• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Aryans in the Indus Valley

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
You've made this point a number of times. But a lot of this drop is about time rather than distance. I don't think you've entirely digested the point I made in the post you replied to.

I understand your point how a language can artificially be preserved over time and I understand Sanskrit, Hebrew and old Church Slavic are examples of this. However, you keep missing or ignoring my point about distance: We still find that it is generally true that over distance the cases are gradually lost. So Slavic has indeed been artificially preserved, but it still retains only 7 cases of PIE; Sanskrit has also been artificially preserved, but it retains all 8 cases of PIE. Hence, the distinguishing factor/variable here is not time, but distance.

I think you should at least admit that my observation is correct that moving from India to Europe, we find the languages go from most complex to least complex, starting with most complex in India and least complex in Germany.

How we interpret this fact is open to interpretation, but I think it is consistent with the IE tribes beginning from India and moving towards Europe. It also explains why most IE languages are found not in India but in Central Asia and Europe --- as India being the origin point would be the point where there are least number of IE languages and Europe being the end point would be the point where the highest number of languages would develop, because of multiplication over time.

I don't think the linguistic evidence at all precludes India as being the origin of PIE. I also want to understand why are you ignoring other forms of evidence, like the MtDNA evidence I cited earlier shows Europeans have ancestry in India or the discovery of the Saraswati river?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I understand your point how a language can artificially be preserved over time and I understand Sanskrit, Hebrew and old Church Slavic are examples of this. However, you keep missing or ignoring my point about distance: We still find that it is generally true that over distance the cases are gradually lost. So Slavic has indeed been artificially preserved, but it still retains only 7 cases of PIE; Sanskrit has also been artificially preserved, but it retains all 8 cases of PIE. Hence, the distinguishing factor/variable here is not time, but distance.

I think you should at least admit that my observation is correct that moving from India to Europe, we find the languages go from most complex to least complex, starting with most complex in India and least complex in Germany.

How we interpret this fact is open to interpretation, but I think it is consistent with the IE tribes beginning from India and moving towards Europe. It also explains why most IE languages are found not in India but in Central Asia and Europe --- as India being the origin point would be the point where there are least number of IE languages and Europe being the end point would be the point where the highest number of languages would develop, because of multiplication over time.

I don't think the linguistic evidence at all precludes India as being the origin of PIE. I also want to understand why are you ignoring other forms of evidence, like the MtDNA evidence I cited earlier shows Europeans have ancestry in India or the discovery of the Saraswati river?

But we don't find the most complex languages in India currently, for starters. Secondly, the preservation of a language as old as Sanskrit isn't found anywhere else. Also, case isn't the only measure of complexity. Divergence of vocabularies and various grammatical traits better suits a tree with a root around the Black Sea. Weirdly enough, in the middle of the language family's geographical distribution rather than at its easternmost extremity.

While I'm open to the idea that based on cases alone we could maintain the possibility of an Indian Urheimat, things change when you factor in the centum-satem split, the consonants in use, the presence of unique innovations in different families such as voiceless aspirated consonants of the Indo-Aryan languages, divergences of meanings of words etc.

Your penultimate paragraph doesn't reflect how languages evolve - the urheimat would likely exhibit the most diversity, with it falling off over distance. This is what we observe.

Languages aren't especially linked to genetics.

Different rivers can share names.
 
Last edited:

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
But we don't find the most complex languages in India currently, for starters.
[/quote]

I think I need to repeat again, I am not talking about currently. I am talking about the oldest IE languages.

Your penultimate paragraph doesn't reflect how languages evolve - the urheimat would likely exhibit the most diversity, with it falling off over distance. This is what we observe.

It is this assumption of linguistic centre of gravity what I am challenging here. If suppose an initial tribe left from India Westwards through Persia towards Central Asia, then the number of tribes at the starting point would be less, but as they travel forth they would split and multiply going in various directions (up, down, left, right) and then you would find a greater proliferation away from the urheimat rather than near it.

If suppose we had to find urheimat of English language today, would we find it anywhere near England?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I think I need to repeat again, I am not talking about currently. I am talking about the oldest IE languages.

Right, but you're comparing Old Church Slavonic to Vedic Sanskrit, when these languages were a millennium apart.

It is this assumption of linguistic centre of gravity what I am challenging here. If suppose an initial tribe left from India Westwards through Persia towards Central Asia, then the number of tribes at the starting point would be less, but as they travel forth they would split and multiply going in various directions (up, down, left, right) and then you would find a greater proliferation away from the urheimat rather than near it.

If suppose we had to find urheimat of English language today, would we find it anywhere near England?

The founder effect works on linguistic diversity.

