Tag: Aryan Invasion Theory

The Lost River by Michel Danino: Review

Representative restoration image generated because no original image was embedded in the supplied HTML.

The Lost River: On the trail of the Saraswati — Michel Danino

What are the characteristics of a good book? It should keep you hooked and should have an element of mystery to be revealed at the end. The first quality is ensured because Michel Danino has made a good effort in putting a lot of information about the mighty river and Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). In addition, the fluidity in his writing style makes it an easy read. Since this topic has great consequences for the debate on Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory, Danino has reserved that discussion for the end — which keeps the mystery element alive till the last chapter of the book. Given the vastness of the Aryan Invasion debate, we will not keep this article as a simple book review but add our analysis about how the Saraswati river forms an essential part in this jigsaw puzzle.

One of the biggest misconceptions that this book clears up is that the association of the Ghaggar-Hakra system with ancient Saraswati is not a recent discovery based on new evidences from satellite imagery. What the recent satellite pictures do is further corroborate the presence of the paleo-channel of Saraswati as predicted by other fields like geology, linguistics and archaeology much before these satellite images became available. Danino builds a compelling story by adding pieces of small discoveries about Saraswati that started in the early 19th century after the first surveys of Rajasthan and Punjab were conducted by the British Raj.

The first section of the book deals with the work of past two centuries that has gone into the understanding of this river as we know it today. The readers are taken on this exceptional journey which begins by following the first explorations done by Colonel James Tod, who was deputed in Rajputana in 1812. The narration follows by recounting stories of some amateurs and other professional surveyors who bumped into the mighty Saraswati in one or another way — sometimes based on rural folk traditions or other times through hard archaeological and geological discovery. This understanding about Saraswati becomes perfectly clear after the advent of modern satellite imagery and Danino does a perfect job in summarizing the findings from these recent studies.

The story about the lost Saraswati becomes more interesting after the discovery of IVC settlements along the now dried-up Ghaggar channel in the dry and arid regions of the Thar desert, thus establishing the relationship between the IVC and the mighty river of the Vedas. This relationship is explored in further detail in the second part of the book, which takes a deep look at the IVC settlements along the Ghaggar. Surprisingly, the number of settlements along the lost river is much higher than those along the banks of the Indus river. Danino thus makes a good case for renaming IVC as Indus-Saraswati Civilization, as the current name reflects the partial knowledge that we had at the beginning of the 20th century. This is definitely a suggestion which will not go down easily among the current generation of leftist historians in academia.

The third section of the book is definitely the most interesting part for the readers who have closely followed the debate on Aryan Invasion Theory. Here again, Danino makes convincing arguments to connect the old IVC with the latter Vedic civilization. The evidences for this connection range from materialistic matters like weight measurements and arts to spiritual traditions like yoga. No surprise, the proponents of Aryan Invasion theory have wilfully disregarded all this evidence and are happy to concede that there was a big 800–1000 year gap — often called the dark age — between the last IVC period and the early Vedic civilization.

Where does this book leave us then? Following Occam’s razor, one has to go for the simplest explanation: that the mighty Saraswati once flowed through India and hence captured the imagination of all the Vedic poets. Why else would they recount the location of the river as in the NadiStuti verse, or later talk about its slow disappearance as in repeated references in latter Vedas, Mahabharat and other Vedic texts? On the other hand, one really needs to do a lot of mental gymnastics to claim that the mythic Saraswati river is the Helmand river in current Afghanistan.

Once it is accepted beyond doubt that the current Ghaggar system was the mythical Saraswati as mentioned in the Vedas, it will have a great impact on the study of Indology. Not only will it completely discredit the whole Aryan Invasion/Migration theory, it will also require fresh research to put correct dates on the Vedic texts as well as the IVC. A new survey into geology will help put a precise date on the disappearance of Saraswati which in turn will help arrive at correct dates for the Vedas and other Hindu texts. The disappearance of a big river like Saraswati — which sustained the whole IVC — forms a credible case for the slow deterioration and disappearance of the mighty IVC, negating the need for any invasion or migration to be the primary reason. Also, this implies continuity of the Indic civilization, as its centre slowly moved from the banks of Saraswati to the banks of the now-revered Ganga. The only missing part in this whole story is the Indus script, which is not yet deciphered, but will complete our understanding of this great puzzle.

