I’ve been thinking a bit recently about loaded terms like the “Aryan Invasion Theory.” Since I’m not Indian I don’t get super worked up about the ideological valence of the term. But, after thinking about it for a while, a few weeks ago I decided that the term “Aryan Invasion Theory” (AIT) is not useful, and I will abandon my gentle defense of its utility.
My own views can be read extensively at already, so I won’t belabor the details of what I believe.
Rather, I think that the classical version of the “AIT” is not useful because I think most people associate the idea of a barbarian “invasion” with a conflict between two clear and distinct groups, and one of the groups have a coherent social and political organization in a complex fashion. This is not what I believe at this point. Rather, I believe that Indo-Aryans interposed themselves into a fallen landscape.
The best evidence from Narasimhan et. al. indicates that “steppe” admixture into Indian subcontinental groups in the northwest dates to the period between 1900 and 1500 BCE (95% confidence intervals). What we now call “Ancestral North Indian” (ANI) and “Ancestral South Indian” (ASI) seem to have emerged in the period between 2000 and 500 BCE. In the “Swat transect” which begins ~1000 BCE there is an increase in AASI related ancestry over time (and, increase in “steppe” as well), suggestive of subcontinent-wide gene flow, including into the northwest from the southeast.
My idea for how Indo-Aryans became preeminent in South Asia is similar to the arrival of Rohirrim into Rohan. The “Mature IVC” had almost certainly have collapsed by the time of the Indo-Aryans arrived. This is part of a West and South Asia wide collapse of complex urban societies. This is often attributed to a climatic shock and was correlated with an influx of barbarian peoples (e.g., the Guti of the Zagros into the territory of Ur III). In some cases, such as Egypt, the indigenous elites recovered rapidly. In the case of Babylonia, an intrusive Semitic population, the Amorites, assimilated into the high culture of the Akkadians and Sumerians.
The situation in South Asia is unlikely to be peaceful. The Y chromosomes of South Asians are on the order of 10-20% attributable to the steppe (depending on sampling and weighting of populations). A much smaller percentage of mtDNA is attributable to these people. The indication here is that this was a migration of males.
But, the opposition to the Indo-Aryans was not culturally as advanced as the IVC. Rather, the likelihood is that what we see is similar to what occurred in the Balkans after 550 A.D. and the withdrawal of East Roman forces. The Latin-speaking peasantry, with no elites, and the collapse of the Christian church, eventually assimilated into the “peasant culture” of the intrusive Slavs across much of the Balkans. A similar process seems to have occurred across much of Britain, where a minority of pagan Germans assimilated larger numbers of semi-Christianized Celts after their elites retreated to Cornwell, Wales, and Brittany.
It seems that complex specialized societies can be quite brittle. Especially those from the Bronze and early Iron Age (the late Bronze Age collapse is another case). The decline of the IVC probably resulted in the evaporation of many elites who had served to anchor the identity of these polities. My assumption is that the arrival of Indo-Aryans, who had more social cohesion at this point (steppe nomads are all easily mobilizable as a fighting force due to lack of specialization), resulted in integration of the remnant local elites rapidly into the new social order.
I don’t think there’s enough evidence to determine whether it was violent or peaceful.
The paper also reported that there was a female mediated gene flow first, which was followed by male. The male bias is much less than what it was in europe (which has actual evidence of massacres), and where the y chromosomes was wiped out completely. G2a is almost absent in present day europe even though it was the main ydna of neolithic farmers. So far there’s no archaeological evidence of violence in india. The kalash who follow a supposedly proto vedic religion are quite peaceful, and they have a high % of haplogroup H interestingly.
The male bias is much less than what it was in europe (which has actual evidence of massacres), and where the y chromosomes was wiped out completely. G2a is almost absent in present day europe even though it was the main ydna of neolithic farmers.
two points
1) much stronger replacement in n europe (~50% yamna) than in s. europe (25% yamna? some areas more (Italy) some less (southern iberia)
2) the male bias is not that different than southern european peninsulas. and like i said, there are very few steppe mtdna lineages. look at the end of the supplements of narasimhan et al (though mtdna can be hard to parse).
The paper also reported that there was a female mediated gene flow first, which was followed by male.
also for swat, where they had aDNA. swat seems the exception. in the rest of s asia swat Y is rare (E).