I like to think if were to look for the English language's urheimat we'd see it was in England, by dint of the great diversity of dialects of English there and the evidence of loanwords and creolisation in dialects found overseas.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Different rivers can share names.

I wanted to respond to this separately. There is a tendency for AIT/AMT proponents to ignore any contradictory evidence or to explain it away. The Saraswati river cannot be explained away so easily -- it's course is described in the Rig Veda as flowing from the Himalaya mountains to the sea, and explicitly it says that all their settlements are alongside it(most of the IVC settlements have indeed been found along the course of the dried up river) and it's drying up is also described in the Mahabharata, its course ending in the Thar desert.

The river was only until recently considered to be mythological because its location could not be found, but recently using satellite imagery we have been able to find that this river did indeed flow and it dried up around 1900BCE.

Thus, I would assert that this is indeed the same river that is described in the Vedas, Mahabharata etc. If it is, is presents a massive problem to AIT/AMT, because if the river was thriving in 4000BCE, it means the Aryans were already in India long before the arbitrary date of 1500BCE as the arrival of Aryans(which by the way was disowned by Muller later on his life, admitting he was guessing)
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I wanted to respond to this separately. There is a tendency for AIT/AMT proponents to ignore any contradictory evidence or to explain it away. The Saraswati river cannot be explained away so easily -- it's course is described in the Rig Veda as flowing from the Himalaya mountains to the sea, and explicitly it says that all their settlements are alongside it(most of the IVC settlements have indeed been found along the course of the dried up river) and it's drying up is also described in the Mahabharata, and of course ending in the Thar desert.

The river was only until recently considered to be mythological because its location could not be found, but recently using satellite imagery we have been able to find that this river did indeed flow and it dried up around 1900BCE.

Thus, I would assert that this is indeed the same river that is described in the Vedas, Mahabharata etc. If it is, is presents a massive problem to AIT/AMT, because if the river was thriving in 4000BCE, it means the Aryans were already in India long before the arbitrary date of 1500BCE as the arrival of Aryans(which by the way was disowned by Muller later on his life, admitting he was guessing)

Interesting! Thanks for this. Although 2000BCE would still be within the range of arrival of the proto-Prakrit-speakers, I believe? Also, it's not like there was any replacement of one people for another - history and mythology gets transferred from generation to generation even through linguistic changes.

I am from Wales, and it's not like the Welsh forgot everything that happened before they mostly switched to English.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Right, but you're comparing Old Church Slavonic to Vedic Sanskrit, when these languages were a millennium apart.

No, I said Proto-Slavic had 7 cases and Old Church Slavonic is the oldest existing Slavic language also has 7. I have compared all old the IE languages with one another, not modern. e.g. I compared Ancient Greek not modern Greek.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
No, I said Proto-Slavic had 7 cases and Old Church Slavonic is the oldest existing Slavic language also has 7. I have compared all old the IE languages with one another, not modern. e.g. I compared Ancient Greek not modern Greek.

Again, these reconstructions relate to the spoken versions, not the formal registers which would be the Sanskrit to the reconstructions' Prakrit.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Interesting! Thanks for this. Although 2000BCE would still be within the range of arrival of the proto-Prakrit-speakers, I believe? Also, it's not like there was any replacement of one people for another - history and mythology gets transferred from generation to generation even through linguistic changes.

The early books of the Rig Veda describe the the river as thriving and flowing from the Himalaya mountains into the sea. The later books of the Rig Veda describe it less and other rivers become more important like Ganga, Yamuna. The Mahabharata is the first to describe the Saraswati river is starting to dry up.

According to current estimates, the river was thriving in 4000BCE and earlier and dried up 1900BCE. Mahabharata is dated by traditional calendar to 3000BCE.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
The early books of the Rig Veda describe the the river as thriving and flowing from the Himalaya mountains into the sea. The later books of the Rig Veda describe it less and other rivers become more important like Ganga, Yamuna. The Mahabharata is the first to describe the Saraswati river is starting to dry up.

According to current estimates, the river was thriving in 4000BCE and earlier and dried up 1900BCE. Mahabharata is dated by traditional calendar to 3000BCE.

Yeah, so that seems to fit what I said before.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I think you should at least admit that my observation is correct that moving from India to Europe, we find the languages go from most complex to least complex, starting with most complex in India and least complex in Germany.

As people move further from their original homes, they speak less and less like the people in the original home.

