Thread by @abhilegend000

So as per my history thread trend, this thread will be on my thoughts on Aryan Invaion/Aryan Migration theory and how true or false it is. Let's begin.

@Sai_swaroopa @AgentSaffron @PranjalUvaach @pranasutra @GhorAngirasa @AndColorPockeT

So before starting, let's establish some facts.

1. Aryan Invasion theory/AIT as it is was conceptualized by William Jones when he saw striking similarity between Sanskrit and Greek/Latin languages
2. Later german historian Max Muller proposed that there was an aryan invasion

So what exactly is this Aryan Invasion/Migration theory actually?

1. It postulates that there was an aryan race with a proto Indian European language which either invaded or migrated to replace indigenous Indians (Dravidians) to become the dominating society

So, what exactly is wrong with this theory?

1. There is no record of any such invasions/migrations even in any folklore, it is a colonial era theory only
2. It is mostly based on linguistics which are not precise science and not much genetically based data

3. It completely ignores the existence of river Sarswati. Just ask any supporter of AIT/AMT and see how they fumble around to dodge the question. Its important because The Rig Veda mentions the Saraswati, no less than 60 times.

So I'll be mostly talking about the genetically based data regarding the AIT/AMT and how it supports or denies the theory.

1. Let's talk about the most recent and most famous DNA sampling from Rakhigarhi with both RW and LW claiming that it either supports or debunks the theory

1. It shows that a 4500 years old woman in Rakhigarhi did not had the so called R1A1 gene (Aryan gene) and thus the whole of IVC was not made up of aryans and thus aryan migrations did happen.

But the problem is that the data set of the tests is too narrow. Here is a research with larger data set which states that the effect of recent migrations on genetic pool was quite minor in last 10000-15000 years.

Link: cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/…
PDF file: download.cell.com/AJHG/pdf/PIIS0…

Another paper by Cell researchers informs that there is indeed two different ancestral populations to Indian populace, the Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI)—both of which are older than 3500 Years Before Present (YBP).

The whole of indian population is derived from mixture of both populations. So if this mixture happened at the fabled time of 1500 BC (aryan migration time) it will confirm the migration was true. But that's not the case here.

When these researchers modeled the data, they could not find any evidence of a dramatic Central Asian migration for this period. So they went back and till about 12500 Years Before Present (YBP) they could not find any evidence.

Thus the mixing of the ANI and ASI did not happen 140 generations before as was believed, but probably more than 500 generations back (Each generation is 25 years).

What's more, the article directly states that Max Mueller's theory of Aryan Migration/Invasion has to have happened before this mixing happend.

Link for the article: cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/…
PDF file: cell.com/action/showPdf…

Here's another genetic study which correlates between genetic difference in between different castes and AMT.
To quote "Only a small fraction of the 'Caucasoid-specific' mtDNA lineages found in Indian populations can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture.

Some other excerpts from the study.

1. One migration took place between India and Europe 51,000–67,000 years .

2. There is a split between both group 53,000 ± 4,000 years ago.

1. It debunks a large wave of mixture of any race to Indian DNA.

2. Straight up says that the so called aryan gene is specifically indian origin from Pleistocene age or may have already happened in African migration.

Link for the study: cell.com/current-biolog…
PDF link: cell.com/action/showPdf…

In between the genetic discussion, check this out. Even western "scholars" are not so sure that when the "aryans" may have "arrived" in India are even admitting that there may have been a continuous culture and not a migration between IVC and current era.

From The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective
By Gregory L. Possehl

Its incontrovertibly proven that there was no invasion or war however.

Here comes another shocker, Romilla Thapar is against the Aryan Invasion theory!!! And that there is no Aryan/Dravidian race.

thehindu.com/todays-paper/t…

Now, let's talk about Rakhigarhi DNA tests. What they will tell you would be this.

1 R1A "Aryan gene"
2. This quack's victory decalarations
3. Or this victory dance by Scroll ("Forgetting" that the specimen was female, not male)
scroll.in/article/893308…

Now, what exactly does the paper says?

