homeland-of-the-europeans#.Vy77w5b8Wi0.whatsapp

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sir, Your method to identify internal chronology of Rig Veda is novel and backed up by rigorous objective analysis. Your contribution in this field is unique and many like me admire you for it. I think central finding of yours that earliest part of Rig Veda is in heart of India, around nourishing Saraswati, and earlier than Avesta/Mittani is death nail to traditional *post Harappan* AIT/AMT.

    You have also shown movement of Rig Vedic tribes out of India but it is not sufficient to prove OIT without supporting evidence showing movement of people/language from central Asia to Europe. Besides, movement of language and people was probably complex and might have involved multiple migration in both directions.

    Blogger in question has abrasive style and comes across as arrogant but he has very good grasp of genetics. He is familiar with latest genetics development and I found him to be one of the insightful commentor from indic point of view.

    Ancient genetic is providing valuable insight in movement of people in past. Development in last two years shows that a) modern European genetic heritage is shaped by Steppe population in late forth and early 3rd millennium bc b) Steppe/India share sizable genetic ancestry going back to no later than 2500bc. Ancient DNA from India, Central asia, Armenia and Greece may change the picture. When that happens, I hope scholar like you working with Indian genetic experts would come up with a model which is consistent with our tradition, genetics and archeology.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sir I have gone through the genetic papers , I agree completely with your premise that genetics cannot prove or disprove AIT, I believe proper archaeological evidence is required for this.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. How do you deal with the ecological vocabulary of reconstructed PIE? The reconstructed terms for flora and fauna all seem to suggest a urheimat outside the subcontinent. PIE seems to possess terms for temperate flora and fauna but few terms for those of the subcontinent. While you have pointed out that Ivan and Gamkrelidze have reconstructed words for some seemingly southern flora and fauna, these reconstructions are not universally accepted. Further most of these terms do not really point to a homeland in the subcontinent as their Historical ranges extended far to the North-west including the territories in the vicinity of the Caucasus. Another problem seems to be the lack of linguistic diversity within India. How do you explain the fact that there is no trace of IE linguistic diversity except for poorly attested Bangani

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have replied in short to this whole argument in this very blog, so I don't see why this question is being asked. Please read my above blog where I deal with Manasatarangini's reference to the reconstructed flora and fauna. But to answer it nevertheless:

      If Gamkrelidze's reconstructed words are not "universally accepted", they have certainly not been disproved. Are we to accept them only when the last of the AIT warriors gives his permission?

      Since every single animal in the reconstructed vocabulary is found in India, how does it disprove the OIT? If you are insisting that the words for elephant, camel, and other animals peculiar to India should have been found in every IE language of Europe, see how I have pointed out Witzel's contradictory argument to explain the absence in Indo-Aryan of animals peculiar to other areas but not found in India:

      "One argument in this context is: 'the search for Indian plant names in the west, such as lotus, bamboo, Indian trees (aśvattha, bilva, jambu, etc.), comes up with nothing. Such names are simply not to be found, also not in a new meaning' (WITZEL 2005:373). As we have already seen (as this point is already raised by Witzel in section 11.18), the search for such names in the language of the Gypsies also “comes up with nothing”. This is because there is a simple logic behind this: languages which left one area in ancient times, and settled down in other distant areas, tended naturally, in the course of time, to forget plants and animals of their earlier areas not found in the new areas, unless active links were maintained with the earlier areas. Therefore arguments based on this premise prove nothing. Witzel himself, ironically, tells us, on the next page, that “most of the IE plants and animals are not found in India”, and that, therefore, their names “have simply not been used any longer and have died out” (WITZEL 2005:374)." [my book "The Rigveda and the Avesta - The Final Evidence", where in a long section I have dealt with every single linguistic argument by Witzel]

      Are we to use a different logic for the absence of non-Indian animal names in India, and for the absence of Indian animal names outside India?

      And the common words for camel, elephant, etc. do not represent an area which extended as far west as the Caucasus: a common word for the camel is common to Tocharian and Germanic, indicating it is the Bactrian camel and not the Arabian one.

      I find it strange that I am being asked to "deal" with all kinds of arguments already answered in my books, while the massive evidence given in my books which has even left the western academics speechless, does not require to be dealt with and can be safely ignored. I can understand leftists and western academics (who have already written a lot on this subject and have a stake in the AIT) adopting this attitude. But what exactly is the explanation for a group of fervent Hindus launching a relentless and unreasoning jihad on the OIT, other than the one understood by Dr Ambedkar and myself? You are willing to accept and repeatedly and tenaciously put forward the same (already answered and discredited) arguments with jihadic fervour, but when it comes to the OIT case (backed by all the irrefutable evidence) nothing will satisfy you short of a video film (shot from a Time Machine travelling into the past) showing Aryans migrating from India to Europe! a words reconstructed by

      Delete
    2. Actually sir in support of your point I have practically seen it. My uncle left to the United States 30 years ago.. I asked him does he gets chance to eat "jamun" which is a common fruit found in UP and all over India. But my uncle said they do not get this fruit their. For him it is ok since he remember the name but his kids born and brought up in the United States doesn't even know that this fruit exists .. They forgot it just in one generation even in this era. So I found your argument absolutely valid.

      Delete
  22. I should have probably been more specific in my question . I will not disturb you any further if you find any critical discussion of your theory distressing. You must however know that there is no Jihad against OIT as you allege. I have read your books and was myself a fervent supporter of the OIT, after re-reading the arguments made by various scholars both for and against the theory, find the OIT in less convincing than the mainstream kurgan hypothesis. I do not find anything anti-Hindu in being supportive of the AIT. The motive behind being critical of the OIT by a section of Hindus is that they find it inadequate. My views certainly are open to change

    ReplyDelete
  23. Then this ends the discussion with you which was anyway becoming like a vaudeville cross-talk show. Please do broadcast to your friends that I "find critical discussion of my theory distressing"! I leave it to readers to arrive at their own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Further I would like to make certain things clear once and for all:

      I am always ready to answer any serious doubt, question or problem by anyone on this blog.

      However, I will not waste my time henceforward by replying to what I frankly consider to be HTHTs (Hindu Trojan Horse Trolls) in the service of anti-Hindus, who are avowed supporters of the AIT and refuse to examine the massive evidence given by me, but only come on this blog to heckle or abuse or repeatedly ask questions on points which have been repeatedly answered by me not only in my books (which of course I cannot expect that everyone should have read and memorised in every detail) but also on this blog and in replies to comments on this blog, and then pass sly comments like "I will not disturb you further if you find any critical discussion of your theory distressing".