Complex or simple are relative terms. A case system or verb conjugations may simplify in one way, but grammar may become more complex with prepositions, postpositions, periphrastic verbs and phrases, modsls, auxiliaries.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
However, you keep missing or ignoring my point about distance
I would say distance/time like science says energy/space. the two are related.But the question is distance from where? Why from India? Why not from Bokhara? Why not from where the Yamna culture developed or the Afanasevo culture or the Corded-ware culture? And why not from Russian Tundra in better times. It was not snow covered all the time during that period. You are measuring distance only from India which is the hypotenuse, not the axis 'x' and 'y'.

mtDNA Hplogroup M
maternalmap.png

Haplogroup M17 - found in Luzon and in the Chams of southern Vietnam. (I think Chams are Hindus)
Haplogroup M (mtDNA) - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The early books of the Rig Veda describe the the river as thriving and flowing from the Himalaya mountains into the sea.
I have discussed this in one of my posts. Actually, Sarasvati was Milky way, the Celestial river which was guarded by two dogs in the sky (Devasya Shunah - I have a topic for it in the Dharmic Religions DIR). For Zorastrians also, it was a celestial river which Thraetona released by killing Azi Dahak, there by unblocking the ranges in the mountains. That it arose in Himalayas is a later representation of the original idea that the waters came from the sky (Apah) by Indra's heroic deed.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
I have discussed this in one of my posts. Actually, Sarasvati was Milky way, the Celestial river which was guarded by two dogs in the sky (Devasya Shunah - I have a topic for it in the Dharmic Religions DIR). For Zorastrians also, it was a celestial river which Thraetona released by killing Azi Dahak, there by unblocking the ranges in the mountains. That it arose in Himalayas is a later representation of the original idea that the waters came from the sky (Apah) by Indra's heroic deed.

This is probably where the myth of the Ganges comes from as flowing from Shiva's hair. However, just as there is mythology around the Ganges, and it is an actual river; similarly there is mythology around Saraswati, but it was an actual river.

There are almost 50 verses dedicated to the Saraswati river in the Rig Veda, even describing its course, and there is one particular hymn called the Nadi Suktam describing from West to East all the rivers Saraswati, Indus, Sutlej, Ganga, Yamuna etc

The Saraswati river definitely existed and it is the same river that is described in the Rig Veda and later Mahabharata.
If this is true, then the obvious implication is that the Aryans were already in India in 4000BCE and earlier and therefore the IVC is an Aryan civilisation.

As for when the migrations from out of India started happening into Europe, because that is what the genetic evidence is showing us. it could have been at a far far earlier date. The studies show about 35,000-50,000 years ago, but the question then needs to be asked were these migrating tribes language speaking tribes and was the language they spoke PIE?

Linguistics only shows us the relationships between languages, not the dates.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
If this is true, then the obvious implication is that the Aryans were already in India in 4000BCE and earlier and therefore the IVC is an Aryan civilisation.

The studies show about 35,000-50,000 years ago, but the question then needs to be asked were these migrating tribes language speaking tribes and was the language they spoke PIE?
Aryans were in India at least by 1,500 BC. It could be that the river was already dwindling from an earlier time when things were even better.

That is what some people say was the 'Dravidian migration'. This migration erased the ASI (Ancestral South India) phenotype - the African phenotype. But surely, these people did not speak PIE, otherwise there would have been no South-Indian languages.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Aryans were in India at least by 1,500 BC. It could be that the river was already dwindling from an earlier time when things were even better.

The river has been mentioned in the Rig Veda, the most ancient veda, as also in post-vedic texts. The later vedic texts as well as the mahabharatha composed in the 8th century b.c, mention that the saraswati dried up in a desert.

This would postulate that the Saraswati was in existence for many milleniums before the 8th century b.c. itself, which would be the reason why it figures prominently in the ancient Rig Veda. This itself shows that the Aryan civilization in India was a couple of milleniums ahead , at least in 3500 b.c. at least.

This would also make sense because Krishna's birthday itself is itself stated to be around 3228 B.C. by religious scholars.

That is what some people say was the 'Dravidian migration'. This migration erased the ASI (Ancestral South India) phenotype - the African phenotype.

By the african phenotype, if you mean that of dark complexion, you can see that the vast majority of north Indians are still dark-skinned. In ancient times too Rama, Bharata, Krishna, Abhimanyu, Drona, Draupadi, Arjuna has been also mentioned to be of dark complexion.


But surely, these people did not speak PIE, otherwise there would have been no South-Indian languages.

The south indian languages were created by the Rishis themselves. Tamil is mentioned in the scriptures to have been created by Agastya Rishi when he travelled south.

They have many loan words from sanskrit itself. My understanding is that the southerners adopted these languages in the south to create a distinctive identity for themselves in their principalities as was the case in the north where many languages similarly evolved.

