Analysis of

1
Analysis of The ARYAN INVASION THEORY PART 2
2
The Linguistic Arguments - Summary

• To sum up the linguistic arguments for the AIT
• 1. The eminent linguist Hock admits that the sum
  total of the linguistic case for the AIT or
  against the Indian homeland is not based on
  hard-core linguistic evidence such as sound
  changes, which can be subjected to critical and
  definitive analysis, but only on arguments
  based on plausibility and simplicity.
• 2. But, as we saw, all the arguments in fact are
  actually based on naïve and simplistic notions
  rather than on simple logic, and examination
  shows that they actually go against all
  principles of plausibility.
• 3. And in examining the AIT arguments, all kinds
  of linguistic evidence is uncovered which in fact
  makes a strong case for an Indian homeland 1.
  the evidence of place and river names in north
  India (especially in the greater Punjab region,
  which is the Harappan as well as Vedic region),
  2. the evidence of the one-way Uralic borrowings,
  3. the evidence of Indian and Central Asian
  animal names in the European IE languages, etc.

3
The Linguistic Arguments - Summary

• 4. The linguistic case for the AIT (or against
  the Indian homeland hypothesis) is completely
  flawed and fallacious. Yet it is on the basis of
  this fictitious case that all modern studies of
  ancient Indian texts and traditions (as well as
  all interpretations of ancient archaeological
  finds in India) have been converted into an
  exercise in trying to find evidence for the
  external origins and likely arrival in the 2nd
  millennium BC of Indo-Aryan languages
  (Erdosy).
• Erdosy, an AIT proponent, frankly admits We
  reiterate that there is no indication in the
  Rigveda of the Aryas memory of any ancestral
  home, and by extension, of migrations.
• 5. But the mesmerising effect of the fallacious
  idea that the external origin of the IE Aryans is
  linguistically well-established is so strong that
  great scholars (notably Ambedkar and Pargiter)
  who studied and examined these texts and
  traditions in detail and stated categorically
  that there was no evidence there at all for the
  external origin of the Vedic people (Pargiter
  even finds that the traditional evidence shows
  that the IEs outside India emigrated from India)
  have later capitulated to the idea that Aryans
  must have come from outside since the linguists
  say so. It is time to examine the texts with the
  knowledge that this linguistic theory is flawed
  and fallacious.

4
The Textual Arguments

• The texts and traditions do not contain anything
  explicit about an Aryan invasion, or about any
  foreign ancestral origins. And, until the AIT was
  formulated a little over two centuries ago,
  no-one had even the shadow of any suspicion that
  these texts could be assumed to have been written
  by immigrants from outside India, much less that
  there could be presumed to be data or clues to
  that effect in the texts.
• Hence, the Indologists concentrate on trying to
  find indirect evidence from the texts, for the
  external origin of the Aryans, in the form of
• 1. Indirect references in the form of vague
  reminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in
  the Rigvedaand the migration of
  river-nameswhich retain a vague memory of the
  route followed (Witzel).
• 2. Indirect references to non-IE natives of
  India, and of conflicts between the incoming
  Aryans and these native non-IEs.
• 3. Evidence from the geographical data, within
  the texts, showing a movement or expansion of the
  Vedic Aryans from the west to the east within
  India during the Vedic period.
• However, an examination of the arguments in
  respect of each of these three criteria proves
  the exact opposite

5
1. Vague Memories of Western Areas

• The Factual Situation
• The explicit geography of the Rigveda is limited
  to an area from the eastern areas of Afghanistan
  in the west to the western areas of the Ganga and
  the Yamuna in the east. In modern terms, it
  covers the eastern and southern areas of
  Afghanistan, the northern half of Pakistan (NWFP,
  Punjab), the Indian Punjab and Haryana, and
  adjoining parts of western Uttar Pradesh.
• There is no reference to any area west of this,
  in spite of all efforts to find at least one.
• AIT Argument
• Witzel hopefully tries to go as far west as
  possible by doubtfully referring to the rather
  vague identification of Rigvedic rip- with the
  Rhipaean mountains, the modern Urals
  (Bongard-Levin 1980).
• This poor imitation of P N Oaks identifications
  can not be discussed seriously! Witzel can not
  name a single other foreign locality.
• In the absence of any other western geographical
  name, the presence of two river-names in India,
  Sarasvati and Sarayu, which are also names of two
  other rivers found in Avestan Afghanistan, is
  treated as evidence of the migration of river
  names from west to east.