      I will not of course delete anyone's comments, because I want them on record for other readers to draw their conclusions. Otherwise also they are free to enjoy themselves on social network sites like facebook and twitter, where I am told all kinds of things are being written, and victory claimed.

      No, people believing in the AIT are not anti-Hindus. There must be millions of Indians who are too busy or harrassed in life, too lazy, or too uninterested and indifferent, to examine all the evidence. But I cannot say the same about fervent Hindus who launch a jihad against the OIT and promote the AIT with jihadic fervour on the internet and in the media, while ignoring the massive evidence for the OIT (but failing to try to disprove it) and lying about the AIT. See Kalavai Venkat's troll-tactic in his "reply" on the internet: citing Lubotsky and the Finno-Ugric argument for the AIT when I have not only disproved it in great detail in my books, but I have again shown its fallacy in my above blog (since it was cited by Manasatarangini in his blog) and then once again in my reply to earlier comments!

      Delete
  24. What Talageri is doing is something which defies understanding. I myself accept that due to certain reasons, Indology is rabidly anti Hindu but we can certainly check theories in a thorough manner. When were the chariots drawn by horses invented or attested in this world? Not before 2200 BC in Sintasta culture and this is view of almost every scholar and not just Witzel and Co. or even Indologists at large. If that is the case, how can Rigveda be earlier than 2200 BC? Case closed.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh yes and before Mr. Talageri accuses me of being a caste supremacist, let me make it clear that my caste of Rajputs has nothing good about it to brag unlike Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmins and being from East UP I know how much contempt is for people from this region.

    manastaramagini indeed comes across as 'realist' that is arrogant about success of his community but then that is natural given incompetence of non Brahmins in India throughout Indian history. He is right about AMT but shows remarkable lack of common sense when he talks about significant aryan ancestry among Dravidians. Also, it remains the fact that jehadis from Pakistan and Afghanistan have more 'aryan ancestry' than Tamil brahmins like him and K. Venkat. Reality check is very much needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. There is significant west Eurasian ancestry among (even non-Brahmin) Dravidian speakers any how. Ancient DNA from Harappa will likely confirm that this was due to the bronze age incursion with the Aryan or suggest a separate neolithic origin for this. Assuming r1a to have been primarily an Aryan marker it is present a significant frequency in several Dravidian speaking communities. Not necessary that Y chromosomal contribution must reflect in overall aDNA though

      Delete
    3. This is major flaw in understanding of manastaramgini( he is biologist but does not display any common sense). 'Western Eurasian' is a very broad term and which includes all caucasoid components- existing thousands of years before PIE emerged. Europeans themselves show ancestry from Middle East which is understandable as agriculture started there.

      The idea that languages and genes have no relation is only a Politically Correct nonsense driven by leftists. There was no modern schools in bronze ages that people picked up languages of others without meeting any of the speakers. However, let us not go into other extreme too. The idea that people of Bengal or UP have heavy ancestry from Steppes because they speak IA languages is also stupid. Indo Aryans were not sedentary agriculturalists who overpopulated North India but it was a case of new migrants imposing their language on others by elite dominance model. You are quite aware that elites show paternal ancestry from Steppes.

      Dravidians have West Eurasian ancestry just as majority of North Indians because of neolithic movements. There is this article 'what harappan ancestry project has resolved' , see the varying degree of different components in Indian population and you can derive results easily.

      The article clearly shows that while even Brahmins are quite close to dalits, it also shows that there is difference. NE Euro component varies among Brahmins from as high as 14 percent( UP, Rajasthan brahmins) to as low as 4 percent in brahmins of Deccan. Now, South Indian castes have no NE Euro component. On the other hand, Pastuns and Kalash have it around 10-12 percent. So anyone with half brain can see that there was some movement of people which has created a situation where some Iyengar of TN and some Pastun of Kabul have both atleast 7-12 pc NE Euro component while neighbours of Iyengars like Tamil Vellalars have not even one percent of same. Classical theory afterall tells us that it was from NW that Vedic people came. So no, it was not a movement which gave 40 pc of autosomal dna to dravidians, Indo Aryan migration impacted only some classes who have high NE Euro ancestry.

      It is not West Eurasian ancestry that matters but rather NE Euro component as this component is around 5-8 pc among South Indian brahmins but not even one pc in non brahmin dravidians in most cases and southie brahmins share this with Pastuns and Kalash people.

      This is reason why made fun of manastaramgini, he might boast of aryan ancestry but it is a fact that Pakistani and Afghan jehadis have far greater aryan ancestry than Tamil brahmins like him and K. Venkat. Ofcourse, he and Talageri are far better intellectuals than some mountain dwellers of Afghanistan. Ancestry itself does not mean much.

      Delete
  26. Mr. Talageri should accept a very important point that it is not use of any theory by Islamofascists which makes it baseless. Muslims boast how they ruled over Hindus, Sita Ram Goel could write tens of books on Hindu bravery but fact remains that Muslims ruled Hindus , our displeasure at this does not matter. Similarly, if many Hindu Indians accept Aryan Invasion theory, it may be because of their adherence to facts rather than caste supremacism.

    Ambedkar might be Allah in neo Hindutva circles but his rabid hatred for Brahmins is well known. Also, what Ambedkar was doing by diving into psychology of brahmins can be done for him too. Ambedkar like most antihindus was a cultureless man for whom imitating white man was highest thing in life( hats, coats, boots, emphasis on english etc.) If he accepted AIT, he would have to deal with painful fact that brahmins who were simply whites' extension in India rightly deserved to be at top. In other words, it was too much for a pathetic Brahmin hater to accept that they could have any connection with whites whom he worshipped like most modern day dalits.
    Dalit radicals are funny- they play victim card but also taunt brahmins for this or that failure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aryans weren't really whites in any case

      Delete
    2. It is likely that they were not whites in modern sense but people looking like modern day Pamiris and caucasoids of Central Asia without mongoloid admixture. Tribal people assimilate others easily and soon lose their looks, by Atharvaveda we know that even Brahmins had dark hair. It can be said that even Rigvedic people had dark hair as Central Asian aryas most perhaps did not look whites. So yes you are right, Indo Iranians who entered Afghanistan were not whites and aryas soon lost their distinct look by mixing in Gandhar and Punjab region( I hope you realise that Punjabis in general are more caucasoid than people of UP, Bihar etc.)