The kalash who follow a supposedly proto vedic religion are quite peaceful, and they have a high % of haplogroup H interestingly.
the above comment sshowed some knowledge. this though is totally ignorant. until the past 100 years the ppl in chitral and kafiristan were very belligerent. that’s how they stayed nonmuslim! these pagan people used to have a rule where to become a man a guy would have to kill a Muslim! this is not feasible in Pakistan today obv. the encroachment of Muslim states and their conquest changed things in the last few centuries.
anyway, i don’t think the kalash today speak to what they might have been like 3,000 years ago!?!?! if it doesn’t tell us how they were centuries ago.
I don’t think there’s enough evidence to determine whether it was violent or peaceful.
this is an argument i get into over and over. i can’t speak to the archaeology. but everywhere we know where men from the steppe show up there’s violence that follows them. sometimes, as in Hungary, they take over and start causing chaos immediately. other times, as in the Muslim world, they came in as slave soldiers and mercenaries, and then overthrow the people who hired them.
there is no case of steppe people integrating ‘peacefully.’ in china and russia the early modern states had to crush steppe confederacies, often at the price of genocide.
I think the male bias would be worse in southern europe. In northern europe, the hunter gatherer haplogroup I still reaches up to 50%. While in central and southern europe, which was mainly occupied by neolithic farmers, G2a and F* (M89) is almost completely wiped out despite there being less yamnaya ancestry overall.
I am aware that it was likely a male dominated migration. Although there are cases of male migration, such as from northern china to the south, that were not necessarily violent. I mean even european researches caution against implying an invasion, despite there being much more evidence of one in europe. Until there is at least some archaeological evidence I can’t be convinved for sure- going off ydna alone is tricky because in many cases the south asian haplogroup variation is a result of the founder effect, due to strong caste endogamy.
I think the male bias would be worse in southern europe. In northern europe, the hunter gatherer haplogroup I still reaches up to 50%. While in central and southern europe, which was mainly occupied by neolithic farmers, G2a and F* (M89) is almost completely wiped out despite there being less yamnaya ancestry overall.
this is not from the hunters. this is from the battle-axe people. I is subject to star phylogeny at the SAME TIME as R1b/R1a. in other words, I males were integrated early on into the corded-ware ethnogenesis. so this point is irrelevant.
While in central and southern europe, which was mainly occupied by neolithic farmers, G2a and F* (M89) is almost completely wiped out despite there being less yamnaya ancestry overall.
well there were several overlays too. we still are not clear what’s going on with J2 or E, who are both more common.
Although there are cases of male migration, such as from northern china to the south, that were not necessarily violent.
why are you saying it wasn’t violent? the pacification of native peoples wasn’t peaceful. and a large reason for the migration after the han dynasty is that Chinese elites were marginalized by xianbei turks etc., so they pushed southward, and marginalized the local ethnicites like the yueh (who themselves seem to have moved southward). the Chinese move south in fact after 300 AD may have triggered the dai/tai migration into southeast Asia (disputed).
basically the north to south (and later south to north!) movement of Chinese did have a peaceful aspect…but that was after the state suppressed/destroyed local polities of non-Chinese people. sometimes they integrated them as federates, but the ultimate fate of most federates was either extermination if they rebelled and wouldn’t assimilate, or assimilation into han identity (especially the women; there is weird cultural patterns re: marriage, etc. in Guangdong which is clearly not han, and seem to be transmitted from mother to daughter)
Razib,
” A much smaller percentage of mtDNA is attributable to these people. The indication here is that this was a migration of males.”
Wouldn’t this hold true in a model where both sexes migrate – yet the Star Expansions of Y with numerous offsprings and offsprings who are result of unions with native groups – getting social acceptance / power over Purer Steppe – over generations explain this ?
The Mahajanapadas to Gupta history is strewn with such unions where Offspring of two cultures went on to get the power over their Purer Arya contenders. That model might not work in a semi agro – pastoral economies though where the Aryas initially migrated.
Wouldn’t this hold true in a model where both sexes migrate – yet the Star Expansions of Y with numerous offsprings and offsprings who are result of unions with native groups – getting social acceptance / power over Purer Steppe – over generations explain this ?
fair point! the main issue is that autosomal seems to be 50% of Y.