Verdict: A compelling, well-researched read that builds a powerful case for the Ghaggar-Saraswati identification and its implications for the Aryan Invasion debate. Essential reading for anyone interested in the origins of Indian civilization.

January 29, 2016
Aryan Invasion Theory: Other debunking evidences (Part III)

While the Aryan Invasion Theory/Aryan Migration Theory has been debunked beyond doubt by genetics, its proponents still try to claim ambiguity on other grounds — linguistics, archaeology, mythology etc. — similar to how creationists claim that Creationism is as plausible an explanation as Evolution.

Linguistics evidence

Since genetics debunks AIT/AMT, linguistic arguments are the first refuge for the AIT/AMT apologists. The reasoning is that the similarity between North Indian and European languages means Aryan invasion or migration must have happened. However, the problem with this assertion is that it derives its conclusion from partial information. The similarity of languages could have come from migration on either side — one cannot claim that Europe is the origin for the Indo-Aryan language family based on similarity of Indo-European languages alone. The British, who first propounded AIT/AMT, didn’t like the idea that the west might have had its origin from Indians, so they postulated that Europe gave rise to Indian languages and culture — and this is exactly what people trained in leftist and Marxist schools push even today.

However, recent analysis on linguistics is also making life difficult for AIT/AMT proponents. Recent studies show that Sanskrit has more in common with the proto Indo-European language — which gave rise to the Indo-European language family — than any other European language.

Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

The most important finding from linguistic reconstruction is that Sanskrit has the most in common with the proto Indo-European language, and not the Central Asian or Eastern European languages. For example, Childe gives 72 basic cognate proto Indo-European words constructed scientifically, of which Sanskrit has 70 words, German 46 words, Baltic 23 words, Slavic 16 words, and Greek 48 words. Sanskrit is the only Aryan language besides proto Indo-European to have retained three genders, three numbers and eight cases intact.

Another evidence is presented using ancient mythologies. When you compare Greek and Vedic mythologies, there are many common elements. Similarly, German and Vedic mythologies share many common elements. But if you compare German and Greek, there are no common elements — meaning Sanskrit and Vedic mythology is the common element connecting the European language tree and mythologies. Also, Iranian Mythology has common elements only with Vedic mythology. But according to AIT, Aryans came from South Russia to Central Asia and then separated in Iran. This cannot be the case when Iranian mythology has nothing in common with any other European mythology of that time.

Archaeological evidence

The initial basis for AIT was based on the claim by Mortimer Wheeler when he found some skulls in archaeological sites around Harappa and used them to support AIT by claiming the skulls belonged to Dravidians killed by invading Aryans. However, subsequent archaeological research showed that the skulls were mere burial sites of IVC people and not the result of any fighting between invading armies and locals. In fact, there is no archaeological proof that any kind of invasion ever took place. This is the reason AIT proponents have recently changed their stand to Aryan Migration Theory — much like how creationists changed their theory to “Intelligent Design” keeping all but the name. But unfortunately for the proponents of AMT/AIT, even AMT falls flat on the archaeological evidence: there is no archaeological evidence for any kind of migration into IVC either.

Another popular argument used by the AMT/AIT side is that IVC had no chariots and it was the Aryans who brought chariots and horses into India. This is a preposterous claim. India is protected from the north and north-west by the Hindukush, and any invader had to overcome it. The Greeks, who were known for their chariots, had to leave them behind when Alexander invaded India. So it is nothing more than wishful thinking to assume that nomadic barbarians from Central Asia could have achieved the feat of bringing chariots into India through the Hindukush two thousand years before Alexander — something that even he didn’t achieve. Michael Danino presents detailed evidence showing that horses were present in India much before the supposed Aryan invasion, and some recent studies actually claim horses are native to India.