      However, that was not the main point. Talageri thinks that by diving into mindset of certain people who support AIT, he can destroy AIT itself. This is quite wrong, just because a theory is used by antihindus for obnoxious reasons( and based on laughable logic), one can not say that theory itself is wrong. Similarly, a Hindu believing in this theory might be doing this simply because of the fact that this makes sense. One need not be caste supremacist to believe in AIT.

      In case of Ambedkar, I am right. Ambedkar repeated verbatim diehard hinduphobic statements made by likes of Macaulay and Mayo and was a worshipper of white men in everything. During 1930s, it was believed that aryas were whites and for a pathetic brahmin hater, it was too much that his mortal enemies were called descendants of whites.

      So far as 'achievements' are concerned, likes of Ambedkar and their followers can easily compare theirs with those of brahmins. Neo Hindus like BJP and Talageri might regard Ambedkar as God but a man like PV Kane was far greater scholar than Ambedkar.

      Delete
  27. I have been convert from OIT to AMT because of following reasons

    1. OIT is fringe theory developed by people who with some exceptions do not even know Sanskrit. None of them except Elst has any experience in comparative linguistics.
    2. Vedic literature has to be post harappan while OIT ones give hory dates for them.

    3. No linguist outside Indology( Indologists can be antihindu but not all linguists of world) subscribes to idea of India as urheimat.
    4. Linguistics rules out such scenario- there is non aryan substratum, retroflexes, non aryan names of rivers and dravidian place names in Gujrat.

    5. No linguistic diversity is there in India in IE branch. Just one branch IA dominates all lands from Indus to Brahmaputra and Kashmir to Konkan.

    6. Finally anthropology and genetics prove beyond doubt that AMT is right.

    Ofcourse, just as Rajaram can boast that he has demolished AIT so too can others though I must accept that Talageri is far more sophisticated and has made some arguments atleast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I will not waste my time replying to your hate-tirades against so many different people and things. And as usual, every single "point" raised by you has been conclusively answered in my books, and I will not waste time in repeating them here either. Your reference to chariots alone shows how trolls keep repeating "arguments" which have been repeatedly answered and repeatedly discredited and disproved. Like many other things (domesticated camels and donkeys, Mitanni type names, etc) which originated around 2200 BCE or so, spoked-wheels (which are what distinguishes chariots from the earlier carts) are found only in the New Books (1,5,8,9,10) and completely absent in the Old Books (2,3,4,6,7), which clearly go back far beyond 2200 BCE. Only people who criticize and abuse without reading could have asked the question "how can Rigveda be older than 2200 BCE" on the basis of chariots!

      Delete
  28. When you are going to prove new things, you can not take them as evidences. It is irrelevant what you find as 'old books' of Rigveda when you are using them as some sort of evidence. You locate old books in UP and there is not a single evidence that horse drawn carts( I did not once talk about spoked wheels) were there in UP in the timeperiod you assign to Old books. If there is something, show us. You adopt circular reasoning, you will call certain books as pre 2200 BCE and than use them as evidences! That is not how we should do it.
    Not mentioning anything itself means nothing- KD Sethna whose supporters think that his argument that Rigveda not knowing cotton and bricks is 'clinching' and 'seminal' make much of that and tell us that RV has to be pre 3100 BCE ( its youngest books including).

    Yes you have demolished AMT same way Rajaram and Sethna have done. 'Atmaprashansa' is best these days.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Talageri writes 'Only people who criticize and abuse without reading could have asked the question "how can Rigveda be older than 2200 BCE" on the basis of chariots!'

    First I did not abuse. It is funny that saying 'defies understanding' is abuse and from someone who calls others as racists and casteists .

    1. No chariots in UP before 2200 BCE ( you locate old books there) . It is immaterial spoked wheels were there or not. The point is that we have no evidence of horse drawn carts in UP in around that timeperiod.(pre 2200 BCE)
    2. Ratha is term for chariots in Rigveda and it is not attested anywhere as term for chariot in any IE branch except Iranian branch. The traditional and mainstream theory explains it by crediting Sintasta to Indo Iranians from whom both Iranics and Indics got the term.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your mails do demonstrate "atmaprashansa", although not perhaps that it is "best these days". It demonstrates that anyone with no knowledge of any subject beyond the most pedestrian ideas, and with only a persistent desire to vent his angry feelings against a book, writer or hypothesis without having read any of what he is criticising, can carry on a continuous self-righteous tirade. There is nothing I can answer you with, since everything is there in my books which you are determined to condemn without reading or understanding. I will not reply further, but please carry on with your tirade. It is very instructive and educative, and demonstrates how trolls function when they have nothing new or substantial to say.

      Delete
    2. Now I am convinced that how you vehemently attack anyone opposing your 'theories'. What atmaprashansa' did I indulge in?

      Do not reply me numerous times- just answer a simple question. Since you locate Old Books in my home state UP ( and that too in Gangetic plains) , please show us evidence for carts drawn by horses from UP before 2000 BCE. Can you do it?

      As for genetics, yes if males of elite group show ancestry from Central Asia, it proves to be last nail in the coffin of OIT.

      Delete
    3. This is any easy response: They just haven't found any chariots there. Do you think every archaeological discovery has been found? Also, why Rig Veda doesn't mention any river name outside of India?

      Delete
    4. This is any easy response: They just haven't found any chariots there. Do you think every archaeological discovery has been found? Also, why Rig Veda doesn't mention any river name outside of India?