Lots of male bias in Paris’s as you recently noted as well but we know that wasn’t a violent entry. Paris’s also came to be in significant power in Indian society. Many other examples of male biased entry without violence in India – I can think of the original Muslim entry into Kerala as being non-violent but heavily male biased (the term mapilla itself means son in law because Arab traders married into local women).
A matrilineal or matriarchal society can sometimes react to things in weird sorts of way.
But yes lots of violence likely in absence of clear evidence. That’s the usual way for hoomans.
Lots of male bias in Paris’s as you recently noted as well but we know that wasn’t a violent entry. Paris’s also came to be in significant power in Indian society. Many other examples of male biased entry without violence in India – I can think of the original Muslim entry into Kerala as being non-violent but heavily male biased (the term mapilla itself means son in law because Arab traders married into local women).
i illustrate the non-steppe cases…but these are not steppe. so yeah, that’s a big difference. steppe ppl don’t bring mercentile skills (unless you count sogdians in china)
A matrilineal or matriarchal society can sometimes react to things in weird sorts of way.
R1b penetration into the basque may be due to matrilineneal descent. in matrifocal societies the culture goes through mother, so you have Australian aborigine groups that are 50% European Y chromosome, but 100% indigenous culturally.
There was a lot of discussion about Assam in the other thread. Do we know anything about the settlement history of Assam?
And also the origins of ydna H1 and H3?
Interesting, but if hg I was integrated early on, doesn’t that still mean they allowed hunter-gatherer males but not farmer males? E1b1 and J2 was likely introduced to europe by later muslim expansion from the middle east. It is highest in the balkans area/romania, which was under ottoman rule and witnessed the most conversions. Nearly all the neolithic haplogroups have been I, G2a, or F* 89 (funny the last one is only found in india today.)
Yes, it was driven primarily by han males marrying local females. Maybe not peaceful. But even then as you say, it was more like a gradual integration into the han culture. This is still a different situation from south asia. Hinduism has borrowed extensively from native religions. Although I can’t list specifics off the top of my head, many of the customs vary based on region, and there was no single Hindu culture or identity before. It looks like rather than imposing a single culture on everyone, multiple aspects of native religion were incorporated and many different identities emerged. This is unlike china where one single han identity swallows everyone else (although again, in that case it was more of an integration not invasion). Lastly, as narasimhan and many archaeologists have noted, the material culture in india remained unchanged since harappan times. There is zero similarity with the steppe. Whereas in europe the yamnaya brought some of their own practices with them, in south asia you don’t see the same impact at all. It seems they adapted more into the local culture
-There was a WHG resurgence before the Indo-Europeans expansion.
-The idea of E and J2 coming from the Ottomans is not true. Especially the E-V13 and J2b found in the Balkans.
-There isn’t much if any F in India. I believe most has been resolved as belong to ydna H3. ydna H is interesting in its own right.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2019.00558/full
“Analyses show that the Ottoman occupation of Europe left detectable impact in the affected East-Central European area and shaped the ancestry of the Romani people as well. We estimate that the investigated European populations have an average identity-by-descent share of 0.61 with Turks, which is notable, compared to other European populations living in West and North Europe far from the affected area, and compared to the share of Sardinians, living isolated from these events. Admixture of Roma and Turks during the Ottoman rule show also high extent.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6585392/
“As the Middle Eastern region derived Y haplogroups E3b and J were observed in high extent in East-Central Europeans (Cruciani et al., 2004; Semino et al., 2004; Battaglia et al., 2009), we found that Middle Eastern ancestry shows also the highest extent in OEC groups in case of genome-wide autosomal marker data. We revealed also that Romani people could have acquired Turkish ancestry not only during their migration to Europe, but also at the time of Ottoman presence in Europe, when they were already the largest ethnic minority of the area.”
That said, the only thing clear is J and E are not from neolithic europeans, but later gene flow from the middle east at some point.
India is the most popular suggestion for the origin and diversification of haplogroup F right now. I did not know if they were all resolved to be H3, but many studies have still detected F* among south asian populations at low frequency so I doubt it’s all H..
that’s a weak paper. i’ve looked at plenty of data on southeast europe. the ottoman impact is weak/zero. the roma are exceptions
but later gene flow from the middle east at some point.
agree. but no way that’s Islamic period (also, some of the “J” may be from the steppe tho not much)
I believe its the other way around if anything.
Lots of Anatolian Turks have Balkan ancestors. A lot of them also have Circassian ancestors. And Armenian. And Greek. You get the point.
