If you like this video, you might also like: THE AGE OF INDIA'S OLDEST BOOK: th-cam.com/video/ZvTlJDWG0lM/w-d-xo.html WHEN DID SANSKRIT APPEAR IN INDIA: THE GENETIC EVIDENCE th-cam.com/video/NQX5LlJ7YXg/w-d-xo.html DWARKA: THE SUNKEN CITY OF KRISHNA th-cam.com/video/5cX_IF5YFo4/w-d-xo.html
i wonder why similar invasion theory didnt hold much of the same effect it did have on harapans as it didnt on elam civilization before iranian plateu became what it is why did iranians invasion theory was much more coexistance and borrowing from settled civilization than the ecological collapse in harrapens case or bmac civilization where its believed to be the first iranian settlement begining to get stronger as bmac grows weaker as a result of climate change etc
Thanks for the video. Please note that the current researchers in India lack credibility due to the political environment in the country. You have earlier done an episode on someone who claims to be an expert on this topic although his actual field of expertise is something else. But there is another real geneticist who is doing severe damage to science - Niraj Rai. He is a completely confused person now - trying hard but failing to balance between the real science of his profession and the pseudo-science of the ultra-right.
You should read more. Read the decipherment of the Harappan script by Yajnadevam. He showed how the Harappan script can be read with Classical Sanskrit and how Brahmi came from the Harappan script.
@@mallarghosh6915 Has Yajnadevam published his work in any peer-reviewed journal of repute? Or is it another Whatsapp University research meant only for brain-washed Indians? Unless one's work is peer-reviewed by international experts in the field, it becomes only pseudo-science.
You should read kalibanga, ahar, ganeshwar, bairath civilisations. These all are near sarswati river (now invisible) in Rajasthan. These all are older more than indus valley civilisation. These all are in Rajasthan (Indian state) history. Aryan are more older than indus valley civilisation. All above civilizations( indus valley civilisation not mentioned)are mentioned in Mahabharat. In Mahabharat india is called as aryavrat (land of Aryans) .
honesty as an indian i don't care aryans were outsiders or not , every race in modern day is mixed and migration happend and is happening always. in pure sense you can say everyone outside of Africa is outsider settlers, because homo sapiens originated in Africa and migrated outwards. our indian race has it's own unique mixture of aryan-Dravidian-austric-mongoloid groups and i am proud of this unique genetic and cultural identity
You are proud of some accidental genetic mix? I am proud of the "current" younger generation of Americans (mosly urban) who are consciously discarding race, religion, language and gender based prejudices. These kids are one of the unique progressive generation we might see. I wish we raise our kids in India in a similar way.
I agree. I am what I consider typically British. My paternal grandfather was an Irish immigrant to England. His wife was native. My maternal line invludes a Polish man said to be a Romany gypsy but his trade was common among Polish Jews. His wife was Irish. My son's paternal grandfather was half Scottish, half Italian. His wife was Irish. My son married a woman with a Turkish father and English/Irish mixed mother. So my grandsons have Irish, English, Italian, Scottish and more distant Polish bloodlines. I think that, like with other animals, mixed heritage is healthier, not just physically but mentally. Also children and grandchildren inherit the drive that led their ancestors to uproot and emigrate for a better life.
agreed but everyone should be aware and appreciate their heritage. Simple principal: be proud for your own people, and love all other people who love you back (NOT who don't) @@capt.bart.roberts4975
@@suryadevararao1795 oh boy there are plenty like that in India, but honestly left leaning worldview doesn't guarantee rationality i can assure you 😂. And you misunderstood the meaning of my usage of the word "proud" . proud doesn't necessarily mean i feel my people are superior, just love and appreciation for my identity.
I was shocked when I found out there's a whole batshit crazy group of Indians who think that basically everything was invented in India, or by Indians, and the rest of the world are inferior subhumans. It's nice to know it's not just we white people who have crazy racist relatives.
Agreed. I am old. From the days we used log books as small calculators didnt exist. 😅 but I love modern tech. So many younger than I get conned into the negativity so loved by the media. They dont realise that way back some thought that reading would lead to blindness and thay if women were educated their minds would collapse and they would go mad. 😂😂
@@MoreSantosh that is how science works. Through criticism. Science is not a subject. Science is methodology to study a particular subject. The methodologies are always imperfect. And it is criticism of the older researchers by new researchers that has led us to come here where we are today technologically. Einstein criticised newton that is why quantum physics was developed. If by your logic newton could not have been criticised by any younger generation then there would never be any development. So yes she can teach to an experienced researcher. She is also working on the field. And if as a scientist you start shutting people up just because they are junior to you, at that time you stop becoming a scientist and become just another civilian with fragile ego.
Great video! This is an excellent topic to tackle. I want to see more of this kind of stuff, not just in India, but everywhere where modern beliefs (cultural, economic, religious, political, etc) feel the need to intrude and take precedence (for whatever reason) over the objective reality of the past.
Representing a horse and domesticating a horse are two quite different things. At Chauvet, representations of horses date to 36 000 years ago, but they weren't domesticated....
@@RojaJaneman proving what? Again: what are you talking about? My comment was about ancient representations of horses. Have you read my comment, or perhaps are you answering someone else?
But if they are represented surely humans interacted with the horses in some way there could have some sort of domestication of horse much earlier that we think not saying it's true just speculating
@@petrapetrakoliou8979 aren't there depictions of Humans on horses, I mean what do you call domestication if it isn't a man riding on a horse like creature.
@@saheellodhia270there are no riders in paleolithic cave depictions of horses. Nobody thinks that horses were domesticated before the Neolithic or perhaps even after. They were hunted: you find their bones on the Gravettian sites. Many animals like horses had a long existence as game before getting domesticated. Representing a horse does not mean you are used to riding on it.
I feel the guest didn't quite articulate this well, but South Indian/Dravidian nationalism is all in on the Aryan Invasion Theory because it supports their narrative of imperialist subjugation by Northerners who aren't "native", unlike Dravidians. Brahmins, like myself, are also considered Aryan invaders and oppressors in this logic. Thus, the Brahmin population is generally more in support of Hindu nationalism and the OI theory.
Did you even watch the video? There is no such thing as the Aryan Invasion Theory in modern times. And you shouldn't let politics determine what you accept or reject from science.
@brucetucker4847 And you didn't read my comment at all. I simply said that Dravidian nationalists wholeheartedly endorse an Aryan Invasion Theory for their own agenda. Not that such a thing is a well-supported scholarly theory. You are the one who clearly missed the entire conversation because both Dr. Miano and his guest repeated that the Aryan Invasion Theory still has plenty of currency in mainstream Indian society.