6
1. Vague Memories of Western Areas

• OIT Argument
• The only river names common to the Rigveda and
  the Avesta are the Sarasvati (Avestan Haraquaiti)
  and Sarayu (Avestan Haroyu). But
• a) Linguistically, the words Haraquaiti and
  Haroyu are derived from Sarasvati and Sarayu (by
  change of sgth and svgtqu) and not vice versa.
• b) There is no actual textual evidence to show
  that the Vedic Aryans ever lived in Afghanistan,
  but in the early parts of the Rigveda, the
  Iranian tribes (Persians, Parthians, Pakhtoons
  and Baluchis) are named as inhabitants of the
  areas in the central parts of the Punjab on the
  banks of the Parushni (Ravi).
• c) The Rigveda can be divided into old and new
  parts. And, as we will see, the entire Avesta is
  contemporaneous with the new part of the Rigveda.
  Further, even within the Rigveda, Sarasvati is
  named most frequently in the oldest parts. And
  even within the Avesta, the Haraquaiti is named
  just once in a late part, the Vendidad. So the
  Avestan reference is far, far posterior to the
  Rigvedic references.
• Conclusion
• All the evidence shows that the movement of the
  names was not from west to east, but from east to
  west

7
2. Non-Aryan natives in the Rigveda

• AIT Compulsion Old Elements in the Rigveda
• Witzel insists that the IAs, as described in the
  RV, represent something definitely new in the
  subcontinent, and that the obvious conclusion
  should be that these new elements somehow came
  from the outside (Witzel). But these new
  elements mysteriously not only have no memories
  at all of any extra-Indian homeland or migration,
  or even of acquaintance with any extra-Indian
  areas, but even the local rivers already (as we
  saw, a circumstance unparalleled in world
  history) all have well- established names in the
  Vedic language of these new elements rather
  than in the language of the alleged old
  elements in the area.
• Did these old elements somehow disappear
  completely into thin air (along with their
  river-names) the moment these new elements
  stepped into the area?
• Even so, some clue to their existence should
  necessarily be found in the records of the new
  elements
• a total absence of non-IE old elements in the
  Rigveda would be one more piece of evidence
  sufficient in itself to disprove the AIT.
• So hunting out references to non-IE old
  elements, and to conflicts between old and
  new elements, in the Rigveda is a matter of
  life and death for the AIT!

8
2. Non-Aryan natives in the Rigveda

• Facts
• The Rigveda does not contain a single reference
  to any person or tribe whose name can be
  identified as Dravidian or Austric, the two main
  non-IE families of languages in India (and the
  two main old element suspects in Indological
  speculations). Nor any other specific language
  family found in India or found or recorded
  anywhere in the world. Over two centuries of
  frenzied efforts in this direction have drawn a
  complete blank.
• Except for a handful of vague, subjective and
  non-specific suggestions
• Macdonell suggests that two of the names of the
  demons of darkness, Srbinda and Ilibisha, have
  an un-Aryan appearance.
• Kosambi suggests that the word Pani does not
  seem to be Aryan.
• Rahurkar suggests that some of the names of
  rishis of the Kanva family (including
  Ashva-suktin Go-suktin!) are strange and show
  non-Aryan influence.
• Witzel even finds Aryan kings with non-Aryan
  names, Brbu and Balbutha.

