AIT vs OIT survey

Since the readership is now plural majority Indian (going by IPs) I should probably ask this question… (JR’s OIT posts are now shared routinely hundreds, even thousands, of times on Facebook)

0

43 Replies to “AIT vs OIT survey”

    1. I only selected it because it included AMT – I personally don’t think the evidence supports AIT.

      I could change my mind if we discovered a kurgan burial in India or other material culture.

      Put it this way – European settlement of North America can be classified as an invasion because they adopted virtually none of the native material culture. Gravesites of early colonists show they weren’t buried according to native customs.

      1. But they did retain a lot of native American names: Mississippi, Tennessee,Massachusetts,…

        1. Yea but none of the things that matter like the culture, religion, food, pottery, burial practices, agricultural practices, etc – those are all functionally gone. Same can be argued for Australia but there is appears even the names didn’t survive.

          1. Native American agriculture conquered the world and the whole of Northern Canada is culturally Cree and Dene.

      2. Dude the Spanish(southern europeans) adopted a lot of native north american/mesoamerican material culture to the point that their descendents(Mexicans) identify with the conquered(the Mexicas).

        1. Yes this is true in central and southern America. I’ve always found the worship of Mother Mary to be fascinating. Clearly an integrative process of their earlier mother goddess figure.

          The Spaniards and the Portuguese colonials seem excessively brutal to me. In India there were the Goan inquisitions where the church participated in killing tens of thousands of people for refusing to convert it going back to their prior faith after conversion.

  1. AIT but I’m skeptical about some of the other claims associated with it, like whether they brought with them Hinduism, casteism, colorism & whether the early Samhitas of the Rig Veda refer to this invasion.

  2. My response was ‘while there is a steppe input into India, arya culture was grown in situ’ . So I don’t fall into either camp

  3. Are S-Indian Brahmins skeptical of AIT, because it mirrors too closely to their own history in the South vis-v Dravidians?

    1. No, it’s because they get labeled, along with all N. Indians, as interlopers, dispossessing the Dravidian sons-of-the-soil.

      1. I guess the dravidian invasion of south india isn’t politically beneficial even though it’s a likely reality that the ancestor language to tamil comes from what is modern day pakistan.

        It all adds up – the higher iran related heritage in upper caste non-brahmin populations in south india and the fact that a dravidian language is currently spoken in the region of pakistan that birthed the indus valley civilization.

        I guarantee in future dna testing of indus populations, we’ll find richer burials will be correlated to higher iran-related ancestry in said grave.

      2. Numinous , thats what i meant. Are S-Indian brahmins pre disposed to oppose AIT because they are ‘labeled, along with all N. Indians, as interlopers,’ ?

        Mohan

        U seem to believe some evidence of Dravidian invasions into S-India will somehow convince Dravidians.

        LOL. Welcome to the real world

        1. To be fair I’m partially joking. I actually believe in DMT – Dravidian Migration Theory. I don’t think there was mass scale extermination of the Indian hunter gatherer (IHG) people in south India and population replacement by the fairer hued dravidians (IVC). This despite near total language replacement (I can only think of vedda as original IHG language still in existence). New people moved in – lived side by side but separate for a while. Then slowly over time the cultures mix. In my opinion same type of migrations likely occurred in northern India as well.

          It all got sorted out through the magic of Hindu integration. We just accepted everyone’s gods as legit so there was no need to fight.

    2. I don’t think we believe that. tbf, most South Indian Brahmins don’t even believe that we came from Africa.

  4. Also – wonder what everyone here makes of Asko Parpola’s latest thoughts on the sinauli finds. He’s saying these are carts and these cart burials are indo-aryans before they discovered horse chariots.

    He also connects the copper antennae swords to finds in the BMAC where he says indo-aryans adopted the material culture of the bmac and fused religious practices.

  5. AIT/AMT myself – have also written a long blogpost explaining in the same. I dont see a difference between AIT and AMT – Migrants invade and invaders migrant – there would have been some peaceful migration – some co-opt native customs – some political alliances and some out and out invasion (us V them) I guess.