Ice Age evidence

The world came out of the last ice age roughly around 10,000–12,000 years ago. India was not affected by the ice age to the same extent as Europe and Central Asia because of the presence of the Himalayas to the north. So the population living in India at that time could have easily migrated north towards Central Asia and then Europe as the ice age began to end and glaciers began retreating. This is consistent with what is observed in the genetic studies.

However, AIT/AMT posits the opposite direction for migration. Why would Europeans and Central Asians, who were by then accustomed to ice-covered climate, migrate south into India specially at a time when the ice age had ended and the climate was getting hotter? It makes no sense that people who lived and survived in the ice-covered plains of Europe and Central Asia would abandon their native land specially at a time when it was turning greener and food was getting plentiful. Also, the cold temperature during the Ice Age would have supported smaller populations in Central Asia compared to India. So migration would have been possible only from the high-density area of India to Central Asia and Europe — not the other way around.

Cultural perspective

The latest attempt by AMT/AIT pushers is the theory of cultural assimilation — this way they don’t have to present any genetic or archaeological evidence, merely stating their assertions are true. As per this version, Aryans were not invaders but a small number of migrants — too small to be detected by any genetic or archaeological evidence — who over a very large period of time successfully managed to force millions of people living in IVC to give up their religion and language in favour of Indo-European languages and gods.

This is by far the most absurd explanation for the Aryan Invasion Theory — it assumes that millions of Dravidians living in IVC, which was at that time the most populous region on the planet, had no good language or religion of their own and thus gave up their own civilisation and copied the few hundred migrating Aryans whose numbers were so low that current archaeology or genetic studies can barely detect them. Many people prefer such mental gymnastics rather than the much simpler explanation that the Aryan invasion or migration never happened and that the Aryan-Dravidian divide was an artificial construct of the British.

Even after all these attempts, the Aryan Invasion Theory leaves behind many more questions than it solves. There are crores of temples for Dravidian Gods — Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma — all over India, while the Aryan gods — Indra, Varuna, Vayu, Agni etc. — have very few temples dedicated to them. Unless one is wilfully disingenuous, it makes no sense that the Aryan invaders or migrants who supposedly defeated the Dravidians would have adopted the gods of the Dravidians as the primordial deities above their own Indra or Vayu.

This brings to an end this series of articles. The articles here have tried to debunk the most common arguments used by the supporters of AIT/AMT. Given the amount of propaganda and politics which supports the pro-AIT lobby, the mounting evidence against this theory will take some time to change things on the ground. Till that happens, the job of debunking this theory should continue at all levels.

January 24, 2016
Aryan Invasion Theory: The Genetics (Part II)

Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) has been debunked by almost all of the recent datasets and studies on genetics, linguistics, mythology/religion and archaeology. Yet this theory keeps cropping up in one form or other, especially in its milder form as the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) — which is just the invasion theory rephrased as migration due to the lack of any archaeological evidence for invasion in the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) at 1500 BC. Most often, the proponents of AIT or AMT cite either outdated studies or half-truths to push their ideas. The most blatant case of misinformation is from the field of genetics — which unlike linguistics is a hard science with little room for guesswork.

One of the most often used justifications for AIT is that North Indians have genetics similar to Europeans and hence this theory is true. The proponents even cite various genetics studies to show this point. However, this is a classic case of presenting half-truths. This similarity is higher between North Indians and Europeans than between South Indians and Europeans. While this genetic similarity does show that Indians and Europeans are related, it fails to show the direction of that relationship — it does not give information on whether Indians migrated to Europe or Europeans migrated into India. The proponents of AIT just push invasion from Central Asia and Europe as per their pre-conceived notions, and are almost always silent on the time period of this invasion or migration.