Don’t you think the theory that the Indo-European language originated in Russia is somewhat half-baked? Recent studies suggest that the Indo-European language originated in western Iran. Genetic studies have discovered a Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers component that spread to the steppe and a similar Iranian Neolithic component (in the Zagros) that spread eastward. This component was found in Bronze Age Anatolia without steppe ancestry. The Yamnaya were roughly 1/3 CHG or Iran_Neolithic. Iran_Neolithic ancestry comprises 40-60% of all modern Indians. Don’t you think Iranian Neolithic farmers migrated toward Russia around 7,000-8,000 years ago, forming the Yamnaya culture? Perhaps these people originated from Mehrgarh or Bhirrana in the Indian subcontinent, as India and Iran were better suited for human settlement 10,000 years ago than Russia, which experienced a cold and temperate climate heavily influenced by the last Ice Age. The cow is significant in Indo-Aryan culture. The Indo-Europeans were central to the domestication of the bull/cow, the invention of the wheeled wagon, dairying practices, and milk consumption. However, the cow was domesticated in the Indus Valley Civilization over 9,000 years ago and in Anatolia separately. If one believes the steppe people domesticated the horse and then entered India, this migration never affected the genetic lineage of Indian cow breeds. Cattle genetics conclusively prove that no admixture of Taurine cattle into India has ever occurred. It seems silly to think that Indo-Aryans came to India without a single cow. If we look at Russia, the Proto-Uralic language formed around the same time as the Indo-European language in relatively close proximity without any connection between them. In the Caucasus region or near the Black Sea, there are unrelated Kartvelian languages that formed around the same time or earlier than Indo-European. Do you think the Burushaski language in northern Pakistan might be related to a pre-Proto-Indo-European language, given that haplogroup R2 is significantly present among the Burusho people? Haplogroup R2 is estimated to have emerged around 15,000 years ago, likely in the Indian subcontinent, while R1 originated in Central Asia and R itself in West and South Asia. It seems likely that the Indo-European language originated in Iran, the Indus Valley, or the BMAC culture.
That's a strawman. Hindus don't need to their civilization to be older than 3000-4000 years to feel proud about it. It's not like most other civilization/nations have even that long of a continuity
@@someone-w9n A lot of the Bible's history isn't fiction. There was an Assyrian king named Sennacherib (Sîn-ahhī-erība) and he did besiege Jerusalem and he did fail to capture it, we confirmed that in modern times from Assyrian sources. I imagine the same is true for Hindu scriptures. The trouble, of course, is that in the absence of outside corroboration you have no way of knowing which parts contain fact and which don't.
Love the video and it was wonderful to hear from Disha. I am fascinated by Harrappan Civilization and always look forward to new discoveries. Thank you
I visited Bhimbetka caves recently. It's a stunning place to visit, with narrow paths snaking through large imposing boulders in the middle of a conserved tropical forest. However, I was very disappointed by the widespread depiction of horses and even people riding horses. I went there with the impression that the paintings were prehistoric, but the horses would automatically date it to after say 1000 BC, with sign-boards around the place claiming even more recent dates. However, if you know what to look for, you will be able to spot older red ochre paintings which are pretty faded now, where animal depictions favour other non-equestrian indigenous species. So it is indeed a prehistoric site, but seems to have been continuously occupied, with much of the older stuff mostly degraded, and more recent paintings showing the change in animal populations.
@@andreamessiasgomes7118 who will decide what's the fact and how? New findings are proving out of India theory, and they're still into dead AIT theory.
15:50 she is completly wrong dravidian movement and demand for seprate nation was started in south north has nothing to do with it. She is a great lier i can point out thousands of her lies in this video. Ask her to proof that this aryan and dravidan was started by north indians, this north south was srated by a south indian Periyar.
Well you are also wrong. Dravidian movement started by periyar has nothing to do with the north and south division. That was all about elimination of caste oppression, which is unfortunately still prevalent in india. Just extra information: Learn about recent archeological excavation on keezhadi and adhichnallur nera south india
Romans build Roman empire, but steepe people created Indian civilization. That seems like Europeans & Iranians want to claim Indian civilization, even though Vedas was written in India, even says Aryans were living in-between areas of Himalayas & Indian Ocean. There is no denying we have conmon ancestors but stop claiming Aryan lineage. Never seen Indians claiming Persian or Roman empire. Don't forget early Indo Europeans from Europe were not civilized unlike their Indian cousins.
@@tsMuthuraman-hm6wg how did nepalis became hindu? Through race? Hindus invaded not aryan the white love to lie they lie over Alexander's conquest similarly
8:48 Every single online self proclaimed expert, debater and internet troll needs to read all 9 of these points over and over again. I think you listed and explained them so well to the point that simply addressing these points is enough for so many misinformed people to understand what they got wrong. Ive seen propagandists from both sides of this argument and its gradually getting more absurd. Ive seen both:- 1. Europeans conquered and invaded India and civilised the Indians and created the Indus Valley Civilisation And 2. Indians left India and invaded and violently replaced the natives in Europe and influenced early European culture. Both are obviously wildly inaccurate and unhinged and just puts a sour taste in the mouths of anyone who genuinely wants to learn more.
@@bobbykiefer4306They weren’t European. The european identity didn’t exist back then and they came from a mix of the Caucasus hunter gatherers who were most closely related to Iranian Hunter Gatherers, who went into India around 8-10k years ago and contributed significantly to Indian ancestry, and the Eastern European Hunter Gatherers which diverged from Western Eurasians (the ancestor of the majority of the lineages which led to modern Middle Eastern and European peoples) around 38k years ago (eastern eurasians as a whole diverged from WE around 42-45k years ago), and are also most closely related to Native Americans, certain Siberian peoples, and the extinct Botai culture in central asia, so they are neither closely related to the early european farmers, who contribute up to 70% of the ancestry of southern european people from portugal to greece, or the western european hunter gatherers who’s ancestry survives in if i remember correctly up to 40% in baltic peoples. The Proto Indo European people did form in Eastern Europe so by geography that makes them a population which _formed_ in what we now call europe, but back then it was not considered europe and the populations which made the PIE are more related to non european populations. The reason I think this information is worth focusing on is because a lot of people think the Proto Indo European theory is an attempt to try to claim asian cultures as coming from a “noble white race” who came from a population similar to modern europeans when factually speaking that is incorrect.
@@Rudol_Zeppilithis isn't an accurate account of the genetic data. EHG are not very similar to native Americans or eastern Siberians, they are by far most closely related to Europeans. Proto-indo-europeans don't primarily descend from Iranian hunter gatherers.