    Given the High % of AHG ancestry in N.India UC compared to NW Indians i would guess couldve been Arya+AHG vs IVC ? or some wild combinations of that. Nice to speculate in the Dark 😀

  6. To me, a dark, North Indian brahmin from Uttar Pradesh, if someone tells me I am partly descended from Aryans who came from Southern Russia it matters as much to me as the knowledge that all humans originally came from Africa. A bit of curious trivia but nothing more.
    Our religion and culture developed in-situ in India, most of it influenced from Indian geography, climate and societal milieu. Most of our lineage too is non-Aryan. We haven’t been a pastoral people for millenia now. Instead, we have been a settled, agricultural society in India for thousands of years.
    Still, I can understand why certain anti-Hindu (anti-Hindutva) folks find it super interesting. It gives them a handle against Hinduism and they can use it to cast Hindus in similar light as White Europeans exterminating native Americans.
    Or why certain Hindu upper castes do as well. I can see the allure of associating one’s culture with fair, blonde warriors who swept everything before them.
    Also I get why some academics like Razib are interested in this niche (from the point of view of genetics) question. Academics after all are nerds.

    But for most practicing Hindus in India it should not matter much.

  7. Is it non-mainstream to think that genetics aside (inconsequential to me, but it does seem like there’s probably non-trivial genetic evidence for an ‘Aryan’ MT), the ancient Indian epics and languages have local roots? The topography of the subcontinent is enmeshed with the religion and belief systems to such a large extent that I personally don’t see them having any foreign origin.

    Maybe I’m one of the few who attach absolutely no significance to appearance or race, culture trumps genes any day in my book. To me the idea of my swarthy, pot-bellied kinsfolk descending from tall, white alpha raiders on chariots is about as (in)significant as the idea that we all eventually descend from ancient Africans, and ultimately homo erectus. If one speaks an Indian language (English included, lol), and/or follows an Indian belief system (I include specifically Indian islam and X-tianity in this) they’re much more akin to me than any central asian/iranian/serbian. The politicking over what should be a dry subject for nerds to discuss in academic conferences is sad, but that’s Indians for you.

    1. Is it non-mainstream to think that genetics aside (inconsequential to me, but it does seem like there’s probably non-trivial genetic evidence for an ‘Aryan’ MT), the ancient Indian epics and languages have local roots?

      This is a good question. I don’t know what the mainstream opinion is (or even if there is a mainstream opinion), but the most parsimonious explanation seems to be (at least to me) that what we know of as the Vedic culture and the Indo-Aryan language family were crystallized in India (or the subcontinent, to be precise). If we did not know about the links between Indian and European languages, no one would even question this!

      At the same time, the linguistic links as well as certain material culture links to other parts of the world muddy this point-of-view. Chariots as well as some Vedic burial practices seem to have been part of the Sintashta culture, and I think the mainstream view is that they evolved there. If that is the case, then the Vedic culture definitely owes something to a predecessor culture that evolved in Southern Russia. (But this is what the OIT advocates argue against; they believe the cultural transmission goes in the opposite direction.)

      1. Arjun’s real name was Arjovski and he battled valiantly with his charioteer Krishnov in the famous Kurukba battlefield to protect the honor of the princess Draupadova.

        Dasvidaniya Comrades!

    2. PS….Sid, after reading Numi’s comment I realised that you use ‘Aryan’ MT for AMT. I thought that you were referring to me because I regularly use these initials. Well, I thought that was a fine irony directed at me, but it is actually not. Sorry for responding in this direction although everything what I said still holds the water.

  8. AMT/AIT person here. I think its cool that we are getting to know more about our closest relatives and when we diverged from them. Just like indic ethnicities are a mosaic, I feel the same about india in the context of the asian mosaic.

    1. Let me play Devil’s advocate here 🙂
      The reason why I think AI(M)T/OIT is so important is it is consequential to current day debates about who belongs where. Savarkar argued that Muslims and Christians had dual loyalty due to their holy places being outside of India. I think holy places are to some extent proxies for shared kinfolk.
      If you stretch Savarkar’s argument, non-r1a HG (H, L etc) could argue that it does not matter where r1a originated. What matters is that r1a stretches from eastern/central europe to south asia. If so, in the rare cases, when non-r1a HG are dominant in India, why should they not doubt the loyalty of r1a HG. Could this dynamic explain the hurdles Shivaji faced in getting legitimacy or lack of support to Marathas during 3rd battle of panipat. Even now, when Modi is in power, the opposition from abroad and within is being driven by overwhelmingly r1a folks. I know some of his strongest supporters are also r1a, but you could argue they are doing in the hope of eventually usurping his mantle eventually 🙂