Interesting, but if hg I was integrated early on, doesn’t that still mean they allowed hunter-gatherer males but not farmer males?
some integration was going on. but you forget that the yamna itself came out of the EHG hunter-gatherer matrix in part. it may have been one of the original haplogroups that are not well sampled in the current yamna (we don’t know where the r1a comes from, shows up in CW later).
E1b1 and J2 was likely introduced to europe by later muslim expansion from the middle east. It is highest in the balkans area/romania, which was under ottoman rule and witnessed the most conversions.
stop making stuff up. do you even know this literature to be telling me? J clearly showed up in the bronze age https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310
I plugged this theory earlier, but doing so again to prevent a formation of “idee fixe” in the eternal characterization of the Steppes people as being harbingers of language and myths to the Indian subcontinent. Lets call it the Steppes Slave Theory (SST).
The IVC people were slavers – they ranged far and wide over the Eurasian landmass to bring human capital to the Valley to build the great cities. The Steppes people were one of the prime targets among others, it might have been that they were already in cultural contact with the IVC people and simply turned over the captured prisoners in their internecine tribal wars on the Steppes wars. The African slave trade to the Americas also exhibited these characteristics.
The Steppes slaves were frog-marched over the Hindukush into Punjab and pressed into manual labor in the cities. About 30% of IVC seals indicate symbols derived from human forms. If the object of seals was trading, then what could they be? It could also denote the ancient equivalent of “man-days” or labor.
The genetic record and the archaeological record of Ancient India say exactly the opposite things. Reich accepted as much in his interview to ET on Shinde’s points – absolutely no intrusion. This is the exact opposite of the migration into Europe (bell beaker artifacts). To enable this amount of migration (10-20% of modern South Asians) without a corresponding archaeological intrusion has to be a grander spectacle than the Big Bang.
Of course there also remains the question of cattle genetics – there exists absolutely no evidence of Taurine cattle introgression into the Zebu. There is however very clear evidence of Zebu aDNA introgression into West Asian cattle breeds around 4 kya BP. And there is no field evidence for Taurine cattle in Indian sites – the lack of a spina bifida shows up very clearly unlike the Zebu.
So we have a set of people who contributed approximately 10-20% to modern South Asians – but these people did not bring anything of material value with them and also no cattle. The question is whether such a journey was even feasible or practical – without weapons, bronze tools, cattle. Only possible explanation is that they were taken with only loin-cloths on their bodies into the subcontinent by the IVC people as slaves.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
I did not just make that up, I came across this table
https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml
In your paper it says that the bronze age minoans and myceans were 3/4 neolithic farmers and 1/4 CHG/iran, and J2 was very common among CHG. I see your point though that whatever population was remaining could be the source of J2 in the balkans
the slaves mixed with the IVC people after the IVC was pretty much over in mature form.
Of course there also remains the question of cattle genetics – there exists absolutely no evidence of Taurine cattle introgression into the Zebu. There is however very clear evidence of Zebu aDNA introgression into West Asian cattle breeds around 4 kya BP. And there is no field evidence for Taurine cattle in Indian sites – the lack of a spina bifida shows up very clearly unlike the Zebu.
this is not persuasive to me because zebu cattle are superior for tropical climates. even if non-zebu mixed wit them if selection was strong they’d quickly be “purged” from the genome.
@Razib
I am asking this query for knowledge as according to Prof. Witzel:
1. “Swat from 1700 BC onwards has horse furnishings” [1]
But according to genetics, Aryans arrived very late to Swat, how is it possible? How did Swat possess them?
2. “Since horses appear only by 1700 BC (bones AND representations) in the Kachi plain/Mehrgarh” [1]
How did Aryans reach Mehrgarh in 1700 BC?