      Delete
  30. Dear sir I am great fan of yours. I am a research scholar in nephrology department in Harvard Boston. I have read you work you are wonderful. Your work is revolutionary. Sir will " journey of mankind by Stephen Oppenheimer will work in your study? And also sir there was something about " Kanpur Y chromosome " which has spread from India to outside extending to europian countries with highest density in Kanpur. I am naive and so I am suggesting you which you must be already knowing. Hope to hear from you soon.regards Shruti.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sir you are right genetics alone cannot prove or disprove the AIT. but any major genetic inflow from western Eurasia can definitely disprove the OIT. This looks very likely at present. As regarding chariots, the first evidence of the earliest wheeled vehicles is from about 6000 years ago. The first evidence of chariots is from Sintashta around 2100 BCE. Isn't in improbable that the Aryans invented the wheel and chariot so early yet it is neither attested in India (understandable on account of the weather) nor anywhere else in the world (India did interact through trade with the peoples of SW asia and S Central asia ). Also the horse seems to have been domesticated only around 3500 BCE further complicating the issue. Yet another problem is the fact that Wheat seems to have been the primary crop of the IVC, yet is given less important in the Veda. Further the term for wheat seems to lack a secure etymology. Another problem is the fact that there is some evidence that families in the IVC were primarily matrilocal how do you reconcile it with your hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Any major genetic inflow from western Eurasia can definitely disprove the OIT"! For the umpteenth time, let me repeat: Any major genetic inflow from western Eurasia will merely show that large numbers of people from western Eurasia migrated into India and mixed with the local population. People from all over the world may have migrated into India (and in every other direction) in ancient and medieval times. But it cannot "disprove the OIT" or "prove the AIT" because it does not show that these immigrants from "western Eurasia" brought the Indo-European languages into India. Language is something totally different from race. You cannot prove that the IE (Aryan) languages came into India on the basis of the entry of people (i.e. DNA groups or haplogroups), plants and domesticated animals, musical styles, culinary techniques, or anything else. You can only show the movement of languages from historical records and linguistic studies i.e. from linguistic, archaeological and recorded (inscriptional, textual, etc) data relevant to the issue. And not one critic dares to even make the pretence of an attempt to disprove or debunk the massive and incontrovertible evidence I have given in those matters.

      As for horses and chariots, have you really not bothered to read one word of what I have written in the above article itself (let alone my books)? How can people continue to repeat the same baseless arguments again and again?

      Delete
    2. Sorry sir, I believe I should have been a little more precise while voicing my doubts. Genetics and linguistics certainly are related. Linguistic change often involves transmission along the paternal lineage, this has been observed among several peoples. Take for example the Finns, in phenotype they often resemble their IE speaking neighbors and it appears they share a good percentage of ancestry genetically too. Yet around 10-15% is unique and is shared with the people of siberia. The study of Paternally transmitted Y chromosomes paints a completely different picture nearly half the population shares haplogroup N1c shared with siberian populations and occurs with a high frequency amongst other Finno-Ugric speakers at high frequency. Amongst estonians it appears that the siberian contribution is smaller yet haplogroup N remains the most common Y haplogroup. But you are right in saying that they may be independent too. For example the Hungarians it appears had a much smaller contribution from the Magyars and the language seems to have been imposed by a Finno-Ugric elite who estblished the kingdom of Hungary is medieval times on a primarily slavic speaking populace. r1a accounts for nearly 50% of all (non tribal) Indian Y haplogroups, both IA and Dr although it dominates in the upper castes and IA speakers. Current evidence seems to suggest that it entered india around 2000 B.C.E, this means a massive replacement of male elites by immigrants. Surely isn't it strange almost unbelievable that so major a political and social change was not recorded anywhere in Vedic literature which you hold partially older and partially contemporary to this change?

      Delete
    3. As for the chariot, I agree it was not known to the PIE, but appears to have evolved from *rot-h₂-ó for wheel. However your explanation can only be accepted if we agree with your hypothesis that iranian and Indic have no affinity beyond what they acquired by mutual interactions in the late rig-vedic period. this has its own problems

      Delete
  32. Adding to the the previous issues (No offence meant salutations to you for your contributions to the Hindu cause, I am just pointing out certain weaknesses I found) You say sheep and goats appear only in the later rig veda, snow only in the later rig veda, horses become prominent only in the later rig veda, yet this is irrelevant. An earlier PIE form is reconstructible for all this words, doesn't this mean that the PIE speakers were aware of all these things in their homeland itself

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To answer your three missives/missiles with one: Your question "Surely isn't it strange almost unbelievable that so major a political and social change was not recorded anywhere in Vedic literature which you hold partially older and partially contemporary to this change?" is ironic. I do not merely "hold" that the Rigveda is "partially older and partially contemporary to this change"; I have proven this on the basis of a complete analysis of the data in the Rigveda vis-a-vis the Avesta and the Mitanni records. And again your treating my incontrovertible proof as my "held" opinion without bothering to show why it is wrong illustrates the weakness of your whole argument. Please first prove that my chronology is wrong, and then we will proceed to the rest of your genetic argument.

      Again: " your explanation can only be accepted if we agree with your hypothesis that iranian and Indic have no affinity beyond what they acquired by mutual interactions in the late rig-vedic period. this has its problems". "no affinity" is something I have never said: both are related Indo-European branches, and they were interacting even in the Early Rigvedic period, but in a more eastern area: in Haryana. What they acquired in the Late Rigvedic period is the common Indo-Iranian vocabulary and features which have been wrongly attributed to a pre-Rigvedic period placed in Central Asia. Again: I have proved this by a complete analysis of the common data. Prove me wrong. Tell me "its problems"!

      In the light of my detailed analysis of the Rigveda, how is the consistent late appearance of so many significant data (wrongly attributed to a pre-Rigvedic period) only in the Late Rigveda "irrelevant"? The "earlier PIE forms" theoretically reconstructed for all these words certainly indicates "that the PIE speakers were aware of all these things in their homeland itself". But that homeland (as per the recorded data spelled out in detail in my books) stretched out (in the Late Rigvedic period) up to Central Asia, and the Vedic Aryans (the easternmost of these IE groups, the Purus) started using these common words evolved in the northwestern parts only after they themselves expanded till that area in the late Rigvedic period in the wake of the other branches (the Anus and Druhyus. And all this is a matter of record.

      And if I am wrong (merely by your fatwas, since you can not prove me wrong on the basis of the data), I will certainly have made no "contributions to the Hindu cause" at all. So, no left handed compliments please!

      Delete
    2. I forgot to add: if my analysis of the Rigveda is wrong, if the meaning of the absence of so many significant words (pertaning to the northwestern regions and beyond) in the Old Books of the Rigveda and their appearance in the New Books (only after the Rigveda describes and shows in its geographical data the expansion of the Vedic people to the northwest) is "irrelevant", then everything in the debate is irrelevant. All the studies of the Rigveda in the last 200+ years are wrong. Even a person claiming that the Rigveda was composed in Assam or Tamilnadu is as "right" as the person who says it was composed in Haryana and surrounding areas, since the data in the Rigveda is "irrelevant".

      Remember, I have proved that the Old Books go back beyond 3000 BCE, and that, at that point of time, the rivers in the area had purely "Aryan" names, there is no trace of anything linguistically "non-Aryan" in the surroundings, and no memories of any immigration or of any knowledge of western areas. According to linguistic reconstruction, all the branches of IE were in their homeland till around 3000 BCE or so. Prove my chronology wrong, and then tell me that people carrying certain chromosomes and haplogroups entered India around 2000 BCE, bringing the "Aryan" languages with them!