@@alexdunphy3716 EHG are not similar to the East Eurasian component to Native Americans but they certainly are to the ANE component in Native American genetics which makes up to a maximum of 30-40% of their ancestry, while ANE components make up around 70% of their DNA of the EHG scanned and fairly close to half of the DNA of Yamnaya remains. (Though the EHG were noted to have around 9.4% east asian derived dna by the study “Bronze age Northern Eurasian genetics in the context of development of metallurgy and Siberian ancestry“.) Your exact point is why I mentioned the Botai Culture and not just Native Americans, as the Botai remains had around 80% ancestry from the ANE if i remember correctly. Modern European populations only have a maximum of 20% ANE DNA according to the study “Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans” by Lazaridis et al., so the EHG ancestry they do have is much less, at most 28.5% assuming the proportion of WHG & ANE DNA the EHG had remained proportionally constant (which likely isn’t the case but it’s the best approximation I can make without a study that shows how much EHG DNA they have rather than just ANE DNA). Another thing I should note about that study is that it’s from 2014 so perhaps the techniques it’s using are not as accurate as more modern 2024-2025 studies, so I will try to present a modern study if I can find one. Also the CHG are closely related to Iranian Hunter Gatherers, recent studies such as “The Persian plateau served as hub for Homo Sapiens after the main out of Africa dispersal” by Vallini et al. show/claim that CHG come from the WEC2 population that stayed in Iran as the WEC (Kostenki-14) split off from it and expanded into regions such as Europe.
@@bobbykiefer4306no . You should read kalibanga, ahar, ganeshwar, bairath civilisations. These all are near sarswati river (now invisible) in Rajasthan. These all are older more than indus valley civilisation. These all are in Rajasthan (Indian state) history. Aryan are more older than indus valley civilisation. All above civilizations( indus valley civilisation not mentioned)are mentioned in Mahabharat. In Mahabharat india is called as aryavrat (land of Aryans) .
While you say World Scholarship does not accept Aryan Invasion.... I watched an in depth video on Indian DNA that covered all groups an in that video they explicitly show the evidence that it did happen, and how the caste system stopped the genetic mixing.
Listen to the archaeologist. Even she is denying the white man's over simplistic analysis.Look how the white man tried to say that it is indus valley and not indus - saraswati but the archaelogist explains correctly that it is not limited to the indus. These youtubers have no knowledge. They just regurgitate pop things
ശശി video കണ്ടോ😅 . The video accepts origin of Vedas in India, existence of Saraswati which are the main pts of Hindu nationalists and categorically denies Marxist and Dravidian's Aryan Invasion Theory.
@@Anomander5622the "youtuber" is a PhD in ancient history, specialising in the regions of near east and India, has several publications to his name and has been an academic for many years. Disha Ahluwalia herself said that Harappan civilization is the more appropriate term instead of IVC or indus-saraswati civilization, to which Dr Maino agreed. Were you even listening to what they were talking about or did you get distracted by some shiny object in your vicinity?
Thank you, thank you, thank you for finally settling my confusion about Harappan vs Indus Valley Civilization. I had thought that the discovery of Mohenjo-Daro was what made Harappan obsolete, and I hadn't even taken into consideration that finds were also located in Pakistan, Afghanistan and, possibly, in Iranian Baluchistan. I was more aware of the decline of respectability of the Aryan Invasion theory, and had heard some religious/pseudoscience "out of India" notions. AFAIK, the Indo-European "homeland" has sometimes been suggested as in or near Kazakhstan. Thanks, Professor Miano, [PS my autocorrect keeps telling me that your name is really Milano] for another fascinating and thought provoking video.
The Indo-European homeland is a place where oak, ash and beech trees grew since there are common indo-european words for these plants. There are no Beech trees beyond the Ural mountains, therefore the language developed at least partially in Europe
@@ΕρνέστοςΣμίθ They did migrate around quite a lot, think the current theory is that they started somewhere in northern Mesopotamia. Considering the commonality with more eastern Indo-European languages, and Proto-Indo-Aryan word borrowed into the Finno-Urgic languages (though not the opposite), The early Proto-Indo-Aryan speakers would've probably spread from far eastern Europe and far eastern Asia considering who we know who they interacted with and are more closely linguistically "related" to. Think there's some material evidence that points to that, but obviously material evidence don't show what language they spoke.
I think aryan and Dravidian issues is like Anglican and Welsh. Brittons ruled Britain, then anglos came, Britton who remained true to their culture became Welsh and moved to extremities of island, most Britons adapted anglo ways and became english, later remaining welsh also adopted english influences, similarly aryan came into proto Dravidian/post ivc people and converted them or influenced them, whatever, and some Dravidian moved south and later they also got aryanised. India is called jambudwipa i.e, Island of the jambu(🫐 berry) grove, welsh means outsiders or barbarians in english, similarly melachha(ivc malluha) became outsiders or barbarians in aryan culture. Parallels are fascinating.
@@narutouzumaki2157 To welch is a verb meaning to fail to keep a promise or pay off a debt, the personal noun is welcher. I wonder if this is related to your analysis.
@JMM33RanMA maybe, but i think something like maluha was the original name of civilization or people who lived in settlements and aryan morphed that name into malechha to degrade it's meaning like nowadays many dumb people call rajpoots Mughalpoot or other indentor names that are morphed to degrade it's meaning. Idk what's the actual correct meaning of the word malechha, i think it means mal+ echha or mal ki terah ke log, maybe skin se sambandhit tippani h sakti h.
just a curious question - Did not once the AIT an accepted and peer-reviewed theory by academics which is still influencing many disclosures in this debate? It could be possible that the current AMT should be wrong as well? it is possible. Also, it is also interesting to notice that the Aryan discussions is only happening in and about India, not in any places they might have originated from or the places on the migration route like Iran.
@@WorldofAntiquity thanks for the response. I am not sure what basis those times academics decided the validity of AIT which is more or less the same amount of proof OIT folks are putting forward. My point is, that the whole AIT or AMT is still carrying the colonial baggage and in my layman's eyes, I still see a lot of pushback from the western scholars. It is even puzzling that most of the school history books in the world carry AIT nonsense, which I am not sure how much academics are fighting to eradicate. I love this channel and on history, I can always rely upon it.
@@wehh The seriousnouss of an archaeologist can be measured on how unsure he is about Indo-European origins. More they are sure, more they tend to be amateurs, albeit sometimes sitting in university cathedras.
@@wehh True. Both sides only have theories and minimal proof but the western historians seem to have a chip on their shoulder. BTW, everyone disagrees with the AIT - it's just that the western historians renamed it to AMT, while the indigeneous Aryanism folks (OIT Indians) say that both Aryan invasion/migration circa 1200 BCE are hogwash.