But unfortunately for AIT proponents, deeper genetic studies can now give the direction of movement of population as well as the time period for this mixing. The recent studies on the genetics of R1a1 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) in the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA studies have helped understand the migration pattern of humans during the late Holocene period better. Y chromosome is found only among males and is inherited only by sons, giving valuable insight into patrilineal gene flow. Mitochondrial DNA is exclusively derived from the mother, helping understand matrilineal gene flow. By tracing Y chromosomes, one can trace the fathers and grandfathers of a group; by tracing mitochondrial DNA, one can trace the mothers and grandmothers.

Lucotte G. is one such major study on genetics which studies the distribution pattern of R1a1 haplotype in detail among Europeans, Central Asians and Indians. The principle behind this study is that newer groups of people would have far fewer variations among them while older population groups would have a higher frequency of variations. This is how modern humans’ ancestry is traced back to Africans — because Africans have the highest amount of genetic variations among all groups of people today.

In the present study we have extended the field of detection of haplotype XI/haplogroup R1a… We found high haplotype XI frequencies values in Afghanistan (18.4%), in Iran (26.5%), in Pakistan (28% and 30.4%) and in India; in this last subcontinent, the maximal value of 61.3% was found in Punjab… Datations show that the Z93 Pakistano-Indian group is the most ancient (about 15.5K years); in Europe, the Eastern populations are the most ancient (about 12.5K years) and the Northern ones the most recent (about 6.9K years).

— Lucotte G., study on R1a1 haplotype distribution

So the data gives evidence that the R1a1 found in Punjab is the oldest, the Central European haplotype is in the middle, and the Northern European R1a haplotype is the youngest. This pretty much buries the Aryan invasion and migration theories — if AIT or AMT were true, we would have seen from the genetic results that the Eastern European haplotype is the oldest and the Indian haplotype is the youngest, since AIT claims Europeans came as invaders/migrants to North India. The study states that Central/Eastern European population is 12.5k years old while Northern European population is 6.9k years old — and the Punjabi/North Indian population is at least 15.5k years old.

As per Aryan Invasion Theory, IVC ended because of migration or invasion by Aryans around 1500 BC — 4,000 years ago. In the light of the above and similar genetic studies, the Aryan Invasion Theory is off the mark by at least 10,000 years. Since North Indian population is at least 15,000 years old, the claim that Hinduism is not native to India falls flat on its face — it makes Hinduism indigenous to India and India alone.

The actual population composition of India

As per the latest genetic studies, population of India is derived from two separate population groups — ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians). The data suggests that ANI came to India at around 60,000 BC and ASI at around 45,000 BC. But the ANI and ASI are not synonymous with Aryans and Dravidians as some AMT/AIT enthusiasts try to make it seem. North Indians on average have about 60% ANI genes and 40% ASI genes while South Indians on average have 40% ANI and 60% ASI. The South and North Indian names for ASI and ANI denote their relative contribution to each group — not distinct Aryan or Dravidian entities. This is also the reason why South Indians share genetic similarity with Europeans. Since North Indians share 40% genetic material with South Indians, and Europeans share 60–70% genetic similarity with North Indians, Europeans have 20–30% genetic commonality with South Indians. This mixture of North and South Indian ancestors must have happened before 12,000 years ago — only then would South Indians share the DNA of Europeans. This also puts to rest the theory that Aryan invaders became upper castes and Dravidians became lower castes, as Hinduism originated roughly 5,000 years back — almost 10,000 years after the ANI and ASI had mixed.

Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

ANI migrations

Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

ASI migrations

Technical summary on using genetics for dating migration patterns

The first part is sample selection — random samples are taken from a selected population group and a particular gene loci is selected to study. Gene loci have multiple expressions. SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) are changes in a gene at a single nucleotide that do not change the behaviour of the gene significantly, producing no discernible phenotype difference. Because SNPs don’t confer any genetic advantages, they can be used as tools for studying distribution and migration of populations. A tallness gene, by contrast, cannot be used for studying migrations because survival advantages would confound the study.