My question: Are Aryans actually needed to explain all this?
http://www.svabhinava.org/aitvsoit/HorsesIndia-IndologyList-frame.php
I think the point is that genetics is not history. If remnants of IVC was say divided into 3 polities and one of them allied to with new incoming groups to dominate other two, genetics might be similar , the history would give an entirely different picture. Or if it was 2 or 3 waves, with two of them rolling over the remnants and the third new group comes and allies with remaining ivc polities and wins , history would be different. I think, whoever came last won the day as vedas show no memory of such events.
phyecon1, with no due respect, i know more genetics AND history in joint form than anyone you will talk to. don’t engage in bullsessions with me. i’m not here for this
I am only wondering mathematically,how many forms of permutations and combinations are possible . And I think the lack of memory in vedas points to an important clue.
it’s a data point.
the thing which i’m trying to get across to people is that these hypotheses need to be interpreted in light of what we know about eurasian history.
steppe incursion of males is common. it’s usually violent.
there are slaves being taken from the steppe…but they are usually small numbers of military slaves. not production or service slaves (which are taken from Africa)
India has been a source of productive and service slaves for turan and Iran, though in smaller numbers than Africa for the near east
I am not some anti ait or anything like that if you are wondering. I take what you said and the permutations is within this context, I would only add that one needs to see the differences also. I am not sure how many of these eurasian groups created anything along the lines of vedas or gathas.
Therefore I am wondering that the implication of that might mean that the last to come was the one to win and hence create vedas with no memory of earlier periods. one group replaced by another incoming group.
@Razib
What is your opinion on number of steppe waves to enter India? Is there any possibility of multiple steppe migrations separated by long periods of time, the last of which takes place after 2000BC?
This is to accommodate the assertion from some linguists about early part of Rgveda getting composed within geography of India while keeping the origin of R1a in steppes.
In historic times – from Greeks to Hunas all of them eventually assimilated yet they’re refered to as Invaders. By the time of Western Satraps – the Shakas were almost culturally indistinguishable from their competitors Satavahanas. Yet the original Shakas r invaders.
Why would previous Steppe nomads descendents (Arya’s) be called Migrants beats logic – unless it’s hypothesized that these Arya’s came into virgin lands and just settled there. The whole AMT exercise thus appears quite
a moot point. Yes these Arya’s wrote Vedas which r extraordinary but the Vedas also point to a battle easy community.
And the whole Vedas don’t have the memory also appears weak imo. In all likelihood what we know of Vedas aren’t the entirety of poems composed by the incoming Aryas. Many could’ve been lost in time.
Though I tend to use AMT when I don’t wanna conversation to divert from pt being made – but even I feel that’s just being unnecessarily touchy
PS – I used to be partial to some of OIT arguments till 2015 – but stand firmly with AIT now.
linguistic evidence was enough for me to realize that ait was most probably correct over 10 yrs back.
Another clue are the mitannis . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni .
I am with Razib as he has stated exactly my position which is –
// I think that the classical version of the “AIT” is not useful because I think most people associate the idea of a barbarian “invasion” with a conflict between two clear and distinct groups, and one of the groups have a coherent social and political organization in a complex fashion. This is not what I believe at this point. //
Human contacts were never peaceful historically but Aryan invasion theory has lot of loose ends & thus just using the term only leads to useless debates so it is better to focus on data & best possible interpretations.
Lots of Anatolian Turks have Balkan ancestors. A lot of them also have Circassian ancestors. And Armenian. And Greek. You get the point.
rumelian ancestry is distinct as you’d expect. by ‘turk’ i’m looking for distinctive signatures of Anatolian turk ancestry which is 5-15% east asian. the rest is as you say. if you have zero east asian you are often turckicized rumelian.
basically the turkification of parts of the Balkans looks to be cultural mostly (some exceptions, but a lot of those turks in any case went back to anatolia with the great exchange)
” Rather, the likelihood is that what we see is similar to what occurred in the Balkans after 550 A.D. and the withdrawal of East Roman forces.”
Would another example will be how germanic tribes moved westwards, during the withdrawal of Roman forces and capturing the entirety of France,Spain and North Africa. Almost all the ruling classes of that period have Germany history (Franks, Ostrogoths, Vandals) overpowering the Gauls , Iberians etc. We hardly know much about the elites of the latter groups.
Forgive me if this all sounds BS to you but these things do play a role in society. Societies are more complex than what we think they are. I’m not sure how the numbers would add up but here are some (lame) ideas.
Some other minor ideas that could’ve played into intrusion of steppe Y-DNA:
Aryan Trickling in Theory towards the end of mature Indus civ without any noticeable violence? And societal selection towards lighter skin tone probably brought in more light skinned men? Fetishizing lighter skin tone is nothing new to Indians anyways.