Swami Vivekananda, in his travels in the south, had also spoken of the southern hindus to be more orthodox and conservative in their practice of Hinduism than the northerners. In his travels in Kerala, he noticed the women over there speaking in sanskrit to him which caused great wonder to him as the knowledge of sanskrit was quite deficient in the north even among the men.
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
This question never ends. Could it be that everyone is more than 1/2 correct? That is, all these very interesting and, IMHO, amazing things were happening at the same - people coming, people leaving, people staying, Gods, aliens, proto-humans, proto-animals, etc?

The last few posts here are so amazing and all seem to hold a lot of truth.

So, I am thinking, I like ALL of it, in one way India is sort of like my California. 10,000 years from now there will be arguments and discussions around the migrations in, out of Kalifornia, skin tone, DNA, who left and why (right now there is a lot more leaving than coming), who came, who stayed put, who spoke Ohlone Indian, which is older, Ohlone, English or Spanish (they even found Chinese and Russian!), and so on.

Hell if I know, but I find all of this fun, not a "fight". But I admit that the more I know the less I know.

But I do sort of think:

* South Indians - at least today - are more "conservative" and "strict" in Hinduism than North Indians.

* North Indians have more Vaishnavs, South Indians more Saivas, but there is no question to me that Saiva was once very strong in the North - example Varanasi - and oddly I notice Vishnu was once very popular in the South a long time ago!

* Areas of India that found themselves under stress - be it wars, invaders, disease, weather disasters, etc. - seem to take to the "Vishnu saved us (Avatar comes) " waves. Those which go through more "stability" get comfy with Shiva even thotgh Shiva is a great destroyer but we see Shiva in meditation mostly while elsewhere Vishnu is destroying ... interesting.

* Then there is the very cute boy Muruga in the South. Who is not only very cute, but is like Krishna, but is also a student, but is also looking like the Kubera that looked like Vishnu, but who is very sweet but also the God of War. Today He is the Superstar in the South, but barely found in the North where the closest thing is Krishna who is barely found in the South today.

* Nandi. Very traditional. DEEP roots. The Bull. When I see Nandi, I ALWAYS think South. There is nothing quite as traditonal as Nandi. Way, way back. South. Deep South. Deep roots. Nandi sits. And waits. For Shiva.

All very interesting!

I know a lot about Kashi Varanasi. I know newer temples, and very old ones, temples which were build on top of temples. Shiva rules Kashi. But there is a place where there was once probably the oldest temple of all.

But oddly - it was to Gopala. A Cowherd. In other words... to Krishna. Who held up a mountain. Interesting.

I had a Supervisor who thought I was the greatest person alive. He told me how he found an ancient Lingam... on Mission Peak in Fremont, California. I saw the picture he showed me. It was without question a Lingam. Black. VERY old. Big one, about two feet. How the hell it got buried on Mission Peak, the hell if I know.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
By the african phenotype, if you mean that of dark complexion, you can see that the vast majority of north Indians are still dark-skinned. In ancient times too Rama, Bharata, Krishna, Abhimanyu, Drona, Draupadi, Arjuna has been also mentioned to be of dark complexion.
I never said African phenotype. You need to understand the difference. It is a bit complicated. :)

"Ancestral South Indians (ASI) which is clearly distinct from ANI (Ancestral North Indian) and "not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent." According to Basu et al. (2016), the ASI are earliest settlers in India, possibly arriving on the southern exit wave out of Africa."
Peopling of India - Wikipedia
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
I never said African phenotype. You need to understand the difference. It is a bit complicated. :)

"Ancestral South Indians (ASI) which is clearly distinct from ANI (Ancestral North Indian) and "not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent." According to Basu et al. (2016), the ASI are earliest settlers in India, possibly arriving on the southern exit wave out of Africa."
Peopling of India - Wikipedia

Yeah, as I was saying in the debate thread, which has not really had many takers. The genetic evidence clearly suggests the ASI were the early migrants from Africa into India, and hence why South Indians in general have features closer to Africans than Caucasians. However, I also think the evidence suggests that the ANI genotype ALSO developed in India as well, and from the ANI the later Caucasians emerged. The genetic studies clearly show us in terms mDNA studies there is no difference between ASI and ANI, they both are indigenous to India.

In a sense the genetic evidence is clearly telling us the Caucasians migrated from out of India, but when this happened, is far more earlier than IVC, it is some 50,000 years ago. This provokes questions, at least for me, is this the point when PIE left from India and the IE languages proliferated throughout Indo-Europe? This would imply that 50,000 years ago relatively advanced civilisation developed in India that developed a sophisticated and complex language like PIE. However, if true, where is the evidence for this civilisation?
 
Top