      1. Bhumiputra, I think its worth noting that everyone, or perhaps every culture has a somewhat differently calibrated sense of time. I can’t understand those who question the residency of folks who migrated 500 years ago, let alone 3000 years ago. At the same time I think they are qualitatively different in as much as one is on the cusp of modernity and the other on the cusp of history itself. And I wouldn’t share the sentiment with those who consider either of these migrations as trivial as the out-of-africa one. Where I draw these lines , or order their importance is idiosyncratic to me or at least my cultural milieu. To your example of R1a carriers, I see where you imply it could be relevant, less for its potential to question someone’s legitimacy as an inhabitant of a region, but more for its potential to erode the authority of any single meme complex like the vedic culture. In the case of hinduism, it isn’t an attack on it, as much as space to say that, it is part of us (the dominant stream even), but it doesn’t define us.

        1. @girmit, the whole world is focused on Middle East for a 2000 year old land resettlement issue. You think there are other parties that will let go “just” 500 year residency?

          If nobody cared about who lived where after 100 years, we don’t need ethnicity-based citizenship in many countries.

          Let’s not treat it as that trivial (although it is trivial compared to other metrics like economic prosperity, health care and education).

          1. Violet, that’s my whole point really. My sense of time and another person’s are quite different, and I can’t claim superior reasoning. I don’t think this needs to be reductio ad absurdum though, the general sense is that when all cultural links are attenuated with the origin, then a group belongs to a place. Indian muslims (the small exogenous strata) don’t speak turkish, farsi or even pashto anymore. Southern brahmins speak the language of their respective regions and have the faintest idea of migrating 1500ya.
            Wrt the middle east, that zionists think that all jews have a right of return after 1000s of years has to be quite an edge case (not to mention how genetically european Ashkenazi are).

          2. Most people dont really care where they came from. (even second gen and more immigrants).

            Most in Sri Lanka obviously originated from India, as recently as a few generations and many millennia back.
            Does that mean Lankans feel any affiliation to India. I would say very little, if at all.

            Since Independence, successive govts wanted to repatriate the Estate Indian Tamils brought by the Brits to work the tea plantations. By then many had been in SL for three generations.

            In 1964 many were repatriated back to India. From 15% of the population they dropped the 4% at present. India didnt want them, Ceylon did not want them.
            ——-
            By 1936, Indian Tamils numbered 1,123,000, 15.3 percent of the total population in 1936,[4] and many of them were non-citizens of Ceylon.

            Nevertheless, the issue remained unsolved.[7] In 1962, there were nearly 975,000 people, classified by Ceylon as “Indian nationals” and by India as “stateless”. Although India denied any legal responsibility for these people, it acknowledged a “sentimental interest” in them.[8]

            The central part of the pact was the granting of Ceylonese citizenship to 300,000 of the Indian population in Sri Lanka, while 525,000 would be repatriated to India. It was agreed that the citizenship of the remaining 150,000 Indian residents of Ceylon would be negotiated at a later point.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirima%E2%80%93Shastri_Pact

          3. Sbarkum, that’s an interesting case study. While on one hand most people say they don’t care about origins, isn’t sri lanka a great example of two linguistic groups who are broadly similar racially, but invested in different origin myths. I have close sinhalese friends, they are quite keen on believing themselves to be more linked to bengal/bihar than to tamil nadu.

          4. girmit

            The origin myths of even the SL Tamils (at least the kings) are pretty much the same as the Sinhalese. Descent from Sinhabahu of Kalinga. The Sinhalese claim from Vijaya son of Sinhabahu.

            http://noolaham.net/project/47/4684/4684.pdf

            I have close sinhalese friends, they are quite keen on believing themselves to be more linked to bengal/bihar than to tamil nadu.
            The more educated with nuanced discussions with Indians.

            Tamil Nadu or Bihar, no Sri Lankan will support immigration from India.
            Most rural Lankans are aware of Indian states, specially those linked to Buddhism and Bihar is one of those.

            That said all Indians are Tamils to most rural Sri Lankans.

  9. RE: Some interesting excerpts about Indian R1a genetics…

    “…(d) There are two different groups of Indian R1a1 haplotypes; one shows a good match with the Russian Slavic R1a1 group, having a common ancestor several hundred years “younger” than the Russian R1a common ancestor (4,050±500 vs. 4,750±500 ybp). This supports the idea that a proto-Slavic migration to India as Aryans occurred (mentioned in classic ancient Indian literature) around 3600 ybp. The other Indian R1a population is significantly older, with a common ancestor living 7,125±950 ybp; they could have migrated from South Siberia to South India….