9
2. Non-Aryan natives in the Rigveda

• AIT Arguments
• In over two centuries of speculations, different
  scholars have discovered non-Aryans in every
  category of names.
• The words most consistently identified as
  referring to the non-Aryan old elements are
  dasa, dasyu, asura and pani.
• Next in line are all names of demons destroyed by
  Indra (Vrtra, Shushna, Shambara, Vala, Pipru,
  Namuchi, Cumuri, Dhuni, Varcin, Ahishuva, Arbuda,
  etc., etc.)
• followed by all classes of supernatural beings
  other than devas (danavas, daityas, rakshasas,
  yakshas, gandharvas, kinnaras, pishachas, etc.).
• Finally, on the criterion that all conflicts in
  the Rigveda point to non-Aryans, scholars have
  discovered non-Aryans even among
• The Vedic tribes (including Ikshvakus, Purus,
  Anus, Druhyus, Yadus and Turvashas),
• The Vedic gods (including Varuna, Mitra, Rudra,
  Ushas, Surya, Pushan, Savitr, Vishnu, even Indra
  from the paternal side!),
• The Vedic rishis (Kanvas, Agastyas, Vasishthas,
  Bhrgus, even all rishis except the Vishvamitras)

10
2. Non-Aryan natives in the Rigveda

• Flaws
• This desperate non-Aryan-hunting, besides
  producing absurd results, is also a clear
  admission of total failure to locate any genuine
  non-IEs in the Rigveda
• a) Non-Aryan can only and only refer to non-IE
  in the linguistic sense, but, except for a
  handful of names cited, which do not have clear
  IE or Sanskrit etymologies (but no known non-IE
  ones either), all the names identified as
  non-Aryan have clear and indisputable IE
  etymologies.
• b) Most of the names identified as non-Aryans
  encountered by the Aryans inside India, are found
  in the languages and myths of Iran and Europe to
  note just the four main ones, dasa, dasyu and
  asura in Iranian (dasa and asura in the Uralic
  languages as well), asura and pani in Germanic,
  and pani in Greek.
• c) All the conflicts in the Rigveda, which have
  been identified as conflicts between Aryans and
  non-Aryans, are nothing but nature myths
  pertaining to mythical conflicts between the
  forces of nature, mainly the thunder god versus
  the demons who prevent rainfall or the demons who
  hide the rays of the dawn and these myths are
  found in the IE mythologies outside India with
  related names and similar mythological details.

11
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• AIT Argument
• The geographical area of the Rigveda extends from
  eastern Afghanistan in the west, to western Uttar
  Pradesh in the east.
• Within this area, the geographical data in the
  Rigveda, as per the AIT, shows that the Aryan
  expansion was from west to east first the Aryans
  entered India from the northwest, then they
  settled down in the Saptasindhu region (the land
  of the seven rivers the Indus in the west, the
  Sarasvati in the east, and the five rivers of
  Punjab in the middle) where they composed the
  Rigveda, and then later they expanded eastwards.
• The logic behind postulating a west to east
  movement within the geographical area of the
  Rigveda is that the Rigveda shows close
  familiarity with the western areas, referring
  frequently to many small rivers of Afghanistan
  which flow into the Indus from the west but in
  the east, it only refers once or twice to the two
  westernmost rivers of interior India, the Ganga
  and Yamuna.
• Is this logic right? Or rather, is this the
  correct interpretation of the data?

12
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• Geographical divisions of the Rigveda
• To examine the direction of expansion, it is
  necessary to first understand the three regions
  into which the Rigvedic area can be divided from
  west to east
• 1. The western region the areas to the west of
  the Indus (i.e. NWFP, and eastern Afghanistan).
• 2. The central region the areas between the
  Indus and the Sarasvati (i.e. the greater
  Punjab).
• 3. The eastern region the areas to the east of
  the Sarasvati (i.e. Haryana, western Uttar
  Pradesh).
• The western and eastern rivers in the Rigveda
• Western rivers
• Trshtama, Susartu, Anitabha, Rasa, Shvetya,
  Kubha, Krumu, Gomati, Sarayu, Mehatnu,
  Shvetyavari, Suvastu, Gauri, Sindhu (Indus),
  Sushoma, Arjikiya.
• Eastern rivers
• Sarasvati, Drshadvati/Hariyupiya/Yavyavati,
  Apaya, Ashmanvati, Amshumati, Yamuna, Ganga,
  Jahnavi.