Thank you so much brother and sister! I’m glad as a Brazilian this information is available for me in the tip of my fingers Learning a lot from your channel, please keep it up 🤍
I have heard your argument and to be fair your argument was weak in terms of proving any aryan migration. You argument of calling rig vedic society as a society primarily involved in horse breeding is false. There are multiple things to point out in your argument but it is difficult to write long comment(with a lot of passion). The point is rig vedas do mention many different animals apart from the horse, horse is important as it is a metaphor for elegance, virility, power, speed and regality. It isn’t the most sacred animal, zebu cattle(native to India) is, black buck(native: India) is even more sacred as it’s grazing grounds denotes the land fit for vedic ritual and worship. Linguistic evidences suggests that rig veda was written over hundreds of year if not thousands. One can linguistically create a chronology of rig vedic mandalas. Rig vedas have no memory of being outside the indian land they mention saraswati as a roaring wide river not possible in 2000BC. The older manadals talk about saraswati whereas newer mandalas go deeper into the gangetic plains and then again back to the indus saraswati plain. Mahabharta which is the later vedic period mentions saraswati drying up and not reaching the sea which balaram notices. Earlier there were no traces of the grand mighty and most important river saraswati hence people believed that so called aryans might have come from a different place but now with ample scientific evidence one can pinpoint the channel of the saraswati along the vedic description of the geography. Moreover saraswati dried up during later vedic age while in the early vedic period it was ‘roaring’ and flowing with a great strength. Now we also have evidences from the mittani kingdom they are clearly later rigveic people based on the mention of lingusic evidences such as names which have clear later rigvedic Identity. They are dated as 1500-1300 BC it is widely accepted rig veda can not be later than that. It is alo important to not saraswati dried up in 1900bc and completely dried up by 1500bc in any case if the aryan arrived and settled in India they have to be here before 1900bc to have seen saraswati as a perennial river. and have to write vedas as well in sanskrit. Now to keep aryans away from the Harrapan debate one has to date them after 1900 bc as the excepted dating for the decline of the harrapan civilization which is not possible. The BIGEST PROBLEM is that the rigvedas define their geography as Sapta sindhu the exact geography of the Harrapan civilisation. If both of them were living in the same area why is there no archeological evidence of migration and why is there no evidence of different group of people living in the same geography in vedic literature especially when they had such a grand civilisation? And if they came around 1900bc and wrote rigveda in 100 years why you see lingustic differences between early and later rigvedic mandalas which shows development over centuries and even the earliest ones are pointing to indian geography. It is very very difficult to prove the migration theory through linguistic and archeological data. Indians never claimed we came from outside or our languages came from outside. The scholars who claim this the onus is on them to prove their theory first. They can untill they omit things here and there. Also rigveda is important as the migration theory bases its claim on the fact that there is similarity between the vedic language and the european languages. Rigveda is the sources of greater culture of ancient India. Never ever in history anyplace else this has been the case that a language which comes from outside completely replaces the existing language without any trace of the vocabulary of the earlier languages Rigvedic sanskrit has in total 40 odd words which come allegedly from dravidian and munda in total. Without replacing the population in majority a handful of foreign group of people without invading and capturing anything completely replaced the existing culture as well as language. How stupid that sounds. There are thousands of other arguments. I wont say harrapan civilization is vedic as I can not prove that conclusively without a widely accepted decipherment of it’s script. But I can not certainly say that some aryan people migrated into india and made everyone vedic and sanskrit speaking all at once. You need to know veda to even discuss this argument and most historians don’t. Most archeologists don’t And even your guest certainly rejected a cultural discontinuity and mass migration making your defence of AIM even weaker. Plase be more open and sensitive to this discussion rather than riding the high horse. One more thing AIM is not a new theory it is a reduction and diluyion of Aryan invasion myth. Hence you can not call it completely free from the already set bias of Aryan invasion as it reduces it’s stance to migration (because absence of any evidence of invasion whatsoever) without changing any other pillars of the theory. And essentially continuing with a refined stance of migration rather than a relook. Can add tons of argument some strong some weak but this is already too long.
Aryan indegnious to india is a far right political policy, it's like afrocentrics or hebrew archeology.. all are juat nonsensical political psuedohistory.
@miltonbates6425 totally missed OUT OF INDIA ancient Harappan writings all over OMAN, SUSA, Afganistan, Halifa ship tin ingots with indus Harappan inscriptions
She gives contradictory statements. At one place she says there was no break in continuity but admits that Harappan cities declined suddenly and the new cities that came up did not use Harappan style, architecture, bricks or layouts.
She is a confused person. He should have had a more seasoned senior archaeologist. By the way, while the Harappan civilization declined, it merely reverted to pre-mature period regionalisation phase. Settlements became smaller and there is a decline of sophistication. These are the changes. Yet it was still the same culture that existed from early Harappan period. There is no proof of any foreign culture intruding and there is ZERO artefact from the steppe. So there is no proof for the Aryan migration theory in the archaeological record.
The only thing confuses me is that Rigveda and also Mahabharata mentions saraswati river as large roaring one with full of water running parallel to Indus. But then we don't find saraswati anywhere today except some Geological traces with small hakkar ghagra river which is supposed to be saraswati. Geological and Archeological excavations suggest that Saraswati river dried out 2000-3000 BC, Then how came Aryans wrote so much about it in detail even before they came to India. Also they gave utmost importance to the Saraswati more than Ganges, Indus or any other river. Why would anyone gave that much importance to a river which has already dried out or drying out in front you. That really confuses me. And I'm a buyer of Saraswati and haraxwati sh*t. As the Nadistuti hymn of Rigveda 10.75 clearly mentions Saraswati to be flowed between sutluj and Yamuna. And all the rivers in West to East order in which they flow. Only confusion is If Saraswati dried out or almost about to dry 4000 years ago then how came Aryans wrote a full literature about her.
Yes. They must hv come long back. How long, is yet to be found out. 1. It is sheer foolish to assume nomadic people came from outside, got enlightened overnight and produced phenomenal philosophical texts. 2. It must hv been a gradual revelation happened over a period of time. Rigbeda itself has mandalas composed during diff periods 3. The sheer Volume of the texts running to couple of lakhs of slokas could not hv been composed in the 1500 - 500 BCE period.
Also your pet archaeologist is dead wrong about the origin of politics surrounding the Aryan migration. The Aryan/Dravidian separate race/religion theory started in the second half of the 1800s by Christian missionaries in the South. It was picked up by Dravidian politicians and 'social reformers' in the early 1900s (in 1 out of 5 Dravidian states in south). The entire mess if the result of Protestant Christian evangelists trying to cretae a fertile ground for their nefarious activities. Indigenous vs non-indigenous, tribal vs non tribal, this caste vs that caste, South vs North, Aryan vs Dravidian.
Yes. Before the evil missionaries, there was no evil in India, oops, BHARAT😂😂😂 no caste hatred, caste based ra*es, infact no rap*s in BHARAT. SUPERPOWER SAAAAAR. BEST CULTURE IN THE WORLD SAAAAAAAARRRRRRR.
Lot of love from kerala india 🇮🇳 But i think she is completly wrong south is very distinct within The tamil chavanists are extremly xenophobic to all other states and theur politics are extemly xenophobic and erase all characters with sanskrit influence there was dravidian nationalist movement which was a seperatist terrorist movement
Don't throw words around idiot. We Tamils are not chauvinists nor we are xenophobic. Their is no sanskrit in Tamil nor is it in indus valley civilzation. sanskrit came from outside india. Not Tamil. your glazing up sanskrit because you think it has some influence in your language want to be aryan so bad. Please talk properly without throwing around words. If we were that xenophobic we wouldn't have allowed a mallu like mgr to become cm in our state.