    … It is likely that Haplogroup R1a1 had appeared in South Siberia around 20 thousand years ago, and its bearers split. One migration group headed West, and had arrived to the Balkans around 12 thousand years ago (see below). Another group had appeared in China some 21 thousand years ago. Apparently, bearers of R1a1 haplotypes made their way from China to South India between five and seven thousand years ago, and those haplotypes were quite different compared to the Aryan ones, or the “Indo-European” haplotypes. This is seen from the following data….

    … Naturally, it gives again 0.881/0.00189 = 466±62 generations or 11,650±1,550 years to a common ancestor of the R1a1 group in the Balkans. These results suggest that the first bearers of the R1a1 haplogroup in Europe lived in the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia) between 10 and 13 thousand ybp. It was shown below that Haplogroup R1a1 has appeared in Asia, apparently in China or rather South Siberia, around 20,000 ybp. It appears that some of its bearers migrated to the Balkans in the following 7-10 thousand years. It was found (Klyosov, 2008a) that Haplogroup R1b appeared about 16,000 ybp, apparently in Asia, and it also migrated to Europe in the following 11-13 thousand years….

    … The data shown above suggests that only about 6,000- 5,000 ybp bearers of R1a1, presumably in the Balkans, began to mobilize and migrate to the west toward the Atlantics, to the north toward the Baltic Sea and Scandinavia, to the east to the Russian plains and steppes, to the south to Asia Minor, the Middle East, and far south to the Arabian Sea. All of those local R1a1 haplotypes point to their common ancestors who lived around 4,800 to 4,500 ybp. On their way through the Russian plains and steppes the R1a1 tribe presumably formed the Andronovo archaeological culture, apparently domesticated the horse, advanced to Central Asia and formed the “Aryan population” which dated to about 4,500 ybp. They then moved to the Ural mountains about 4,000 ybp and migrated to India as the Aryans circa 3,600-3,500 ybp. Presently, 16% of the male Indian population, or approximately 100 million people, bear the R1a1 haplogroup’s SNP mutation (SRY10831.2), with their common ancestor of 4,050±500 ybp, of times back to the Andronovo archaeological culture and the Aryans in the Russian plains and steppes . The current “Indo-European” Indian R1a1 haplotypes are practically indistinguishable from Russian, Ukrainian, and Central Asian R1a1 haplotypes, as well as from many West and Central European R1a1 haplotypes. These populations speak languages of the Indo-European language family….”

    The entire paper could be found:

    https://jogg.info/pages/52/files/Klyosov2.pdf

  10. NOTE:

    First (NON-ARYAN) R1a came to India 5-7000 years ago from China!

    Second (ARYAN i.e. ‘Indo-European’) R1a came to India from Balkan via Russia about 3850 years ago!

  11. Setting the technicalities of the debate aside, I just want to say why it matters and should matter to every dharmic.

    Every successful entity, whether a person or a nation, needs to control the narrative in order to preserve their dominance. Conversely, older narratives have to die in order to fully vanquish the defender. The challenger has to establish their hegemony in an overt manner. The terrain has to be retaken, every inch of it.

    While the technical and economic status of Indians has much improved in the 75 years, the mental terrain is the last outpost of the colonial yoke. In this sphere, the Brit story still lives on, with all his trappings and accoutrements. His peg in the ground is the lakshman-rekha that Indians must not cross. His narratives are sacrosanct, not to be violated.

    In the other thread, proof was asked of language (any) on the Steppes in the Bronze Age. It was met with such outrage, even the counter that such a query was dishonest. What are you doing? The white man has resolved all the knotty problems, there is nothing left. We as brown men should limit ourselves to the printing runs.

    AIT Vs OIT is also Stephen Vs Django. Revisionism might have a better case for the greater good and a moral quality that is the lesser evil. If nothing else, it will at least make you a better empiricist.

    1. In the other thread, proof was asked of language (any) on the Steppes in the Bronze Age. It was met with such outrage, even the counter that such a query was dishonest.

      Umm, no. I believe you are referring to my challenge, which was by no means uttered in outrage. And your reproduction of it here (what you said as well as my challenge to you) is again inaccurate and dishonest.

      (If any of you has the time or interest, I encourage you to go visit that other post and read the exchange for yourself.)