      Delete
  33. I am not issuing any Fatwas and meant no back handed compliments. Whether upheld by other evidence or not it yours was one of the most well research and relatively sound attempts to propose an OIT. However newer discoveries and reinterpreting existing data will continue to shape our view on the IE urheimat. The only thing that I can say has been proved without sufficient doubt is that the IE languages form a distinct phylum and share a common origin. Neither the kurgan hypothesis nor your own hypothesis can be taken for granted. When I said the rigveda in this matter I meant this, the non-usage of a word in the older part of the rig-veda is no proof that the word did not exist at the time. On the other hand if the other indo-european contain cognates with regular sound correspondences, it may be assumed that all these terms descend from a word in PIE. Thus their non-attestation in the early Rig-Veda can only mean that these terms were not used in the verses even though they were known to the speakers of the language. To the suggestion that there was a linguistic continuum between India and Central asia, this again seems rather unlikely given the huge geographic barriers between India and Central asia, any expansion in this direction would have led to splintering of the population. On the hand other the absence of the chariot in the early Rig Veda also cannot say much about its absence (It would have been different had it been used in an older meaning as wheel for instance). As for the mittani evidence, you have demonstrated that a post rig vedic a migration out of India is possible, there is no reason to think that the traditional scenario is not. Overall I will say you have proven that an OIT is not impossible but not that it is true or even better than the kurgan hypothesis. As for whether r1a was associated with Aryan speakers, I will not comment (although I think it is likely). But I will say that a massive political and genetic change in the middle Bronze age is a death blow for OIT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is saying the same things in different words. So is my reply:

      "the non-usage of a word in the older part of the rig-veda is no proof that the word did not exist at the time....Thus their non-attestation in the early Rig-Veda can only mean that these terms were not used in the verses even though they were known to the speakers of the language.". So the non-usage of the words Narmada, Godavari and Kaveri in the Rigveda (while the names of all the northwestern rivers are there) is no proof that the Vedic Aryans were not intimately acquainted with those rivers and were not at that time residing on the banks of those rivers in Central and South India? The whole study of Rigvedic history is based on which words are, or are not, used in the Rigveda. Please go through my book: huge categories of hundreds of words of certain particular categories are found repeatedly in the New Books of the Rigveda and in all later literature (and even in the Avesta and Mitanni records) but totally missing, except occasionally in stray hymns universally accepted as interpolated ones, in the Old Books. Hundreds and hundreds of systematically occuring coincidences, or hundreds of cases of a massively doctored text as part of a conspiracy by the ancient composers of the Rigveda to present a false OIT case (since the future-gazing seers among the Vedic rishis forecast that an OIT-vs-AIT dispute would be raging in the present age, and wanted to help the OIT-wallas)? This is very very special pleading indeed on your part.

      "On the other hand if the other indo-european contain cognates with regular sound correspondences, it may be assumed that all these terms descend from a word in PIE". You still don't get it do you? These terms are indeed descended from words in PIE, but from words in the western dialects of a PIE stretching from Haryana to Central Asia (as per all the evidence), and not from a PIE hypothetically situated in South Russia.

      "As for the mittani evidence, you have demonstrated that a post rig vedic a migration out of India is possible, there is no reason to think that the traditional scenario is not. Overall I will say you have proven that an OIT is not impossible but not that it is true or even better than the kurgan hypothesis". Without even trying to show how my evidence that the Old Books of the Rigveda go back far beyond 3000 BCE can possibly be wrong on the basis of the data, you can still stick to your guns that the Kurgan hypothesis is "better". And if you find speculative (and highly disputed) identifications of "massive genetic changes" dealing "a death blow for (the) OIT" backed by all this evidence, then clearly I might as well try to convince a Christian missionary that I will not go to Hell for not converting to Christianity.

      Delete
    2. Yes, sir I understood the point that these words entered Indo-Aryan from the druhyu/western Anu dialects as substrate when these regions were Indo-Aryanized. My problem with this assumption is that by the late rig vedic period, in the second millenium BCE, these languages would already have undergone their own distinct sound changes different from Vedic. These words should then be expected to preserve some of this alternate development. Is there any evidence of this. Also is their any evidence of an 'Anu-Druhyu' substrate in any of the NW Indo-Aryan languages as compared to the others? eg PIE *ǵʰim-, *ǵʰyem-, snow has given rise to greek χεῖμα, hittite giman,
      proto slavic *zima, avestan zyå. Which of these and how did it give rise to the Old Indo-aryan hima? why is it not khima, or jima or gima as would be expected in case of a borrowing from these languages. rather it appears PIE*ǵʰim->*jʰim->hima along expected lines for Indo-Aryan

      Nothing is really as conclusive as it seems (No the Kurgan hypothesis hasn't been proven conclusively either). Take geography for instance, you have supposed that the mention of animals such as the buffalo, elephant etc are suggestive of eastern locales. Yet in the 3rd millenium BCE it appears that the range of these animals extended westwards into the Indus basin as well as evidenced by their numerous representations on Indus seals. Like wise the rice vs wheat dichotomy that you mention, seems irrelevant since wheat was the primary crop of the IVC which spanned both the Indus and Saraswati basins. I shall bring up this point again wrt the chronology.

      As far as the chronology, goes let us say I accept your relative chronology of the Rg Veda and the Mittani were late rig vedic people.(even though I feel this Mittani evidence is weak) this would mean the late rig vedic period must have begun atleast by the beginning of the 2nd millenium BCE. But why push back the earlier part to far beyond 3000 BCE. Isn't the language of the Rig Veda far too homogenous to justify so long a period? Also since you mentioned rice, the mainstream view is that the domesticated rice of the species Oryza sativa originated in Indo-china and was brought into India only in the second half of the 3rd millenium B.C.E and adopted by the ppl of the IVC from them. On the other hand wheat has been cultivated in the Indian subcontinent since the neolithic, shouldn't this have a bearing on your chronology?