Concept of “Niyoga” where a sterile husband would let another potent man to inseminate his wife. Usually that potent man would be a respected member of the society perhaps a brahmin as they were closest to the gods? Mahabharata and other Puranas are littered with such stories and even Manu Smriti permits this practice. I am not sure what percentage of men suffered from impotency in ancient days and what fraction of them practiced Niyoga, I would assume that quite a high fraction of impotent influential men practiced it as it was allowed in the laws of Manu.
Another one is rape, it was not uncommon until recently for influential men of the village to “get” any woman that he wants. All this happens under the carpet and “peacefully” nobody knows anything about it. Mongol horde like invasion is not really needed for steppe Y-DNA to intrude into South Asia.
Someone in this blog was mentioning that Brahmins don’t have the highest steppe DNA although they have some of the highest compared to many castes. Even today, god men usually take advantage to get any women they want and it probably was much more common back then. Perhaps this could’ve played a role in spread of steppe Y-DNA assuming that Brahmins are the direct progeny of male steppe immigrants and native groups.
I have only one question: Where is the PIE? Can somebody tell me?
If PIE is not identified, let me refine the question: What is the approximate location where it lies? Or better yet, can somebody tell me are Iran and Turan excluded from PIE?
V.
Y.
@Milan Todorovic
Lol, so true; what they brought is a mystery. The Narsimhan et al. paper says that Steppe migrants entered and exited IAMC in ~1700 BC, yet arrive in India by 1900-1500 BC; I never knew Steppe pastoralists have invented time machine.
Regarding homeland, I don’t know where it lies but seems to be diffused between Turan and North India.
You have my full support in asking these questions. OIT announced that IE homeland is Gangentic delta (I expect supporting evidence in the following period – go OIGD!). AIT proponents are pretty silent, but they should come clear with IE homeland, at least as a hypothesis.
In addition, AIT should state what Aryans brought in their luggage (genes, language? Vedas? Mythology? Toponyms? Anything?) i.e. what was their contribution to this integration. Some assert that they came while holding only dicks in their hands. Also, do they have contemporary descendants?
@Milan Todorovic
Lol, so true; what they brought is a mystery. The Narsimhan et al. paper says that Steppe migrants entered and exited IAMC in ~1700 BC, yet arrive in India by 1900-1500 BC; I never knew Steppe pastoralists invented time machine.
Regarding homeland, I don’t know where it lies but seems to be diffused between Turan and North India.
Forza OGDT, AI(nv)T sucks!
Isn’t this a confirmation bias sort of position though. Like the saying that Walls don’t work and Chinese Great Wall(s) didn’t work because the Manchu’s just rolled in unopposed.
But by focusing on the end fault-point we ignore the 100s of potential crisis-points which were averted because of that existing system. Be it Walls in that analogy or that High-Specialized-Society which suffers challenges from climate, Barbarians, disease, socio-cultural harmful cult-fads, etc.
Nothing is permanent so IVC was bound to come to an end eventually and it did and it so happens it provided an opportunity to another group of people to have a bigger than otherwise possible presence in that new environment.
In relation to potential on-contact dynamic there likely were similarities. However the differences in South Asia and Europe are also significant enough for the former criteria to not assume dominant narrative footing.
Firstly Europe didn’t have a IVC type complex at that stage and secondly East-West migration/invasion/integration Routes are in relative terms more feasible than the very dramatic North-South change from Steppe to South Asia (or even South to North for the silly OIT folk). Even across Multi-Millenia this is hard to do but to have this in under a 1000 years, just doesn’t smell right somehow.
Overall though your position of AIT of Integration is very sound and bound to be eventually become solid mainstream. It is also Politically palatable with enough knowledgebase tempering overtime so it will likely become the mainstream in India I feel.
“Firstly Europe didn’t have a IVC type complex at that stage”
>>> I guess you haven’t heard of Vinca and Lepenski Vir… which are several thousands of years older. What do you think where Aryans originated?
Genetic determinists are at it again! Here are some of the corollaries of AIT (or whatever theory at this point).
1) IVC descendants have no remembrance of the places they inhabited and rivers they cultivated their crops on.
2) People inhibiting the Indo-Gangetic planes before 1900 BCE also have no remembrance of places and rivers they cultivated their crops.
3) Total “genetic replacement” speakers of Brahui with dravidian roots did not name the river systems that built a huge civilization on (assuming that IVC was dravidian).