      Your entire comment is an expansive way of asking the Leninist question “who, whom”, meaning there is nothing and nobody that is non-political in your worldview. Even if a rigorously proven scientific theory were presented to you, you would try to glean what political axe the theorist had to grind.

      1. @Numinous

        You pretend not to have followed the debate over the last two decades. Only one side is called – revisionist, pseudo-scientific, nationalist and other things (leninist?? this one made me laugh).

        The AIT/AMT team starts losing their collective shit when asked simple questions. It has been noted by all and sundry – starting from BB Lal to Talageri to KS Valdiya.

        In the other thread, JR asked you why is the fact of the absence of languages (any) on the BA Steppes irrelevant? You evaded it adroitly. No need to answer on this thread. My point is that EVERYONE avoids it.

        The same question was put to Vagheesh on twitter in 2019 when he implied that the Steppes people brought South Asian IE languages in his paper. No answer has ever come forth to my knowledge.

        Both the circular logic and the use of political invective to characterise the opponent is what elevates this debate to something beyond a simple scientific theory. This is a narrative war involving two cultural identities – one is a decadent colonial construct and the other is a insurgent native voice.

        1. You evaded it adroitly

          I did not, check out that thread. More dishonesty on your part.

          (The Leninist comment was thrown by me to refer to your wholly political attitude towards argumentation, and nothing else.)

        2. “(leninist?? this one made me laugh).”

          that is because you have not even understood the meaning of numinous’ comment. i just finished reading the lengthy exchange between you and him, and i must say he characterized your position quite accurately and succinctly. you are looking at all issues with a leninist lens – who..whom? meaning who will screw whom.

          not all scientific debates have a hidden political agenda. think beyond the who-whom straightjacket. and dont let yourself become a tool in the hands of those who actually have a political agenda in these debates, for lenin had another term for such gullible persons – useful idiot.

      2. @Numinous,

        I don’t know where you hung out online during your grad school, but anyone with minor interest in Indian prehistory is aware of Witzel-Talageri issue on yahoo forums in early 2000s before Reich came on scene.

        Good on Talageri for gaining credibility with his scholarship even if someone disagrees with the conclusions.
        The “who-whom” started by some western academics was so distasteful (before India gained a measure of prosperity) that I don’t think public trust will be so easily gained again. Today’s woke-cancellation got nothing on the public letter by Witzel disparaging Talageri as a person rather than about his content.

        If AIT gave a respectable hearing about Saraswati question in early aughts, we won’t be having so much nonsense narrative on OIT (like 50kya Vedas etc..). It is what it is. Just because yahoo forums disappeared doesn’t mean we have to forget how actually OIT gained momentum.

        1. @Violet:

          (Bit of history, since you brought it up)

          This wasn’t a topic that occupied my interest when I was in grad school. I was only tangentially aware of the whole issue. In fact, I was wholly ignorant of linguistics at that point and didn’t even know about language families and such. Of course, I had never heard of Talageri or Witzel either.

          The only thing I had read on this topic up to that point was vague references to Aryas conquering India and defeating the Dasyus (from my school history books). Didn’t care much about it either way. Then, at the turn of the century, I encountered the writing of Francois Gautier, who seemed like a breath of fresh air to me, and who argued against the above narrative. His arguments were all about why this was a colonial narrative and thereby didn’t hold water. I found this somewhat convincing, and I suppose I became an implicit OIT supporter. It still wasn’t a topic that interested me, and I never bothered to do any more research.

          Only when I read David Anthony’s book (Horse, Wheel…) in the early 2010s did I understand that there was a linguistics question at the heart of this issue that had completely evaded me. Only at that point did I know what William Jones’ contribution was (the guy was just a name to me until then.) Reading a bit more about language families and the evolution of languages, I got convinced that the explanation of PIE and its descendant languages was a global (ok, Eurasian) problem and required “global” thinking. The arguments of Gautier et al (and to some extent, Elst, who I then read extensively) seemed to me to exhibit a frog-in-the-well mentality, focusing solely on Indian history, Indian languages, and Indian texts. Which, taken in exclusion, can be used to marshal evidence in support of OIT. But then, if you step out of South Asia, and look at the histories and the languages and the texts (to the extent they exist) of other IE speaking regions, OIT just starts to feel more and more weird (at least to me).

          That’s where I’ve landed and that’s where I’ve roughly been since. I’m open to new facts and arguments. JR produces good ones but not enough to sway my mind. If others are convinced by them, then good for them!