@plazmagaming2182 then nothing wrong with purifying minorities of Islam and Christianity and convert then to hidnusim and buddhism using state funds how does that sound to u Can't show hypocrisy both is same thing Tamil elites imposing their version of xenophobic tamil to the entire state dictating how ppl should walk think is xenophobic imo
@@plazmagaming2182 there is a thin line , old kings of south weather from Chola , Chera , Pandya etc. all who built monuments try to add sanskrit and their native(as there are multiple) for ex. temples, structures have instructions , or let us say historic text both in sanskrit and native .
@@memesins5647Say with proof. Now, if we had continuous occupation, then the river would have been referred to by the same name. So either we had a) Continuous civilization and the river was not called Saraswati Or, b) The river was called Saraswati and the original civilization was lost, and the newer groups called the river Ghaggar and Hakra.
8:32 The Pontic Steppe is today considered European and Indo-Aryans specifically are now attached go not a direct Yamnaya origin but an indirect one, through Corded Ware which is even further West and North than the Pontic steppe.
As a south indian telugu(part of dravidian language family) speaking person i see in this 21st century my language is heavily influenced by english ...2nd wave of indoeuropian influence after 2000 years.😊 Wow so many comments.... We borrowed words like bus car rail pencil cake biscuit graph cricket
All languages in India have sanskrit influence. The term dravidian is not a race. It is direction. Aryans is not right word. It is aryavartha. Indians are aryavartha.
Where is the archiological evidence for the origin of a civilisation in the steppes which then spread to Europe and India? In the case of OIT, there is the archiological evidence in the form of 'Sindhu Saraswati' or Indus civilisation. Recently, strong evidence has been putforth showing the language behind the script in Indus seals was Sanskrit. Do you have a counter to Taligiri's analysis of Rigveda in this connection showing evidence for OIT?
Because nothing originated in the Steppes ever. The Arya only went to the Steppe later. The AIT is not true. Out of Aria( Thrace) is true. Sindhu comes from the Thracian Sintians. Sinti/Sindi in their language. There were several Thracian migrations to India by different Thracian tribes. One of them the Sinti, another the Brigi( Brighus) known as Phrygians.This the reason the Iliad and Mahabharata are similar. The same people (by origin) took part. Absolutely nothing "Greek" in the Iliad ,the Trojan war was between Thracians ( known to fight among themselves). AIT and OIT are equally wrong.
I think aryan and Dravidian issues is like Anglican and Welsh. Brittons ruled Britain, then anglos came, Britton who remained true to their culture became Welsh and moved to extremities of island, most Britons adapted anglo ways and became english, later remaining welsh also adopted english influences, similarly aryan came into proto Dravidian/post ivc people and converted them or influenced them, whatever, and some Dravidian moved south and later they also got aryanised. India is called jambudwipa i.e, Island of the jambu(🫐 berry) grove, welsh means outsiders or barbarians in english, similarly melachha(ivc malluha) became outsiders or barbarians in aryan culture. Parallels are fascinating.
Wondering if you've already done one, or if you plan to do a video deep dive into the Clovis and Pre-Clovis cultures. Hopefully a deep dive into origins, migrations, new fundings, old beliefs versus new and so on. 🦋
@helenamcginty4920 I'm not really sure. That's what I was hoping to find out. But alas, I fear yet another comment and question on this particular channel will go unseen.
The problem here is the special pleading. While yes, it's true that anthropologists have been aggressively de-emphasizing violent conflict in the past, especially involving population replacement events, this has gone way too far and become ideological. Since this movement in the 1970's-80's, genetic evidence has smashed much of this pollyanna thinking about the human past. The genetic markers in Europe suggest mass waves of population replacement occurred with suspiciously odd replacement of male genetic lineages, as if males were being eliminated and some females kept. Also, the changes are so total, that earlier populations seem to have been *wholly* replaced by newcomers. This has happened in Europe at least 3 times (European HG's, Neolithic/Anatolian farmers, and the Beaker People (likely Indo-Europeans). Given *** all *** of human history as we know it, it's absurd to dismiss violence as a major factor in past population replacements, ,but the ideological compulsion to do so still remains strong. But the obvious fact of these (likely quite violent) population replacements remains stubbornly difficult to ignore. Given the likely extremely violent nature of the extirpation of previous European populations by the Indo-Europeans, thinking that this happened happily and peacefully on the other end of the Indo-European chain in India is indicative of motivated reasoning.
Totally wrong Steppe hypothesis. Most migrations happened much before start of Neolithic in about 10000 BCE and at start of Neolithic 10000 to 7500 BCE.Vedic Aryas desribed perrenial river Saraswati, talked of elephant, peacock and spotted deer. And imported the horse.
i started laughing when you started telling the "points to remember" . i thought you must have read a lot and observed the indian society closely for explaining so much before going ahead.
You ask for things you could have mentioned towards the end: I think a dedicated video analyzing the various cultures believed or posited to be Indo-Aryan would be worth looking at. These are highly relevant to the question at hand: A review of the evidence dealing with Pre-Indo-Aryan cultures, or cultures associated with the Para-/Proto-Indo-Iranian world would be a good start (Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo-Balanovo, Abashevo, Srubnaya, Sintashta-Petrovka-Arkaim, Andronovo, Yaz). Then it would be worth looking at cultures in & around India and the arguments & narratives surrounding them: Swat, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard, Painted Grey Ware. Maybe there are others I don’t know about.
North-South division was started by the British/ CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES. North Indians were made to believe they were the lost cousins of White people hence they were superior. Rest of the division was TRIED TO achieve by communists who painted North Indians as the conquerors of south. For example, Hindu god Ram (dark colored!) was projected as someone who attacked demon Southern king Ravana born as a Brahmin! The lady is not convincing when comes to politics part. These days North-South division is a non-issue. Hindus across the spectrum has issues with the "Aryan Invasion theory" because of some silly interpretations of Vedas by the earlier scholars (Indra destroyed cities like Harappa, Agni has golden hair....may be like blond white people and Vedic Saraswati river is in Afghanistan). According to Shrikant Talageri, early Aryans in Rigveda's earliest mandalas were using bullock carts not horses. Based on Vedas he also interpreted the movement of Aryans was from east to west. He was offered a scholor position by some famous Indologist in West if he moderates his views and also he was discredited as a bank employee by Indian communists! I remember reading this in preface to his book ..History of Rigveda OR IN ONE OF HIS TALKS ONLINE. How about You interviewing Talageri for the oppsite view or the OIT? To me he looked a very simple and intelligent individual.
*North-South division was started by the British* That's what Disha said in the video. But she also said that it was Hindu nationalism that started before Dravidian nationalism. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. As soon as Talageri gets an article published in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal, I will be happy to interview him.