13
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• It is also necessary to understand the internal
  chronology of the Rigveda (i.e. which parts of
  the text are old and which are new)
• Chronological Divisions of the Rigveda
• The Rigveda itself consists of ten books
  (mandalas) composed at various times. On the
  basis of stage of language and principles of
  arrangement of the hymns, the western scholars
  have classified them chronologically as follows
• The Rigveda was composed and assembled in the
  following stages, beginning at the centre with
  books 2-7 (Witzel). These are called the family
  books.
• At a later stage, Books 1 and 8 were
  addedthen book 9 was addedLastly the
  heterogenous material in Book 10 was appended to
  the entire collection (Proferes). These are
  called the non-family books.
• Of the family books, the connections of Book 5
  is with Books 1 and 8 and not with the other
  clan books (2-4, 6-7) (Proferes).
• So we get the following three chronological
  categories of books as per the western scholars
  Old books 2-4, 6-7. Middle book 5. New books
  1, 8-10.
• If the books are further arranged chronologically
  within each group, we get the following order
• Earlier Old books 6, 3, 7.
• Later Old books 4, 2.
• Earlier New book 5.
• Later New books 1, 8, 9, 10.

14
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• Geographical Facts (Rivers)
• The following is the distribution of the eastern
  rivers
• The eastern rivers
• Three Earlier Old books
• VI.27.5,6 45.31 49.7 50.12 52.6
  61.1-7,10-11, 13-14.
• III.4.8 23.4 54.13 58.6.
• VII.2.8 9.5 18.19 35.11 36.6 39.5 40.3
  95.1-2,4-6 96.1,3-6.
• Two Later Old books
• II.1.11 3.8 30.8 32.8 41.16-18.
• One Earlier New book
• V.5.8 42.12 43.11 46.2 52.17.
• Four Later New books
• I.3.10-12 13.9 89.3 116.19 142.9 164.49,52
  188.8.
• VIII.21.17,18 38.10 54.4 96.13.
• IX.5.8 67.32 81.4.
• X.17.7-9 30.12 53.8 64.9 65.1,13 66.5 75.5
  110.8 131.5 141.5 184.2.

15
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• Contrast this with the distribution of the
  western rivers
• The western rivers
• Three Earlier Old books
• NONE.
• Two Later Old books
• IV.30.12,18 43.6 54.6 55.3.
• One Earlier New book
• V.41.15 53.9.
• Four Later New books
• I.44.12 83.1 112.12 122.6 126.1 164.4 186.5
  a praise of the Indus river in a refrain
  repeated in the last verse of 19 hymns
  I.94-96,98,100-103,105-115.
• VIII.7.29 12.3 19.37 20.24-25 24.30 25.14
  26.18 64.11 72.7,13.
• IX.41.6 65.23 97.58.
• X.64.9 65.13 66.11 75.1,3-9 108.1-2 121.4.

16
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• Conclusion
• A comparison of the references to the eastern and
  the western rivers in the Rigveda shows that the
  movement of the Vedic Aryans during the Rigvedic
  period was from east to west
• a) Four of the five old books show great
  familiarity with the Sarasvati and rivers to its
  east the easternmost river of the Rigveda, the
  Ganga/Jahnavi is mentioned in the two oldest
  books of the Rigveda, 6 and 3 (VI.45.31
  III.58.6) and the second easternmost river, the
  Yamuna, in the third oldest book 7 (VII.18.19).
  Likewise the Sarasvati is referred to in a total
  of 33 verses in these three oldest books (books
  6,3,7), and has three whole hymns in its praise
  (VI.61 VII.95-96). It is also the only river
  mentioned in the fourth old book (book 2).
• b) But these four old books (all three of the
  earlier old books, and one of the two later old
  books) show absolutely no acquaintance with the
  Indus and rivers to its west.
• c) The Indus and rivers to its west first appear
  in the later old book 4, become more familiar in
  the earlier new book 5, and are very familiar
  geographical features in the later new books
  1,8,9,10. But these new books also continue to
  show equal familiarity with the eastern rivers as
  well.