1. IVC population is the biggest source of ancestry in modern south asian population
2. Iranian related ancestry branched off from South Asian population 12000 years ago

Now here's the hoodwink created by leftist cabal. R1A is hardly "concluded" to be "Aryan" gene or "Steppe" gene.

1. Its established that there was very little intermixing of genes in between castes and tribals from The Human Genetic History of South Asia by Partha P. Majumder

Now, here is the twist.

Even a tribe called Chenchu tribe has 26% of R1A and the high repeat diversity of R1A gene suggests that its actually originated from India. From "The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal
and Caste Populations"

by T. Kivisild,1,7 S. Rootsi,1 M. Metspalu,1 S. Mastana,2 K. Kaldma,1 J. Parik,1 E. Metspalu,1
M. Adojaan,1 H.-V. Tolk,1 V. Stepanov,3 M. Go¨lge,4 E. Usanga,5 S. S. Papiha,6 C. Cinniog˘lu,7
R. King,7 L. Cavalli-Sforza,7 P. A. Underhill,7 and R. Villems1

Indians virtually lack the HIV-1–protective Dccr5 allele
(Majumder and Dey 2001) that is frequent in Europe,
western Asia, and central Asia, implying either that
this allele arose very recently in Europe or that there has
not been substantial gene flow to India from the northwes.

This is also supported by yet another research.

Human evolution: The southern route to Asia by Todd R. Disotell.
1. Summary of the work
2. Actual effect of the migration on Indian gene pool was negligible

3. Two migration (one from Eurasia to India 53000 years ago and one from India to Eurasia 32000 years ago happened as marked by higher and lower density of different haplogroup)
4. Actual summary of AMT

Another research confirms the same.

Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian
mitochondrial DNA lineages by T. Kivisild*, M.J. Bamshad†, K. Kaldma*, M. Metspalu*, E. Metspalu*,
M. Reidla*, S. Laos*, J. Parik*, W.S. Watkins†, M.E. Dixon†, S.S. Papiha‡,
S.S. Mastana§

, M.R. Mir¶, V. Ferak¥ and R. Villems

What does it says?

1. It directly questions AIT/AMT in its summary
2. First migration happened over 50000+ years ago
3. 2nd migration happened 30000+ years ago
3. Eurasian heritage is similar between north indians and south indians and it didn't give any direction in gene flow

1 & 2. The final migration happened 9000 to 6000 years ago
3 & 4. Overwhelming majority of Eurasian DNA lineage is actually from 50000+ years ago and not from 3500 years ago as claimed by AIT/AMT

Yet another research confirms that the eurasian DNA lineage is from bronze age rather than recent migration.

The Genetic Ancestry of Modern Indus Valley
Populations from Northwest India

by Ajai K. Pathak, Anurag Kadian, Alena Kushniarevich,, Francesco Montinaro,, Mayukh Mondal,
Linda Ongaro, Manvendra Singh, Pramod Kumar,6 Niraj Rai, Ju¨ri Parik, Ene Metspalu, Siiri Rootsi,
Luca Pagani,1,8 Toomas Kivisild, Mait Metspalu, Gyaneshwer Chaubey, and Richard Villems1

1. Summary
2 & 3. Jat and Ror are the highest in steppe ancestry lineage but it happened before the AIT/AMT age given. It dates back to late bronze age.

So to summarize 10+ researchs I've cited

1. Timeline of AIT/AMT does not fits into the genetic research timeline
2. R1A gene may have started in India rather than in steppe population so it can't be called "aryan gene"
3. Rakhigarhi DNA results are half truths as spoken by left

4. Any migration happened at least 12000+ years ago to have any big effect on Indian populace
5. IT/AMT is absolutely not supported by genetics research

Later I'll add archaeological and linguistic research in this thread

*AIT not IT

Some supplementary information. David Reich, one of the foremost champions of AIT/AMT doubts upon it now. and concedes that there is little similarity in steppe culture and vedic culture.
Niraj Rai's (Co author of Rakhigarhi tests) interview on AIT/AMT.