@@WorldofAntiquity To read and interpret a book like veda one doesn't have to be a historian or publish in journals. Moreover, Talageri's book quotes the published literature. Unfortunately such an outright rejection from your side supports the existing suspicion that only one view is promoted. Your's is a youtube channel not a peer reviewed website gives you the freedom to discuss different viewpoints( at least that is how I see it). You can question Shrikant on his views (provided he agrees) and put to rest such "non-peer" reviewed or may be... propagandist views if they are illogical. The other point is, after listening to him you may start thinking after all this alternative view point is not that baseless, Who knows? Dravidian nationalism and Hindu Nationalism are two different issues. Hindu nationalism did not call Dravidians not Hindus but the so called Dravidian nationalism treats Hinduism as its enemy and Tamil as the oldest language though 90% Dravidians were Hindus and respect Vedas ( South Indian Brahmins are well versed in almost all religion related Sanskrit literature. In fact it is Southern Indian Adi Shankara who defeated Buddhists through religious aguments and re-established Hindu prominence in India in 8 th century AD) until Christian missionaries started converting people (beginning mostly with the untouchables) in South India. These days may be 30% people are converted to Christianity besides the 5-10% Muslims that were converted few hundred years back.
@@WorldofAntiquity that’s not correct. The lady said the controversy was started by North Indians and the South is now retaliating. As an Indian from the South (so called Dravidian) I am telling you that statement made no sense! Dravidian nationalists had made this an issue long before Indias independence (Periyar lived before 1947) How did North Indians trigger these crazies? It was the British that promoted AIT dividing north and South Indians. Yes, North Indians were made to believe light skin is superior.
@@brucetucker4847 Yeah, they prolly migrated from India. Avesta also says that the Iranians had an original homeland called 'Aryanam Vajeh' and mentions the Saraswati river. Vedas do not mention another homeland, call India 'Arya Varta' land of Aryans. Saraswati river too is in India. Mittani and Iranians prolly migrated from India at some point.
@@brucetucker4847 Avesta actually says that the Iranians came from somewhere else. That place was probably India. Read this- I do feel that it is possible that there might have been migration into India earlier that popularly believed, and also a migration westward from India, at least towards the middle-east during the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization. Here are my reasons- IRAN AND MITTANI Popular narrative seems to be that Mittani, Iranians and Indians separated from a common people somewhere outside of these places. I don't think the facts line up as well. Mittani : It is very likely that they migrated from India probably around the time Saraswati was drying up and conflicts arose. 1. Mittani are established in the middle east in 1500 BC. 2. Mittani Language is actually quite close to Sanskrit. The words they use seem to be closest to the comparative words used in India. The word they used for one is 'eka/aika'. It is also only used in India alone as far as we know. Not even in Iran. In Iranian texts 'Aiva' is used. 3. They quite clearly worshipped vedic gods. Indra, Mitra and Varuna are mentined in there texts. I don't think there is any other civilization in the whole world that worships a monsoon GOD named Indra. It seems India has to be the most probable place of origin. Not even the Iranians worship Indra. (Although they are clearly aware of him) Iranians and Avesta : 1. It uses a language very close to Sanskrit, in structure, grammar, and vocabulary. 2. When compared to Vedic literature, Avestan ancient literature is extremely limited(Like 17 long Hymns). Vedas have thousands of hymns, dozens and dozens of named authors and families. Verifiable places, rivers, tribes and kingdoms, many of which can be traced and identified to this day. 3. For the creation, preservation and study of the Vedas, vedangas were created later on. Chanda Vedanga studies the various meters of the vedic hymns. Meters used by Avesta are mentioned in Chanda Vedanga. 4. Considering this, Rig vedic tradition seems much more developed, robust, exhausive, expansive. Avesta on the other hand seems like a Spin-off that later developed into a full-fledged religion. 5. The study and translation of the Avesta is extremely dependent on the Vedas and not the other way around. 6. On top of that, Avesta mentions an 'original homeland' and calls it 'Aryanam Vajeh'. Avesta also mentions Saraswati river. 7. Vedas do not suggest a homeland outside of India nor any migration. Instead, Indian texts seem to call North India the land of Aryans. Vedas do not mention any geographical feature that has been identified outside India with any level of confidence. The rivers mentioned in Rig veda are in order from west to east. They are present in the same order and identified. 8.Saraswati has also been mentioned in the Rig Veda very prominently and its location is also mentioned as between between Yamuna and Satluj. Archeological evidence also suggests that this was probably one of the most important rivers for the Indus Valey people. 9.Saraswati did dry up. It is a fact. People living around it did migrate. They even moved thousands of kilometers into South India through the forests. WHY WOULD THEY NOT MOVE TO IRAN WHICH WAS MUCH CLOSER? In fact, just next door to western Indus valley Settlements. Considering all this, I do feel that a westward migration from India is very likely. Now, if Vedic people came from outside, NO settlements in central Asia following the Vedic culture have been clearly identified. A lot of empty speculations. In fact, central Asian settlements were very small, mostly like a few hundred people. They were no match contemporary Indian settlements. SO, THANK YOU FOR READING THIS! ALL THE BEST!
Just as the word Hindu is a corruption of the word Sindhu by the Arabs and is a geographical term similarly Indus is a corruption of Hindu by the British. In the same way Saraswati has also got corrupted to Haraxwati which is a river still flowing through Afghanistan
@@WorldofAntiquity Hindu nationalism,indeed has longer history, dating back to the 19th century. But OIT is a recent one. When the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) emerged, Dravidian ideologues adopted this theory in the early 20th century, modifying it to portray India as a land inhabited by Dravidians, who were invaded by white nomadic men from the west. These invaders allegedly subjugated the locals, establishing a caste system to oppress them. The Dravidian movement gained traction primarily in Tamil Nadu, where it led to the de-Sanskritization of Tamil and efforts to culturally and linguistically distance the state from North India. Dravidian parties have dominated Tamil Nadu's politics for nearly 60 years, utilizing various mediums, including films, education, and news, to propagate anti-Brahmin and anti-North Indian sentiments. A notable quote from the movement's leader illustrates this mindset: "The Jews are only interested in themselves... Are they not comparable to the Brahmins?" This rhetoric perpetuates the notion that Hinduism, the caste system, Sanskrit, and the Vedas are foreign to India, imposed upon the native population. However, evidence suggests that the caste system may have predated the Indo-Aryan arrival in the subcontinent. The reality is that the Indian subcontinent's history is complex, with diverse cultures, including AASI and Austro-Asiatic populations, followed by the arrival of Neolithic Iranian farmers who intermixed with local populations, before the arrival of Indo Aryans. Interestingly, Neolithic Iranian ancestry is more prevalent in South India's upper and middle castes. While Hindu nationalism predates the Dravidian movement, the Out of India Theory (OIT) emerged as a counter-narrative in the late 20th century, challenging colonial and Dravidian interpretations. And an important thing to note that Hindu nationalism emerged as a cultural revolution, not religious revolution. If you can refer to the thoughts of prominent leaders of the movement, you can see that they all wanted to preserve the diverse local cultures that existed in India.