17
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• Other Geographical Facts
• An examination of the other (than rivers) eastern
  and western geographical data in the Rigveda
  confirms this picture of a movement from east to
  west to a stunning degree
• The Place-names in the Rigveda
• Western Gandhari, (indirect) gandharva.
• Eastern Kikata, Ilaspada/Ilayaspada, (indirect)
  nabhaprthivya, vara-a-prthivya.
• The Mountains in the Rigveda
• Western Sushom, Arjik, Mujavat.
• The Lakes in the Rigveda
• Western Sharyanavat(i).
• Eastern Manusha.
• The Animals in the Rigveda
• Western Ushtra, Mathra, Chaga, Mesha, Vrshni,
  Ura, Varaha.
• Eastern ibha/varana/hastin/srni, mahisha, gaura,
  mayura, prshati.

18
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• The distribution of the eastern geographical
  data
• Four Earlier Old books
• Book VI 1.2 4.5 8.4 17.11 20.8.
• Book III 5.9 23.4 26.4,6 29.4 45.1 46.2
  53.11,14.
• Book VII 40.3 44.5 69.6 98.1.
• Two Later Old books
• Book IV 4.1 16.14 18.11 21.8 58.2.
• Book II 3.7 10.1 34.3,4 36.2.
• One Earlier New book
• Book V 29.7,8 42.15 55.6 57.3 58.6 60.2.
• Four Later New books
• Book I 16.5 37.2 39.6 64.7-8 85.4-5 87.4
  89.7 95.9 121.2 128.1,7 140.2 141.3 143.4
  162.21 186.8 191.14.
• Book VIII 1.25 4.3 7.28 12.8 33.8 35.7-9
  45.24 69.15 77.10.
• Book IX 57.3 69.3 72.7 73.2 79.4 82.3
  86.8,40 87.7 92.6 95.4 96.6,18-19 97.41
  113.3.
• Book X 1.6 8.1 28.10 40.4 45.3 51.6 60.3
  65.8 66.10 70.1 91.1 100.2 106.2,6 123.4
  128.8 140.6 189.2 191.1.

19
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• The Distribution of the western geographical
  data
• Five Old books
• Book III 38.6. (a hymn classified as late)
• One Earlier New book NONE
• Four Later New books
• Book I 10.2 22.14 43.6 52.1 61.7 84.14
  88.5 114.5 116.16 117.17-18 121.11 126.7
  138.2 162.3 163.2.
• Book VIII 1.11 2.40 5.37 6.39,48 7.29 34.3
  46.22-23,31 64.11 66.8 77.5,10 97.12.
• Book IX 8.5 65.22-23 83.4 85.12 86.36,47
  97.7 107.11 113.1-3.
• Book X 10.4 11.2 27.17 28.4 34.1 35.2
  67.7 80.6 85.40-41 86.4 91.14 95.3 99.6
  106.5 123.4,7 136.6 139.4-6 177.2.
• Conclusion
• The eastern geographical data (place-names,
  mountains, lakes, animals) is distributed evenly
  throughout all the ten books of the Rigveda.
• But the western geographical data is found only
  in the later new books. The one verse in an old
  book is in a hymn in book 3 which is classified
  (in the Aitareya Brahmana VI.18) as a late
  addition into book 3. This again shows that the
  movement was from east to west.

20
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• The movement east to west
• It is clear, from the data for the eastern and
  western geographical names, that the Vedic
  Indo-Aryans were originally inhabitants of the
  areas to the east of the Sarasvati during the
  period of the three oldest books of the Rigveda
  (books 6,3 and 7) and they had expanded westwards
  into the areas to the west of the Indus by the
  time of composition of the new books (1, 9-10).
• If so, this expansion east to west should also be
  seen in the distribution of the geographical data
  pertaining to the central region (the area
  between the Sarasvati and the Indus)
• The central rivers Marudvrdha , Shutudri,
  Vipash, Parushni, Asikni, Vitasta.
• The central place-names Saptasaindhavah,
  (indirect) sapta sindhu.
• No mountain or lake names of the central region
  are found in the Rigveda. Nor are there any
  specific animals peculiar to the region the
  eastern and western animals spill into this
  region from either side.

21
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans
The Distribution of the central geographical
data

• The central rivers

• The central place-names

• Three Earlier Old books
• Book III 33.1.
• Book VII 5.3 18.8,9.
• Two Later Old books
• Book IV 22.2 30.11.
• Five New books
• Book V 52.9.
• Book VIII 20.75 75.15.
• Book X 75.5.

