Sunday, April 27, 2014

The Status of the Aryan Invasion Theory in academic circles today

The Status of the Aryan Invasion Theory in Academic Circles

This is a short post on the status of the 'Aryan Invasion Theory' today in academic circles. Based on my frequent interactions with interested folks on Twitter I've come to understand that there is a lot of confusion regarding the status of the AIT. Some believe the AIT has been proven false while others believe just the opposite. Some of them also claim that the AIT problem will not be solved until the Indus script is deciphered. I will now attempt to clear the confusion.

The 'Aryan Invasion Theory' was rechristened the 'Aryan Migration Theory' in 1995 since there was no archaeological evidence for an invasion. The AMT, as it is now known, is purely a problem of linguistics and not caste/race/ethnicity. There are similarities in the languages of Northern India, Iran, Europe and Central Asia. The question is 'How'?

Lets hear from Hans Henrich Hock who is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Sanskrit at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

At 5:30 (Part 1) he says 'The issue is much more difficult to figure out. I'm always amazed by people who on one side or another have this very clear view that they know the truth. I think we have to take this basically as a scientific issue where we have to judge which is the best hypothesis. And that doesn't mean that it is the absolute truth because we can't go back in time.'

So, Hans Henrich Hock, who basically works within the 'AMT' paradigm says (above) that the issue is extremely difficult to solve. Yet there are folks around (on social media which is where I get to interact with them) with no background in linguistics or anything to do with the AMT for that matter who're cocksure about the validity of a migration into India. Then there are those who say the 'AMT' is dead. This is only partially true. The AMT is dead in  the sense that it has nothing working for it. Be it the study of linguistics, genetics, archaeology or anthropology - no scientific field of study has been able to lend credence to the AMT so far.  But the theory is still alive and kicking in academic circles. We'll see why.

Genetics supports an Out of India migration
Lets listen in to Hans Hock again. At 9:38 (Part 1) he says 'Whatever mixture there is of genome and other traits in S. Asia has been that way for the last 20,000 - 40,000 years. There is also some indication that actually there was a migration out of the Greater South Asian area through Central Asia and then into Europe'.

A show on genetics 'Solving History with Olly Steeds' on the Discovery Channel also rubbished any support for the AIT/AMT.

In an open letter to the Sanskrit Professor at Harvard University, Michael Witzel, Greek Sanskrit Scholar Nicholas Kazanas writes the following 'I note you have now stopped referring to Genetics and gene flow, as you did some years back, since this area no longer holds hopes for the mainstream view and shows that the movement is Out of India'. Professor Witzel is well known in academic circles as a fundamentalist AMT propagandist. Do read the entire letter to get a glimpse of what sort of a person Witzel really is. 

Linguistic Fraud by the AIT propagandists
This section is the most crucial in the entire presentation because the fraudulent approach to linguistics by traditional AMT propagandists will be exposed here. Since the AMT issue is fundamentally a problem of linguistics an endorsement by this branch of study would be decisive. 

In a paper titled 'Commentary on Kazanas' Semantics of the Indo-Aryan Controversy', Spanish linguist Xaverio Ballester exposes the fundamentalism that has crept into the Indo-Aryan problem. 

Quoting his paper (first paragraph) 'As Kazanas (Nicholas) properly points out the subject has become already a kind of linguistic dogma dating from the mid 19th century since nowadays evidences from Archaeology, Anthropology, Genetics, Literature and Linguistics support only indigenism (Out of India) '.

Here comes the absolutely crucial part. On Page 31 (there are only 6 pages in the entire paper) of the same paper Xaverio details how fraudulent AMT propagandists like Michael Witzel reject the obvious and real explanations because it does not support their AMT propaganda and cook up their own version of linguistics.

Quoting from Page 31 (there are only 6 pages in the entire paper) of the same paper.

One of these arguments directly concerns the language: the apparent archaic nature of Sanskrit. A feature that - as Kazanas correctly points out is clearly visible, for example, in the vocal-ism of this language with it's six historical phonemes: /a i u a: i: u:/. As most other Indo-European languages also display /e/ and /o/ as vocalic phonemes, one must explain this divergence through one of these main two possibilities:

1. Sanskrit exhibits a more ancient vocalic phase, where /e/ and /o/ have not been developed yet. Indeed the [e] and [o] are emerging in Sanskrit mainly as a result of /ai/ and /au/.

2. The vocalism of both Sanskrit and the other Indo-European languages is not the ancient one but a third one which is not represented in any Indo-European language.

As a result of the comparison with many parallel situations in other historical languages, the only obvious and real explanation can be the first one. Because of the archaic pattern of the major historic Aryan language, Sanskrit, the required late arrival of the Indo-Europeans in the far east does not fit very well. Thus, traditional theory chooses the second option and therefore posts a completely fictitious phonemic pattern based on some pure theoretical monstrosities called Laryngeals, a sort of a specimen that is neither a vowel nor a consonant but..all the opposite. To sum up, a kind of phonemes that is not documented in any historical or real language. With this subtle strategy, traditional theory keeps the uncomfortable archaising character of Sanskrit away.


Linguistics provides 100% support to the 'Out of India' theory which is why frauds like Michael Witzel ignore the real and obvious explanations by constructing and making use of fictitious linguistic constructs which have now been exposed and are out in the public domain.

One of the linguistic posits of the AMT is that the Avesta is older than the Rig Veda. Nicholas Kazanas shows in his brilliant presentation yet again step by step how traditionalists manipulate the science of linguistics to favor their utterly ridiculous theories - Vedic and Avestan by Nicholas Kazanas No one has been able to challenge Nicholas Kazanas yet. Instead many Indologists like Xaverio Ballester have come out against AMT traditionalist like Witzel whose core competency lies in manipulating evidence and verbally abusing those who disagree with him and his ilk.

Another major linguistic argument is the Isogloss. An isogloss is an area within which all languages develop certain common features. A book by Shrikant Talageri in 2008 has shown that Saptasindhu fits best as the homeland from which all these isoglosses spread and developed. Again no one has been able to challenge Srikant yet. Nicholas Kazanas will soon be publishing a paper to show how only Saptasindhu fits best as the homeland from which all these isoglosses developed. As an exercise, search (CTRL+F) for 'Evidence of the Isogloss' in this book by Shrikant Talageri and read the entire section to understand how AMT folks manipulate the science of linguistics to suit their needs. You'll find a lot of linguistic jargon which you can skip  (unless you're a linguist) to focus on the English text.

These excellent video presentations below by eminent scholar Shrikant Talageri are a must watch if one wishes to cover the entire spectrum of the linguistic, textual and archaeological arguments.

Aryan Invasion Theory - Shrikant Talageri - Part 1

Aryan Invasion Theory - Shrikant Talageri - Part 2

Out of India Theory - Chronology of the Rig Veda

Indus Script
We do not know what language the Indus script represents yet because the script has so far not been deciphered. There is more than enough evidence out there to show that the Harappans were Vedic. Here are a few - Why perpetuate myths? & The Rig Veda is pre-Harappan

The AMT has almost collapsed in academic circles in the West as the interview with Hans Hock above demonstrated. It is only a matter of time before the truth is out and that is the migration was from India to Central Asia, Iran and Europe.

Recommended Reading
Brilliant research by Professor Nicholas Kazanas on Indology
Brilliant research by Srikant Talageri 

- Amit



    1. Great link. This intercontinental genetic study proves without doubt the 'Out of India' migration and nullifies the 'Aryan Migration Theory'