@@WorldofAntiquity In what universe ? Dravidians / justice party used the theory to divide 1st . Initial Hindu nationalists were agreeing to Aryan Invasion theory (tilak,Savarkar etc) . These counter arguments began post 1980s. Read about EV Ramaswamy for more info.
@@WorldofAntiquity If that's the case then why is she blaming north indians, we all know that hindu nationalism in india was started by Chitpavan brahmin community which lives in southern maharastra, northern karnataka and Goa. So in basic word hindu nationalism was also started by south indian. And also don't forgot it was north india which was ruled by islamic invaders for 700yrs and then it was north india which was divided in the name of religion so rise of hindu nationalism is obivous in india. But still i am saying dravidan nationalism movement was started first by by a south indian periyar and even though for a second i belive that hindu nationalism was started first but what it has to do with dravidian movement even whole world knows that hindu nationlism is all about countring muslims so how can you bring dravidian here.
35:35 Listen to Disha saying "It has been established that Saraswati river once flowed." I remember in your video of Rig Veda you said that these descriptions of Saraswati being a mighty river is just a poetic exaggeration 😂
What crap. North started ? Did they came up with slogan we are aryans and superior? There was no such issue before brits came. No one considered himself to be superior north or south
@@WorldofAntiquity could you give any proof for your statement of Hindutva ideologue. The founders of this ideologue are not from the North. They are mainly from Maharastra which is west. They never claimed this. Infact they unite Hindus across multiple lines.
People in comment section mostly politically motivated busy attacking the boogeyman of RW. While Disha the archeologist completely says the opposite of what they think. Listen to the full video 😂
New proposed decipherments appear all the time. The problem is that there are not enough remains of the writing system to be able to decipher it. Unless long inscriptions are found, no proposed decipherment can be proven.
35:35 Listen to Disha saying "it has been established that river saraswati once flowed " I remember your video on Rig Veda where you claimed that descriptions of Saraswati as being a mighty river is just poetic exaggeration.😂
The good professor loves cherry picking. In that video he finally admitted the Saraswat river existed and had dried up, but says that there was still a part of in the upper north that was still monsoon fed, so he said that part of the river Vedic Aryans were talking about and they based used poetic exaggeration to say it was mighty and mother of all floods. This is a fallacy of special pleading, he wants us to accept that the Vedic people would desribe barely almost completely dead river as mighty and flowing and the sustainer of all the people, when at the time the Indus, Ganges and Yamuna had become the most important for the people. However, even if we grant him this special pleading, he invokes yet another fallacy the description clearly mentions the river is flowing out from the mountains and into the sea(and it has been scientifically validated this was once true in an earlier geological epoch) and now he evokes another fallacy, his fav - cherry picking - ignores that verse. It gets even more convoluted for the good professor, the Sanskrit texts from the Rig Veda to the Brahmanas - then the Mahabharata describe it as gradually drying up and each describes a receding vanishing point(vinasana). To this he doesn't even an answer, as I launched this argument at him in his earlier video and he never responded. The good professor picks whatever suits him and disregards what doesn't and changes at will whatever suits his narrative. This is highly frowned upon in science.
@@RajSingh-xn8qdExactly. It's actually funny . Even about AMT , Disha herself admits that migrations happened but the migrating people didn't start completely new cultures here. Even Mr Professor says in the starting disclaimer that AMT doesn't mean sanskrit was not indigenous.But watch his video on Sanskrit language origins ,where he would present exactly opposite assertions.
Hi world of antiquity please stop straw manning the out of India theory and please have dialogues with real out of India proponent and also disha didnot ruled out OIT she only said there is not archaeological evidence to propose both ways stop misleading people
I'm a professional linguist, and the linguistic evidence from the subcontinent is incompatible with OIT. The Indic or Indo-Aryan languages, i.e. Sanskrit and its descendants, are clearly closely related to the Iranian languages, Armenian, ancient Anatolian languages like Hittite, and most of the languages of Europe. The reconstruction of the ancestor of all of these languages (termed Proto-Indo-European) has been proceeding for more than 200 years now, and it is one of the best-understood reconstructed ancestor languages anywhere in the world. We know, from both the types and direction of sound changes, and the reconstructed vocabulary of this language, that it was spoken in an area near the Black Sea - most proponents think the Ponto-Caspian Steppe, in today's Ukraine and southwestern Russia, and a few think Anatolia or the South Caucasus, in today's Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. A branch of this language, termed Indo-Iranian, was carried by migration down the eastern side of the Caspian sea, towards modern-day Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan, before dispersing through the Hindu Kush in two directions: into the Iranian plateau, and into India. The linguistic evidence overwhelmingly favors this migration scenario. An assumption that Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Indo-Iranian began in India before expanding outward, doesn't match any of the linguistic facts we know.
@@aaronmarks9366 I appreciate that you shares the current linguistic evidences on this topic. Then again, the linguistic aspect alone is also not enough to prove an 'into- India-migration), since it doesn't match the traditional Indian records from texts such as the Rig Veda.
@ please see the works of Mr talgeri the linguistic does not hold it is a old colonial view the latest research shows the Uralic languages have Sanskrit loan words but Sanskrit does not have Uralic loan words which means Vedic went from India to Uralic region not the other way round wake up smell the cofee leave this colonial mindset
So how would the Indo-Aryan expansion into the continent be characterised differently to the Yamnaya expansion, which did indeed lead to a change in the cultural situation? (I'm only 25mins in so if you cover this in the video I apologise for the question, just ignore it.)
I think that steppe people migrated to India, mixed with northern Indians. Then after mixing those steppe/indian hybrid carried out invasion of rest of India, after getting absorbed by local population. There's 15% gene replacement event in north western India so likely invasion happened. But it's only 15% so 85% remained local. It has no impact on Indian history since it was not complete wipeout like Europe.
I tend to believe there were a multitude of cultures in India, including IVC, and probably a closely related Gangetic plains culture which may be the Vedic culture.
Dr Miano i think you've met a few local archaeologists from the subcontinent which resulted in this video because yeah they need this crash course on a weekly basis LOL
The world is big, but once you start walking, you can cover a lot of ground, even in a few years. People (and other species) have always been getting around and back & forth to mix it all up.
@@bobbykiefer4306 If I remember correctly Marco was robbed blind by the first or second Mongol ruler he met, but got to use their horse stations part of the way east. Quickest infrastructure we humans have invented until trains.