      Delete
  34. As for the Genetics, it is no longer as speculative as it used to be, particularly since the availability of autosomal DNA and the ability to extract ancient DNA. If you are interested I will explain the evidence available

    ReplyDelete
  35. Here lies the difference between the AIT approach and the OIT approach: the western scholars took a word a-naas found only once in the Rigveda and never after that, changed its meaning from "babbling" to "nose-less", and made it a central proof of their thesis that the local natives were snub-nosed people as opposed to the sharp-nosed "aryans". On the other hand, I have taken large, massive and repeatedly occuring whole categories of words, and derived irrefutable conclusions from their evidence. But instead of accepting or trying to disprove that evidence, you proffer one word "hima". And, of course, end up with a wrong piece of logic. Hima was not a word borrowed from a western Druhyu dialect, it was a naturally derived Vedic word, but it only means "winter" in the Old Books, and borrows the derived meaning "snow" from the western dialects after the Purus expanded into the west. In this particular case, it was not the form of the word but the meaning which was acquired. [Further, you write: "these languages would already have undergone their own distinct sound changes different from Vedic. These words should then be expected to preserve some of this alternate development". Only if you know for sure that the formal changes later found in the other branches had already taken place fully at the time in the northwest itself, and that Vedic borrowed the words from the particular dialects which had already undergone those changes].

    From your mention of buffalo, elephant, etc, I assume you are trying to say that these eastern animals mentioned in the Rigveda could also have been found in more western areas. But I have never said they were not found in the Indua area. As I said, there are distinct eastern Indian animals (buffalo, elephant, peacock, chital, gaur) and distinct western animals (goats, sheep, Bactrian camels, etc). So people coming from the west and settling in the Indus area, in your opinion, would be acquainted with the eastern animals, but not with the western ones? And it is not only animals: it includes lake names, mountain names, place names and river names, all unanimously showing an east-to-west movement, the historical events narrated along with the river names even showing this step-by-step movement from east to west. Does your argument cover all this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The late Rigvedic period did not begin around 2000 BCE. The ancestral Mitanni/Kassite people are already supposed to have been in the area of the Zagros mountains (western Iran) in 2000 BCE. They must have left India at least 200 years before that at a minimum. When they left, the culture of the Rigvedic people was already fully Late Rigvedic (which is why the Mitanni took this culture with them). The Late Rigvedic culture did not originate in one day before the (ancestral) Mitanni left India and must have already been old and established. The Middle Rigvedic period and the Early Rigvedic period (which are both far anterior to this late culture) must go back even earlier. Even (as per your wish) taking minimum periods, it should go back very close to 3000 BCE. And at that time, the geography of the Rigveda is to the east of the Sarasvati in Haryana, in a place totally devoid of anyone with a non-IE name, with no memories of external origins, and with "Aryan" names for all the local rivers. What is your chronology for all this?

      And no, inspite of later standardization (as pointed out by all the Indologists), the language of the Rigveda is not "far too homogenous to justify so long a period". Or else I could not have derived the evidence for the complete dichotomy between the vocabulary of the Old And New Books.

      About rice and wheat, please read what I have written in my book. Or even, read what the real mainstream view is about rice.

      And I am not interested in knowing why certain DNA represents certain languages. The Sinhalese speak a language which in some ways contains even older IE material than Vedic (e.g. the word "watura" for water). Tell me about the DNA of the Sinhalese people. But only after you have explained with data and logic why all my evidence is wrong (and not just by declaring that the "evidence is weak").

      Delete
  36. This example of the distortion of the rig veda by British scholars, was indeed unfortunate. They sought to superimpose their own worldview and understanding of race on the aryans. However such an interpretation is not accepted by mainstream indologists today and is irrelevant to any form of the AIT. I did not pick out this word for snow as a single word. I merely used it as an example to illustrate my point. In any case their are likewise words for goats, sheep etc with accepted etymologies and seem to have developed from their PIE forms within Indo-aryan rather than being borrowed from a Druhyu substratum. This is what I wanted to say. This would mean Indo-aryans did know some of these 'western animals' even in earlier times even if they weren't mentioned in the earlier books of the Veda.

    you wrote " Only if you know for sure that the formal changes later found in the other branches had already taken place fully at the time in the northwest itself" but even if we assume (the unlikely scenario) that they were dialects which still retained forms closer to the PIE, it wouldn't make much of a difference, since Indo-aryan had already diverged from PIE and the sound changes would still have to be accounted for.

    I have said around 2000BCE because ur own book suggests dates between 3400 BCE and 1400 BCE for the late vedic period. I have called the any evidence based on this weak because only a few words are available. The traditional position having the mittani branch out from the Indo-aryans in central-asia is weak too. likewise based on name correspondences you have chosen to identify them as late rig vedic. you have suggested the possibility that the relevant sound changes may have occurred later on during compilation, but have not attempted to prove that this was indeed the case. Therefore your idea too cannot be taken as definitive.

    As for rice cultivation, the first unambiguous evidence of domesticated rice in India is from the ganga basin 4500-4000 years ago, and it appears to have been widely cultivated along the INdus and Saraswati basins only around that time. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well, back to square one. I will not answer any of the diversionary issues where there can be endless repetitive quibbling, but will stick to the main and relevant one.

    My book has not suggested dates between 3400 BCE and 1400 BCE for the late Vedic period, but between around 2400 BCE to 1400 BCE. I will assume it was a typing error on your part. But your following statement, showing a repeated and insistent faith position (which is why I mentioned Christian missionaries earlier) is not an error, but deliberate obfuscation and dissimulation:

    "I have called the any evidence based on this weak because only a few words are available. The traditional position having the mittani branch out from the Indo-aryans in central-asia is weak too. likewise based on name correspondences you have chosen to identify them as late rig vedic. you have suggested the possibility that the relevant sound changes may have occurred later on during compilation, but have not attempted to prove that this was indeed the case. Therefore your idea too cannot be taken as definitive".

    I have shown that every single Mitanni name available (and not "a few words" as you feign to believe) is found only in the Late Books and in all post-Rigvedic literature. And when the scope is extended to the related Avestan words, it is the same position: these names are found in the name of the composer of (1 verse of) 1 interpolated hymn in the Old Books, and 10 names in 10 verses of 10 hymns, all interpolated ones, in the Old books. But they are found in the names of the composers of 304 hymns in the New Books, and 403 names in 348 verses in 191 hymns in the New Books. "Only a few words"? And it is not only some "name correspondences". Basic words like gatha and beej (vaeja), and metrical forms (pankti, mahapankti), follow the same pattern, and other Mitanni words available (mani, vartana, etc) also only appear for the first time in the New Books.

    Your use of the word "too" in "The traditional position having the mittani branch out from the Indo-aryans in central-asia is weak too" and "Therefore your idea too cannot be taken as definitive" does not show honesty or detached objectivity, it shows unflinching bias.