Let’s say there is a parent population A with a gene called R1a1, present in a place called X. After a few centuries, a sub-group of population A moves from place X to a new place Y. Since X is far from Y, any new mutations in A at X won’t be found in the population at Y. So while new mutations might occur in Y, X will have more variety of variations as the parent population. The higher the degree of variations in the genetics, the older the population must be. This is how scientists concluded that modern humans came out of Africa — because of the highest density of variations there.

When scientists study X and Y populations and their SNPs, the population with a higher density of variations is the older one. This is how the above mentioned study by Lucotte concluded that Punjab, with the highest density of R1a, is the oldest population group among those studied.

Other References:

1. European Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 18, No. 4 — R1a1 M458 chromosomes speak against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including India, at least since the mid-Holocene.

2. Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 54, No. 1 — Highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins suggested as a founder lineage, with extended phylogenetic analyses supporting autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India.

3. Indian Academy of Sciences study — Among R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes, “the highest diversity is observed among populations of the Indus Valley yielding coalescent times above 14 KYA”, declining toward Europe where maximum diversity and coalescent times of 11.2 KYA are observed in Poland, Slovakia and Crete.

January 23, 2016
Aryan Invasion Theory: The politics (Part I)
Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is a hot topic for discussion in academia as well as politics and is a major source of conflict and identity theft in modern India. So it did not come as a surprise when Mallikarjun Kharge, one of the Congress MPs, used this argument in Parliament. It is not only used as a means to justify conversions out of Hinduism by Abrahamic missionaries but is also one of the prime drivers of conflict between North and South India.

But what is AIT? It is a theory on the origin of Indians and Hindu religion outside India and was first propounded by the British in the 19th and 20th century. To study the AIT, it is important to understand the historical background and origin behind it. In the 18th century, there was a major drive in Europe to study India, Indian culture and its philosophy, following the discovery of the sea route to India and the beginning of colonisation. The early 18th century was filled with Indophiles who were astounded by Indian philosophical and cultural richness. During this time, the study of Sanskrit became prominent in Europe, especially in the UK and Germany. At that time, linguists were amazed by the similarities between North Indian and European languages. The western works during this time were full of praises for India and its culture as a civilisation.

However, by the end of the 19th century, India had fallen to British rule due to infighting and lack of organised resistance. This period marks the departure from Indophilia towards Indophobia among western intellectuals, who wanted to downplay all the achievements of Indian civilisation — any praise of such achievements would have kindled nationalism among Indians. Also, such downplaying meant that Indians could be convinced that India had nothing great to produce. It was under these circumstances and in the late 19th century that the Aryan Invasion Theory was propounded by the British by exploiting the similarities between Sanskrit and other European languages.

According to this theory, the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) — which existed from 3500 BC to 1500 BC — ended around 1500 BC because of the invasion by a group of nomads called Aryans, who came from Central Asia and Europe. The theory also claimed that the IVC was Dravidian and that the Dravidians were driven out of the Indus Valley by Aryan nomads who became the new rulers. The religion of the Aryans (worshipping Indra, Varuna, Vayu, Agni etc.) and the religion of the Dravidians (worshipping Shiva and other deities) was born as a result of this mixture. This whole premise was based on mere linguistic similarity between Sanskrit and European languages. The western intellectuals, especially the British, dismissed the possibility of North Indians migrating to Europe on the grounds that inferior Indians could not have been the forefathers of Europeans. So the linguistic similarity was used to posit invasion of India from Central Asia and Europe — not the other way round. This should come as no surprise as the 19th century was dominated by race-based theories.