          PS: I agree, based on what I’ve read since, that the AIT advocates have been condescending towards OIT proponents (and in earlier times racist too), but even if we consider the “Saraswati question”, as you put it, the place we land in is to doubt the AIT as it is presently formulated. OIT feels yet more weird.

          1. @Numinous,

            I was/am genuinely interested in prehistory for the whole world (so, I make my family watch 2-hour documentaries on gobekli tepe during covid lock downs…lol). The critique by Witzel of Talageri was so bad and published in open journal with little consequence to Witzel for such poor behaviour. The same story continues to this day where any OIT proponent is dismissed off-hand as hindu-nat without a fair hearing. This hardens the opposition more and more. (similar to how a society ends up with QAnon)

            Notice how PIE-homeland researchers always acknowledge “Anatolian hypothesis” even if they feel strongly about steppe homeland hypothesis, but somehow “Saraswati question” doesn’t deserve same mention about Indo-Aryan homeland. (and not even an attempt with two waves of steppe peoples or such, e.g. by Asko Prapola)

            As I mentioned before, I am waiting on settling of PIE homeland in the first place. It seems to move between north of caucus mountains to south in recent times. And David Anthony seems to have another revision to his thoughts as recently as the last year. So, it is too early to get at how and why of AIT vs. OIT.

  12. (1/2) To make some concluding remarks regarding this topic. Based on the paper I cited and provided the link we have got the last major piece of puzzle of our big AMT picture. We now have a comprehensive framework which presents European/SAsian genetics and linguistics. The mythology still hasn’t been touched. The Serbian toponyms in Asia, although the simplest topic, is too far in front of lagging pundits that we must stop right here and wait for the majority to come after they digest the linguistics. From this piece of puzzle, we can establish (for the record) that so-called ‘Indo-European’ language is actually the Serbian language.

    I will write in more details, but we also briefly presented what Anthony called ‘population replacement’ what is actually his euphemism for a genocide performed by Yamnaya R1b against Vinca’s people. That was his ’explanation’ how so-called ‘Indo-European’ language, brought by Yamnaya, was spread across the Europe. What a joke, still a bit less funny then his previous version about (Yamnaya) elites’ language diffusion across the Europe.

    One of consequences of Anthony’s ‘population replacement’ was a destiny of Caucasus G2a people who came as welcome ‘guest-workers’ to Vinca. They left few Balkan toponyms (e.g. river Ibar in Kosovo, name of Bosnia and probably later Roman province Moesia=central Serbia). One part of them escaped after this genocide back to Caucasus carrying Serbian language (the name of Tbilisi has the Serbian origin) and white phenotype (!). Most likely, their descendants are modern Ossetins.

    OIT failed to provide any significant contribution to this discussion. If we ignore outbursts of primitivity from their directions other, more sensible wing struggled to make a case with at least one solid point. It looks like a semi-parasite mistletoe plant which only can live on the A*T back. For the beginning, just to find out from which language came the word ‘veda’ (i.e. vid=sight, vision).

  13. (2/2) What is new in my comments in previous couple days? Below are the points which those interesting in this could refer when comment regardless if they agree or disagree. I would ask Razib to put them in BP database on the record for future references. I believe that there are first published here at BP:

    1) First R1a stream came to today’s India btw 5-7000 years ago (including the error maybe even 8.000) from South Siberia/China
    2) Second R1a came to today’s India about 3600-3850 years ago. This is a different stream of R1a which left for Europe about 12000 years ago. First bearers of the R1a1 haplogroup in Europe lived in the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia).
    3) They left Europe btw 4700-4500 years ago and travelled to India for about 800 years.
    4) This R1a stream (so-called Indo-European) brought so-called INDO-EUROPEAN language to India.
    5) The only possible conclusion from the previous is that INDO-EUROPEAN language was the Serbian language. At that time, this language already had this name. According to the timeline which I proposed (for the record) – the period of so-called PIE is 30000-8000 BC. The period of the so-called IE language started btw 8000-6000 BC.
    6) Arbitrarily (my proposition), the beginning of the IE (i.e. Serbian) language is the time when the consonant group SRB was formed.
    7) Another implication is that ‘Indo-European’ R1a stream brought not only the language than some mythology and, at least, the first draft of Rg Veda on this language.
    8) ‘IE’ R1a also came with Vinca’s phenotype while first wave of R1a to India were probably East/Central Asian phenotype.

Comments are closed.