• Three Earlier Old Books
• NONE.
• Two Later Old books
• Book IV 28.1.
• Book II 12.3,12.
• Five New books
• Book I 32.12 35.8.
• Book VIII 24.27 54.4 69.12.
• Book IX 66.6.
• Book X 43.3 67.12.

22
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• Distribution of River names

23
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• Distribution of Place names

24
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• The expansion westwards through the central
  region during the period of the old books of the
  Rigveda is confirmed by the distribution of the
  central geographical data in the Rigveda
• a) The oldest book 6 does not mention a single
  river west of the Sarasvati.
• b) The second oldest book 3 describes an
  Ashvamedha yajna performed by the Bharata king
  Sudas still in areas east of the Sarasvati, and
  his expansion east, west and north (III.53.11).
  Then it describes (hymn III.33) Sudas and the
  Bharata warriors crossing the first two
  easternmost rivers of the central area, Vipash
  and Shutudri (Beas and Satlej).
• c) The third oldest book 7 describes the great
  battle fought against the expanding Bharatas on
  the banks of the third easternmost river of the
  central area, Parushni (Ravi) (VII.18.8,9), by
  the kings and people of the areas of the fourth
  easternmost river, the Asikni (Chenab) (VII.5.3).

25
3. Direction of Expansion of the Vedic Aryans

• d) During the period of these three oldest books,
  even the word saptasaindhavah for the central
  region is totally missing (it is found only once
  in the new book 8 VIII.24.27). But even the form
  saptasindhu, which is is found in most of the
  other books, is totally missing in these three
  oldest books.
• d) The fourth oldest book 4 for the first time
  takes the Vedic Indo-Aryans into the areas beyond
  the Indus when it describes the final battle
  fought on the banks of the Sarayu (Siritoi), a
  western tributary of the Indus in the NWFP, in
  the time of Sudas descendants Sahadeva and his
  son Somaka (IV.15.7-10) . This book for the first
  time mentions the Indus (IV.30.12 54.6 55.3)
  and rivers beyond (Sarayu IV.30.18 Rasa
  IV.43.6).
• e) After this, except for the Sarasvati-centered
  book 2, all the subsequent books of the Rigveda
  (5,1,8,9,10) show increasing familiarity with the
  Indus and areas to its immediate west.
• Conclusion
• The geographical data and the actual historical
  events show that the movement of the Vedic Aryans
  through the Punjab was from east to west.

26
The Textual Arguments - SUMMARY

• To sum up
• 1) The Rigveda has absolutely no memories of any
  external homeland, of any migration into India,
  or indeed even of any acquaintance with places or
  areas outside India. Nor does it give even the
  faintest indirect indication of any of the above.
• 2) The Rigveda does not refer to a single person,
  friend or enemy, who can be identified on
  linguistic grounds (and after all, the whole
  Aryan issue is a purely linguistic one) as
  Austric or Dravidian or as being the speaker of
  any other non-IE language known or recorded
  anywhere in the world.
• 3) The pattern of distribution of the
  geographical data in the Rigveda, as well as the
  historical narrative in the text, give
  irrefutable evidence to the fact that the Vedic
  Aryans in the oldest part of the Rigvedic period
  were inhabitants of areas in the interior of
  India to the east of the Sarasvati with no prior
  acquaintance with the areas to the west, with
  which they became acquainted only in the later
  parts of the Rigvedic period.

27
The Archaeological Evidence

• What Archaeology can not tell us
• Archaeology is the scientific study of the
  material culture found in excavated
  archaeological sites. But this material culture
  in itself simply can not tell us about the
  language spoken by the inhabitants, unless there
  is concrete evidence, either direct (readable
  inscriptions or other records in the site itself)
  or indirect (references to the language of the
  inhabitants of these sites in the records of
  other contemporary cultures).
• The same material culture can be found in sites
  representing different linguistic groups, and
  different material cultures can be found in sites
  representing the same or similar linguistic
  groups.
• To this day, no evidence, direct or indirect, has
  been found to identify any excavated site
  linguistically as either proto-Indo-European
  (anywhere in the world ), proto-Indo-Iranian (on
  the way eastwards to Central Asia), Indo-Iranian
  (in or around Central Asia), or even Vedic
  Indo-Aryan (inside India).
• Therefore, strictly speaking, the identification
  of archaeological cultures as proto-Indo-European
  or Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan, or non-Indo-Aryan,
  without linguistic evidence to that effect, has
  absolutely no archaeological basis.