The politics of the British
1. Using this theory, the British successfully sold the idea that Indians had no say in their own culture and that their civilisation owes its origin to the invading Aryans who gave them the Vedas written in Sanskrit. This was also used as an excuse to justify their own invasion and colonisation of India — Indians (Aryans) were themselves migrants into India, so Britain could also invade India since its inhabitants were not natives either. Also, it allowed the British to convince gullible Indians that British and Indians were from the same racial stock, except that the Aryan blood was impure in India due to inter-mixing with the Dravidians.
2. British also successfully convinced both upper castes and lower castes on the validity of AIT by playing them against each other. The upper castes — who by then predominated the Civil Service posts under the British — were taught that they were related to British and Europeans since they are Aryans, and are better than the lower caste Dravidians who got defeated. This was also acceptable to the lower castes, who the British claimed were Dravidians, because they saw themselves as victims of upper caste Aryan invasion.
3. Note that this theory also served the British purpose of creating a divide along North-South identity — North Indians as descendants of Aryans and South Indians as Dravidians driven down south from the Indus Valley. Beginning with Max Muller, the original proponent of AIT, many scholars tried but could not come up with any archaeological evidence that could prove such invasion or Aryans killing Dravidians. Since western intellectuals controlled the narrative on Sanskrit scholarship, they interpreted Rig Vedic verses on wars and conflicts to support AIT — even though there is no explicit mention of Aryans fighting Dravidians. In fact, the word “Dravidian” itself is derived from Sanskrit meaning South.
Since the British were masters of the divide-and-rule policy, they also came up with other race theories to suit their agenda — the most prominent being the Martial Race Theory (MRT). The regions and races which supported British imperialism were awarded the high title of “Martial Race” to win their loyalty by creating a false sense of superiority. It would take another complete article to show the political convenience behind MRT and debunk it, but it is important to understand the similarities with AIT and the depth of British imperial design to colonise Indian minds.

The current politics

Post departure of the British, the same theory has been used by Indian politicians backed by the Marxist intelligentsia to discredit Hinduism and widen the fault lines existing in India. The direct impact of this politics can be seen in the following ways:
1. AIT has a direct impact on fuelling language antagonism between north and south Indians on Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil and other south Indian languages. This Dravidian nationalism was stoked by the British in the late 19th century and was used to weaken Indian nationalism as a whole. Many Dravidian parties of today were actually against independence and were active collaborators against the Indian freedom movement. This trend continues even today with many Dravidian leaders covertly stoking separatist tendencies in South India.
2. AIT is used as a means for conversion in South India by missionaries, who first de-link South Indian Hindus from Hinduism by claiming that they are following the religion of their invaders. This is one of the reasons behind Christians being 10% of Tamil Nadu and other southern states and growing at an alarming rate. Dravidian politicians use AIT to justify anti-Hindu policies like giving grants for missionaries and tax breaks for Christians and churches while simultaneously trying to destroy Hindu temples through wanton neglect.
3. The north is also reeling under the caste divide created and sustained by this theory. Many North Indians and upper castes from South India think that they are direct descendants of superior European Aryans as opposed to the lower castes who were defeated. This strange pride and loyalty towards invaders is only a result of their colonised minds. As the saying goes, the colonised people try to mimic the culture of their colonisers and would try to associate themselves with the colonisers instead of their native culture. Seen in this context, AIT provides a pseudo-scientific explanation and another reason for upper caste bigots to justify their caste-based superiority.
To summarize, AIT was used by the British as a convenient tool to create and sustain fault lines among Indians. The same theory is now used by Indian politicians — sometimes to create rift among Hindus, or to create the North-South divide. Not only that, it is also used as a tool by forces inimical to India to convert Hindus out of Hinduism by first de-linking them from Hinduism and then using them as a tool for balkanising India. Given the above political benefits and dominance of Marxist intelligentsia, this theory still finds many supporters and has not been rejected on the basis of new evidence. The new evidences have only resulted in the change of goalposts and the exposition of a milder version called Aryan Migration Theory. Since this article has presented the politics behind this theory, it sets the stage for the next few articles in this series that will deal with providing evidence and debunking this theory in detail.
January 20, 2016