4) Processes don’t change with scale. The population Europe has historically been small compared to Indian subcontinent and China. However, the same processes replicate without any change at all places.
5) The river that is praised again and again in Vedas – the Saraswati doesn’t exist by the time Aryans came to India, more over, it was full flowing and glacial fed during IVC times, but hey, as I said, IVC descendants don’t remember shit.
6) The special “Aryans” who came to India had galaxy brains to compose books of 10,000 verses (pastoralists suddenly come to India and develop literacy), and write earliest known manuals on grammar, but “forgot” to do this at other places, like Greece and only write things down a 1000 years later. Also, the Iranians developed gathas in Avestan with similar structure of Vedas. These are the verbal aryans vs non-verbal aryans.
One has to be incredibly stupid to deny that steppe population did not come to India. They did. But the question is, how did “pastoralists” suddenly develop meter, grammar, and most importantly develop names for each and every nook and corner without exception. That too, with 10-15 percent of male population? To genetic determinists, scale doesn’t matter? For people shouting vinca, and Britain, scale matters. Population of 100 vs population of 1000 are qualitatively and quantitatively different. My guess is Steppe population entered India during the transition from sapta sindhu region to gangetic planes.
< “One has to be incredibly stupid to deny that steppe population did not come to India. They did”
>>> Excellent, we finally reached the common ground.
< Greece?
>> What is Greece? The first Greek state was formed in 1829 AC. ‘Greek’ name basically was in use since Roman conquering in the 2nd c.BC. What is the point?
< “For people shouting vinca, and Britain, scale matters. Population of 100 vs population of 1000 are qualitatively and quantitatively different.”
>> Obviously, you know nothing about Vinca and the size of population. Probably, you are projecting the today’s population numbers back to the ancient period. Where people lived during the Ice Age?
Britain??? What is this? DO you know how Britain got its name?? ‘Steppe’ is an idiotic term which means nothing. Grassland? DO you know how many people lived in Vinca and Lepenski Vir? So far, Vinca was explored less than 5% and there is, so far, about 800 archaeological sites, up to 11000-12000 years old.
>>> However, I have positive impression about the comment, pls tell us about the language, more about toponyms, something about mythology and what you know about Vinca – who lived there for 7000 years before Yamnaya people came to Europe and which language was spoken there?
I gave the example of Greece because it was one of the first place after India that has produced surviving literature.
I mentioned Britain because it is given as one of the examples of how IE languages expanded to Britain without any concrete archaeological evidence.
Narsimhan paper demonstrated that IVC split from Iranian close to 10K ago. There are several deep genetic lineages from India (especially mtDNA M, R, and U). Also, the climate suggests agriculture ( and therefore civilization) would have developed more easily in India. Of course, Vinca is only excavated 5% but we know everything about IVC right? Even by earlier standards, IVC population was huge.
I just stated what are the corollaries of genetic determinism. I am open to changing my mind after 2 things. 1) Sequencing of a Y-DNA from IVC. 2) Better understanding of IVC script. I still find it very amusing that Steppe arrived in India and immediately started producing literature whereas they did not generate literature at any other place.
It is not easy to follow you because you are jumping from one topic to the other and not saying anything. You should first explain what it means ‘Indo-European’ (people, languages). I understood that your assertion is that Aryans (steppe??) really came but without any culture, especially language related. And you know nothing about Vinca. You should explain if Aryans came with Sanskrit or it was already there. It is strange that their language was identical with indigenous. Or not? And where similarities btw. Sanskrit and e.g. Serbian came from? You are ignoring genetics which is actually the most important. Is it possible that r1a originates in two very distant places?
Iliad has nothing to do with so-called Greeks (there is no mention of Greeks in Iliad because this name was first mentioned 900 years after the battle). Is Mahabharata related to Aryans and their language or not? Can we expect that native Germans in Germany start producing epics in Urdu or Arabic because they have these new migrants? Etruscans founded the city of Rome and western civilisation, built aqueducts, buildings, libraries, arts. They had kings and dynasties, their alphabet was a basis for Latin alphabet but later they were subjected to the genocide and destruction of all their written documents. Only few underground sarcophagus and plates were found, enough to reconstruct their alphabet and language.
Is your assertion that so-called IE originated in India? I don’t mind, give us more details or some consistent story about migration of people, mythology and languages to Europe, not only some bits and pieces without any timeline and logic.