28
The Archaeological Evidence

• Flaws in AIT arguments based on Archaeology
• Yet, in the motivated search for archaeological
  evidence for the proto-Indo-European homeland and
  for the postulated Indo-Iranian migrations,
  identifying archaeological remains of
  Indo-European populations in Central Asia has
  been one of the main questions that has occupied
  a number of linguists and historians for many
  years (Francfort). Different sites, from South
  Russia to Anatolia and Central Asia, are
  identified as proto-IE or Indo-Iranian, in the
  total absence of any linguistic evidence about
  the language spoken at the sites. At the same
  time, the Indus sites are identified as
  non-Aryan, again in the total absence of any
  linguistic evidence to that effect.
• The identification in every case is a
  predetermined one based on the simple
  linguistic space-time argument for locating the
  speakers, in which case a study of the
  archaeological record is useless since anything
  goes there is no factual evidence apart from the
  linguistically reconstructed time-space
  predictions (Francfort).
• That is, archaeological remains which fit in with
  the time-space expectations of the linguists and
  historians, as to where the IEs or Indo-Iranians
  must have been at a particular period of time,
  are identified as IE or Indo-Iranian.

29
The Archaeological Evidence

• It simply does not matter what is found on the
  sites the identification of any site as IE or
  Indo-Iranian (or of the Indus sites as non-IE) is
  not based on what is found on the sites it is
  based only on the time and location of the
  remains.
• When aspects of the material culture are
  necessarily cited to prove their IE or
  Indo-Iranian nature, these aspects are so general
  that they could be used to identify the Arab,
  the Turk and the Iranian, three completely
  distinct types (Lamberg-Karlovsky) or to
  conclude that the Bronze Age Chinese were
  Indo-Europeans (Francfort).
• Likewise, when passages from the Rigveda or
  Avesta are cited to identify aspects from the
  sites , they are of a most general nature and do
  not convince They are sufficiently general to
  permit the Plains Indians of North America an
  Indo-Iranian identity (Lamberg-Karlovsky).
• All this basically amounts to a contempt for
  objectivity in the analysis of archaeological
  data what is the relevance of archaeological
  material if any sort of assemblage present at the
  expected or supposed time/space spot can function
  as the tag of a linguistic group? (Francfort).

30
The Archaeological Evidence

• Contrarily, when genuinely peculiar Indo-Iranian
  aspects such as fire-altars are found in the
  Indus sites, alternate explanations are given,
  only because the Indus sites do not fit in with
  the time-space expectations of the linguists.
• Therefore, it is clear that archaeology has no
  role whatsoever to play in identifying any
  archaeological remains or sites as either IE or
  non-IE in the absence of concrete linguistic
  evidence.
• What Archaeology can tell us
• Archaeology can not identify linguistic remains
  at any site as IE or non-IE. But it can identify
  ethnic-cultural changes in any area, and
  migrations of ethnic-cultural groups or material
  culture from one area to another.
• Even here, it can not identify, in the absence of
  concrete linguistic evidence, whether either the
  original or the new or the migrating
  ethnic-cultural groups are IE or non-IE, but it
  can identify whether or not ethnic-cultural
  changes and migrations have taken place at all.

31
The Archaeological Evidence

• Facts
• The fact is that no such changes have taken place
  at all in India. This is the strongest possible
  archaeological evidence against the AIT and for
  the Indian homeland the overwhelming majority of
  archaeologists testify categorically that no
  ethnic-cultural changes in, or notable migrations
  into, the Vedic/Indus area have taken place
  between 5000 BCE and 600 BCE.
• A major western academic volume edited by two
  proponents of the AIT, Erdosy and Witzel,
  contains the papers of eminent western linguists
  and archaeologists on the subject of The
  Indo-Aryans of ancient South Asia language,
  material culture and ethnicity. In the preface,
  Erdosy tells us that the idea of an Aryan
  invasion of India in the second millennium BCE
  has recently been challenged by archaeologists
  that the perspective of achaeology, that of
  material culture is in direct conflict with the
  findings of the other discipline claiming a key
  to the solution of the Aryan problem,
  linguistics and that there is a disciplinary
  divide between the disciplines of archaeology
  and linguistics.