Another research paper shows that R1A haplogroup was among the Indians long before any migration of "Aryans" and is actually more than 12000 years old.

Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy, Vol 1, №1, 2010

Inconsistencies in steppe hypothesis of Aryan homeland as per the same research.

Now before we start the archaeological and linguistic research, let's look at the sheer mental gymanstics which AIT/AMT theory proponents come up for the mythical "Aryan Homeland".

Literally everyplace on Earth has been suggested as Aryan Homeland. EVERYPLACE.

The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture by EDWIN BRYANT. This would be quite humorous if it wasn't so sinister.

Can just shake my head at pic 3. To quote ""One does not ask 'where is the Indo-European homeland?'
but rather 'where do they put it now?'"

Now for the archaeological front, here are a few facts.

Continued.

To summarize:

1. There is no evidence of an invasion
2. There is no break in biology from IVC to current South Asians as per skeletal records
3. Linguistics have not given any heed to alternative views to their views
4. Vedas don't support AIT/AMT

From The Harappan Heritage and the Aryan Problem
by Michel Danino

More links from IVC to Vedic Culture from the same research.

Continued

Conclusion: There are far too many similarities in IVC and Harappan culture for it to be a coincidence.

Now for some more archaeological proofs.

From A BRIEF NOTE ON THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY by Michel Danino

Unanimity among archaeologists: no invasion

1, 2. No archaeological evidence of movements of Aryans outside India

3, 4. Unanimity among archaeologists: cultural continuity

1,2. The theory is inherently racist
3,4. The verdict of anthropology rejects AIT/AMT

1, 2. Genetics as already covered shows no AIT/AMT
3. The question of linguistics, there is no hard evidence of AIT/AMT

1. The opponents of AIT/AMT
2. Ever shifting goals of AIT/AMT shows its weak foundations
3. Summary of AIT/AMT by U.S. anthropologist Peter G. Johansen and British anthropologist Edmund Leach

Suggested reading.

@threadreaderapp unroll

Some added reading here. We have been taught that immediately after William Jones found link between Sanskrit and Greek/Latin, everyone thought that Aryans were invaders. This is totally false and sets a long list of propaganda.

1. The excerpt from Jones speaking to Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1786
2. Jones himself believed that Hebrew was the original language

Now, what they will not tell you in the school.

After Jones discovered Sanskrit, there was an initial wave of Indian origin of humans by European scholars!!!!

1. The astronomer Bailly, the first mayor of Paris, situated the earliest humans on the banks of the Ganges.

1. Another scholar Voltaire agreed with him.
2. So did metaphysician Schelling
3. So did Friedrich von Schlegel
4. In 1845, Eichhoff said the same

1. Even as late as 1855, Lord A. Curzon, the governor-general of India said this
2. This was viewed as a threat to classical view of the creation of the word that was Genesis. Some were revolted that the colonials and Europeans belonged to the same race.

1. Max Muller himself noted this in 1883
2. Despite what some people may believe, Muller was very enthusiastic to praise India.

1. So what exactly prompted Max Muller to propose Aryan Invasion theory? Why, evangelical propaganda, of course.
2. Charles Grant, a missionary stated
3. Another Reverend Alexander Duff stated
4.Max Muller stated in 1875

Thus was born Aryan Invasion theory, a theory to appease evangelists about superiority of Europeans and Christianity.

1. According to G Smith
2. According to Samuel Laing
3. Muller himself said this:

1. So Max Muller dated Vedas to 1200 BC which is the standard date to which AIT/AMT proponents hang till this day, despite Muller himself later retracting his own calculations.
2. At the end of his life he straight up said his calculations were arbitrary:

Despite Muller himself retracting his statements, it was sacrilegious to oppose the fixed date for vedas.

These excerpts are taken from The Quest for the Origin of Vedic Culture by Edward Bryant.