    ReplyDelete
  38. As for Watura, this etymology is not universally accepted. Older contexts do not use it to mean water but rain, flood or cloud. I am no expert on the language though. see
    Water (Watura) in Sinhalese
    Donald Ferguson
    The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
    I make no personal gain from attacking the OIT. however what I find dangerous is the attitude that AIT is 'conclusively' disproven and OIT is gospel truth. This leaves no room for improvement of the theory which is required if it is to be seriously considered. Secondly it also leads to underestimate the strength of the kurgan hypothesis. One of its major weaknesses though has been connecting the early 2nd millenium BCE cultures of India to the steppes. Genetics may well make up for the lack of archaeological evidence. (citing outdated and irrelevant papers in this regard is only burying one's head in the sand.) today we have already studied in detail the genetics of the steppe and their influence on Bronze age Europe. DNA from Iran, BMAC, IVC and Swat are on their way (The current evidence very very strongly suggests a bronze age intrusion and quite likely from the steppes). One can only guess their genetic contribution (Is it 10% mainly in upper castes and northeners or did they contribute the vast chunk of our west eurasian ancestry?) at present. But Hindus should be prepared to handle the political outcomes whatever the findings are

    ReplyDelete
  39. I will only repeat: I have given detailed evidence from the Rigveda on every point made by me, consisting of, in each case, hundreds and hundreds of references which can lead to only the conclusions drawn by me. Check the references, prove me wrong. Certainly one should not bury one's head in the sand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Mitanni and Avestan comparative evidence given by me, which shows that the Vedic Aryans were in Haryana to the east of the Sarasvati, around 3000 BCE, at the time at which all the 12 branches of IE are known to have been in a contiguous area in and around the motherland, is itself irrefutable and final. But it is just one of three types of irrefutable categories of evidence: the second is the evidence of the actual recorded migrations of the other branches from India in the period of the Old Books. I will be writing, for this blogsite, an article "The Recorded History of the Indo-European Migrations" and uploading it within 2 or 3 weeks. Again, hundreds of irrefutable pieces of recorded (and verifiable) evidence, instead of speculative and dogmatic correspondences of DNA and languages.

      Delete
  40. Looking forward to read your new article. Many scholars aren't sure of the value of these name concordances in being used to delineate Rig Vedic chronology. Some of questions have been subsumed under 'diversionary tactics'. However I will reread and reformulate them later after reading up & reading your next post which might bring in more clarity.
    I will repeat again my main criticism is not against the OIT itself but with the use of terms like 'irrefutable' and 'final' evidence this is I feel is not scientific at all. The debate is very much open. If we pretend otherwise we will be following in the footsteps of Rajaram and Co fooling others too.
    As for genetics, there is nothing dogmatic about this. While some have drawn some links between certain haplogroups and languages, this is indeed speculative. However when data from ancient specimens come in it will be far less speculative and migrations and their correlations with linguistic predictions can be analysed on the basis of this data. Far more solid evidence. I am just saying AIT or not we should be prepared for any outcome.

    In any case thank you for replying

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I am sure we can wait for three weeks before continuing the debate. However, let me tell you that with all the irritation that my deliberate use of the terms "irrefutable" and "final" causes among so many people, no-one has yet seen fit to try to prove me wrong and put me in my place by examining all the verifiable data from the Rigveda I have put forward and showing logically how it can lead to any other conclusions than the ones I have given. Even Indological scholars who try to come forward for a debate beat a hasty retreat, or end up with personalized criticism: "Hindu/nationalist writings", "does not know Sanskrit", "a mere bank employee", "has not read Oldenberg, or X, or Y..".

      The debate is open only in the sense that people are still refusing to accept that "2 plus 2 equals 4" for various unscholarly reasons. The fault of what you call "Rajaram and Co" is merely that they are claiming that the AIT has already been rejected everywhere. Incidentally, Rajaram derides my OIT as well.

      Delete
    2. Pick up my challenge. Show me one 'irrefutable' evidence of horses and carts drawn by them in UP before 2000 BCE. I know you would hide behind excuses like UP has hot and humid weather etc. but this is no answer. I might say that chariots were there in UP in 20,000 BCE and can also say that they have not survived due to UP weather.

      Being a bank employee or Hindu nationalist has no bearing on debate but yes not knowing Sanskrit is indeed one of your weak points. Infact, mere knowledge of Sanskrit is not enough, one should atleast have command over IE linguistics to say with confidence on these matters.

      Delete
    3. It appears that the author of this blog does not disagree with the mainsteam view point that chariots were invented around 2000 B.C.E he suggests that the term was laterally transfered between neighbouring IE dialects rather than inherited from a common ancestor though he give no linguistic details for such transfers. The crux of his answers it appears are the name concordances between what he identifies as the late rig Veda, the avesta and the mittani documents.

      I will discuss the genetic evidence particularly w.r.t MT's viewpoint in this same comment. I hope the author of this blog will read this as well. As I have said before it has been demonstrated that modern Indians are genetically a combination an indigenous group ASI with a hypothetical west eurasian population the ANI. As you have rightly pointed out not all ANI need be of steppe ie Indo-Aryan origin. MT has boldly on the basis of cultural evidence suggested that most of this west eurasian ancestry is of steppe origin and it appears he is partially correct. (There is no need to resort to the theoretical components any longer as a large amount of data from ancient DNA is now available) It now appears that the population history of India is as follows : 1) An ancient population distinct from both west and east eurasians yet slightly closer to the latter settled India early in its history and remained isolated through the ice age
      2) Farmers from iran brought livestock rearing and a wheat & barley based agriculture to NW India and established the mehrgarh neolithic. These individuals with a small amount of admixture with native hunter-gatherers were the inhabitants of IVC (A recent poster for the conference where IVC DNA paper will be presented seems to suggest this)
      3)Around 4000 yrs ago the IVC began to decay possibly due to climate change and perhaps disease. Steppe pastoralists practicing managed to establish their dominance over the previous farmers, mixed with them and expanded southward and eastward mixing with proto-Indian (ASI) HGs on the way. It appears they have contributed significantly to the ANI component of our ancestry, even more so than the farmer who preceded them. It appears (as per latest evidence) that even Malas a Telugu 'untouchable' caste has around 18% steppe ancestry, peaking at 50% in the Kalasha and perhaps even higher in Tajiks.
      Assuming that the Aryans had assimilated some central asian groups during their migration and accounting for drift in modern populations their contribution may be a little higher
      Iran has been sampled and this is the link to a recent paper http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
      All that's left are samples from IVC, BMAC and Gandhara Grave Culture and all I can say is things look very very bad for the OIT at present

      Delete
  41. Mr. Talageri, this is not my only argument but I would move onto others only after you bring any evidence for horses and carts drawn by them in UP before 2000 BCE.