32
The Archaeological Evidence

• In his paper in this volume, K A R Kennedy
  details the findings of physical anthropology and
  archaeology that while discontinuities in
  physical types have certainly been found in South
  Asia, they are dated to the 5th/4th, and to the
  1st millennium B.C. respectively, too early and
  too late to have any connection with Aryans.
• D A Lichtensteins paper describes and stresses
  the indigenous development of South Asian
  civilization from the Neolithic onward.
• J M Kenoyers paper finds that the cultural
  history of South Asia in the 2nd millennium B.C.
  may be explained without reference to external
  agents.
• J G Shaffer, elsewhere, writes The diffusion or
  migration of a culturally complex Indo-Aryan
  people into South Asia is not described by the
  archaeological record.
• Witzel, who is the linguist pitted against the
  archaeologists in this volume, also admits So
  far, clear archaeological evidence has just not
  been found.

33
The Archaeological Evidence

• Even archaeologists, linguists and historians who
  identify Indo-Iranians in archaeological sites
  and remains from South Russia to Central Asia can
  not find any archaeological trail leading from
  Central Asia into India. But, there are
  archaeological trails leading into almost all the
  other historical IE areas. Thus a common
  European horizon developed after 3000 BC, at
  about the time of the Pit Grave expansion (Kurgan
  Wave 3) usually known as the Corded Ware
  Horizon the territory inhabited by the Corded
  Ware/Battle Axe culture, after its expansions,
  geographically qualifies it to be the ancestor of
  the Western or European language branches
  Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic and Italic
  (Winn). Similar trails have been identified for
  the IE language entries into Anatolia, Greece and
  Iran (from the east). The trail for Tocharian
  (in Chinese Turkestan to the north of Tibet) does
  not go further west than Central Asia.
• Conclusion
• Archaeology categorically negates any Aryan
  migration into India in 1500 BCE. But it does not
  negate, and in fact it corroborates, IE
  migrations into other historical IE areas.

34
In Conclusion

• We have examined all the arguments in each of the
  three disciplines involved in the IE debate, and
  this examination only disproves the AIT and
  confirms India as the IE homeland.
• It is time to take note of the facts and
  evidence, and to change the history books and
  text books accordingly.
• The main reason why this is not happening is
  because the AIT is a subject evoking strong
  passions and involving powerful vested interests,
  particularly in India. A number of entrenched
  political ideologies have been formulated and are
  still flourishing on the basis of this theory.
• Even otherwise, the AIT is a theory based on
  assumptions long taken for granted and
  buttressed by the accumulated weight of two
  centuries of scholarship (Erdosy). This
  accumulated weight of two centuries of world
  scholarship is not easy to dislodge. The
  entrenched scholars today have also contributed
  to that weight, and will not accept anything
  which will render their own writings on this
  subject obsolete.
• But the truth, if it is really the truth, will
  ultimately have to be accepted, at least by the
  academic world, however long it may take.
• But for this, the truth must be intelligently
  formulated and presented. After that it is only a
  matter of time.

35
A GLIPMPSE of the oit

• This presentation basically involved only an
  examination of the AIT arguments. The examination
  shows that the AIT is based only on baseless
  subjective and circular arguments in all the
  three disciplines involved in this matter
  (linguistics, textual analysis and archaeology).
  And this examination actually uncovers objective,
  concrete and conclusive evidence in support of an
  Indian homeland.
• A more direct and detailed presentation of the
  OIT, or Out-of-India theory, which will follow,
  will show conclusively and finally that
• 1. There is datable inscriptional evidence
  outside India proving that the Indus civilization
  was Indo-Iranian.
• 2. The OIT is not just a theory, it is recorded
  history.
• 3. The OIT answers every single linguistic
  problem associated with the IE homeland question.