    Are you aware that Mahabharata knows Antioch in Syria?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Just introduced to this blog.

    Jijnasu made a comment about morphological diversity of IE being low inside the subcontinent. We need to question the fact whether diversity actually signifies a homeland or not. It is not conclusive. Diversity may also be due to geograpical barriers such as the caspian and black seas, caucasus mountains, that bottle necked and separated different IE speaking groups in space and time subjecting them to different substrates, adstrates.

    The other point, also made by Bryant is that the typical diversity argument by indologists is made by comparing modern european languages with sanskrit. If it was NIA vs non IE branches the comparison would be more even.

    Some obvious words in NIA seem more archaic that classical sanskrit/vedic. Take for example the word for crab in NIA it "appears" is more latin shifted than classical sanskrit. I suspect, NIA has not been adequately researched by linguists apart from claiming that all IE in NIA stems from sanskrit.

    @Vibhakar: can you tell us more about the Antiochus reference.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dear Shri Talageri,

    I have read all your books. I consider them essential reading. Its a plausible even likely scenario. However I cannot term the arguments as "clinching". For example your comparison of Mitanni names vs late Vedic relies on a rather sparse fuzzy data set. It's still a huge upgrade from building castles from single word/syllable associations from the like of Witzel and traditional Indologists.

    We really need to dredge for fresh data instead of wasting too much bandwidth on refutation of arguments that were fuzzy to start with. Poking holes in mainstream linguistics is not "clinching" since they were never ironclad to start with. Finally the theory has to stand on its own not through refutation.

    DNA is one such area. Comparative mythology is another(we cannot stop at just IE here).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sorry if you do not find the arguments "clinching". But your claim that the Mitanni data is "sparse fuzzy data" is incredible: it is rock solid data accepted by all streams of serious scholars.

      If you find my books consist only of "poking holes" in existing arguments and do not provide "fresh data", I must say you leave me tongue-tied. I can say nothing in reply!

      However, I don't want to keep repeating my arguments and the facts ad nauseum each time someone asks me the same questions again and again or raises the same points again and again. I am now placing the main evidence on my blogsite in a four part article entitled "The Recorded History of the Indo-European migrations", of which I have already uploaded the first part three days or so ago, and will be uploading the second part by tomorrow. I will answer specific points in comments on those (four parts of that) article.

      Delete
    2. Further, in reply to your last statement, "DNA" and "astronomy" have nothing concrete to show on the IE question in any direction, and I do not want to get into fruitless discussions on those two topics. Linguistics, archaeology and textual/inscriptional analysis are the only fields to study. Comparative mythology, yes - see my chapters on the subject in my first two books - but non-IE mythologies, again, have little (I wont say "nothing") to contribute in the solution of the IE question.

      Delete
    3. First of all I am an admirer of your books as well an article on comparative mythology. You have already dredged and brought a good amount of fresh data to a moribund field. So you are something of a pioneer.

      What I am saying is we need more !

      One way for me to help is to point out weaknesses and poke holes.

      An example is you said the Alinas are hellenes. Is there something more diagnostic of greeks than the single word? It would help to reduce the probability of a false positive.

      "it is rock solid data accepted by all streams of serious scholars".

      The "serious scholars", have a probability of error, which is why the we all are going thru this exercise of re-interpretation in the first place.

      On the Mitanni front, apart from the horse manual and reference to 4 vedic gods, we just have king lists with a lot of sound shift. Its a far cry from inscriptions/literature which is why I termed them as fuzzy.

      DNA has no bearing on language but it does have a bearing on human migrations. Right now it is still inconclusive on major migrations both from and to the subcontinent.

      Delete
    4. There is no "probability of error" at all in respect of the majority of the Mitanni names. The "atithi" names (Biriatti, Mittaratti, Asuratti, Mariatti, Suriatti, Dewatti, Intaratti, Paratti, Suatti, etc), the "Priya-" names (Biriasauma, Biriasura, Biriawaza, Biriatti, Biriassuva, Biriamasda, Biriasena, etc.), or the name Indarota, are all "rock solid" identifications: some of the exact forms are there in the Rigveda: Mitratithi, Devatithi, Priyamedha, Indrota, etc. No-one is going through any disputed "exercise of re-interpretation" about the identity of these names: it is only their position in the Rigveda (found only in the Late Books) that has not been noticed; and now that I have pointed it out, no-one has yet disputed it (they can't anyway, because their distribution only in the Late Books is a matter of indisputable fact)!

      Please tell me the DNA formation which places the Sinhal, the Scandinavian and the American negro in one DNA grouping distinct from the Tamilian, the Finn and the Ethiopian.

      Delete
    5. About "Alinas" and "Hellenes", this is not an isolated P.N.Oak-like identification. It is part of a solid package, as i will show in the third part of the article that I will be uploading on this blogsite within a week or two. In any case, "Alina" cannot in any way be a Rigvedic name, since the older parts of the Rigveda (as well as the Avesta) did not have the letter "l" but only "r", which is represented in Greek by "l".

      Delete
    6. "Please tell me the DNA formation which places the Sinhal, the Scandinavian and the American negro in one DNA grouping distinct from the Tamilian, the Finn and the Ethiopian"

      Not sure what you are asking on DNA. These seem pretty random samples. But if you were to present blind samples of modern finns, africans, sinhalese etc to a DNA lab, they would be able to resolve their coarse regional affiliation quite reliably.

      Btw "american negro" is considered highly offensive. African american is the right term.

      What is more interesting are ancient DNA samples. An increasing numbers of samples mainly from europe have been tested so far. These have demonstrated for example migration of farmers from levant and anatolia and also a "yamnaya like" migration/influence as well. The details are slowly getting resolved. The picture in asia in less clear due to lack of sampling. But recently ancient samples from western Iran have also been tested and published.

      Delete
  44. Turvasu is related to Danavas like Kalayavana, salva etc.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01085.htm

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sir, could you please reveal the truth behind the varna shudras.As per Dr.Ambedkar shudras were not mentioned in the Vedas except Purusha sukta which was interpolated later in rigvedas.He suggest the name Shudra might be a clan name initially & then later it converted into fourth varna due to conflicts with Shudra kings and brahmanas. I would like to know about your opinion.

    ReplyDelete