Dear Professor, thanks again for your work on India(and also other regions as well). You graciously asked for suggestions about the things you may look at. I would be grateful if you can look at this because it bugs me- I am obviously no archeologist or historian, but I am an Indian, and might slightly be more aware of the tradition. I do feel that it is possible that there might have been migration into India earlier that popularly believed, and also a migration westward from India, at least towards the middle-east during the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization. Here are my reasons- IRAN AND MITTANI Popular narrative seems to be that Mittani, Iranians and Indians separated from a common people somewhere outside of these places. I don't think the facts line up as well. Mittani : It is very likely that they migrated from India probably around the time Saraswati was drying up and conflicts arose. 1. Mittani are established in the middle east in 1500 BC. 2. Mittani Language is actually quite close to Sanskrit. The words they use seem to be closest to the comparative words used in India. The word they used for one is 'eka/aika'. It is also only used in India alone as far as we know. Not even in Iran. In Iranian texts 'Aiva' is used. 3. They quite clearly worshipped vedic gods. Indra, Mitra and Varuna are mentined in there texts. I don't think there is any other civilization in the whole world that worships a monsoon GOD named Indra. It seems India has to be the most probable place of origin. Not even the Iranians worship Indra. (Although they are clearly aware of him) Iranians and Avesta : 1. It uses a language very close to Sanskrit, in structure, grammar, and vocabulary. 2. When compared to Vedic literature, Avestan ancient literature is extremely limited(Like 17 long Hymns). Vedas have thousands of hymns, dozens and dozens of named authors and families. Verifiable places, rivers, tribes and kingdoms, many of which can be traced and identified to this day. 3. For the creation, preservation and study of the Vedas, vedangas were created later on. Chanda Vedanga studies the various meters of the vedic hymns. Meters used by Avesta are mentioned in Chanda Vedanga. 4. Considering this, Rig vedic tradition seems much more developed, robust, exhausive, expansive. Avesta on the other hand seems like a Spin-off that later developed into a full-fledged religion. 5. The study and translation of the Avesta is extremely dependent on the Vedas and not the other way around. 6. On top of that, Avesta mentions an 'original homeland' and calls it 'Aryanam Vajeh'. Avesta also mentions Saraswati river. 7. Vedas do not suggest a homeland outside of India nor any migration. Instead, Indian texts seem to call North India the land of Aryans. Vedas do not mention any geographical feature that has been identified outside India with any level of confidence. The rivers mentioned in Rig veda are in order from west to east. They are present in the same order and identified. 8.Saraswati has also been mentioned in the Rig Veda very prominently and its location is also mentioned as between between Yamuna and Satluj. Archeological evidence also suggests that this was probably one of the most important rivers for the Indus Valey people. 9.Saraswati did dry up. It is a fact. People living around it did migrate. They even moved thousands of kilometers into South India through the forests. WHY WOULD THEY NOT MOVE TO IRAN WHICH WAS MUCH CLOSER? In fact, just next door to western Indus valley Settlements. Considering all this, I do feel that a westward migration from India is very likely. Now, if Vedic people came from outside, NO settlements in central Asia following the Vedic culture have been clearly identified. A lot of empty speculations. In fact, central Asian settlements were very small, mostly like a few hundred people. They were no match contemporary Indian settlements. SO, THANK YOU FOR READING THIS! ALL THE BEST!
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Most of what you say is not about archaeology, but linguistics, which will be the subject of a future video. But I will give you my overall thoughts briefly. I don't see any problem with the idea of some people leaving India and going west. This may indeed be what happened in the case of Mitanni. However, I do not think the Avesta shows evidence of this. The arguments that you use are not logical to me. So, for example, the reason why the Vedas are used to study the Avesta is not because the Avesta comes from the Vedas, but because the languages are similar, and we understand the Vedas better than we understand the Avesta. Plus there is more of it. So we use the one we understand better and with the most information to figure out the one we understand less so. We already know the word Arya was used by the Iranians, so the name of their homeland is not necessarily connected with India. There is no mention of a homeland in the Vedas, because the composers are not from that homeland. It was their ancestors who came from elsewhere, not them. As for migration away from the Saraswati, the Ganges river was much closer. Not Iran.
@@WorldofAntiquity ❤❤❤❤ Thanks professor for your reply. I understand what you are saying and it does make sense. The thing is, if the Iranians are so closely related, their language is almost the same, their hymns are similar, when they know Indian Gods, they even follow the same terminology, they even know and write about the Indian rivers like Saraswati and Indian regions like the Sapta-Sindhu, THEY EVEN USE THE SAME NAMES FOR THE RIVER AND THE REGION IN INDIA, why cant they have migrated from India? Anyways Proff, I don't think you realize how amazing you are, because in India, people start calling me slurs lol. And you, despite being a learned Proff and big youtuber, you even reply and discuss. ❤ I guess it's just too polarised and politicized in India. There has recently been an exciting development in this area actually, I don't know if you'd be aware, a computer science guy, specialization cryptography- name Yajnadevam. He deciphered the IVC script. The problem is that he might be even more of a 'Hindu Nationalist' than me lol. But the work is actually quite good. He deciphered it using cryptography. I must say, very very interesting results. The paper is not peer reviewed, but its published online and available for everyone to see. It's been out for two years now and has been gaining traction in India, but till now, no expert has refuted it. It may not be in your area of work, but see if it interests you. I have watched like many videos of him now and my confidence in him is actually growing. Thanks again for you insightful reply! ❤
Really liked the video sir Loved that you actually talked to an actual archaeologist from India...thanku to you for providing an actual platform Can you please suggest me some books to read about "Indian valley civilization"...which are based on current evidence I would really love that?? Subbed❤
16:00 she doesn't understand India. She's conflating modern day socio-electoral issues into history, and Although I would not completely doubt her credentials pertaining to the 1500 BCE, Her understanding of the present modern politics of Southern India is rooted in plain misinformed ignorance at best, or informed disingenuity at worst. I dont think she understands what she's talking about.
She is actively campaigning to save archeological sites in the area she is talking about and is seeing these sites being lost firsthand due to local politics
1:00:50 It's obvious to me that Vedic culture and Avestan culture had a connection, and probably were adversaries, judging by the similarities between devas/devis and asuras/ahuras, and which were the good guys and bad guys in each culture. And the name Indo-Iranian hints at shared ancestors, too. That doesn't involve Sumer or Egypt, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that ideas and trade goods made the journey, by game of "telephone" if not directly, all the way from India to Egypt and back. At least language is more reliable than "they both drew cow dieties", but you have to back that up with physical remains or DNA, and a big enough sample size, before drawing any conclusions. So, that's why I used the word "assume". The similar drawings can be enough for a hypothesis, which you then test against available evidence, and gather new evidence. If there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion, then it stays as an open question... you can have preliminary findings. I think the problem arises when people cherry pick the data because they seek to justify a political or religious stance, and/or a grift. IOW, some people decide what is their truth, and then look to various academic disciplines for support for their beliefs. Someone who's caught up in that mentality won't be able to understand where they went wrong, or why other people don't seem to get it. You end up with conflicting conspiracists arguing about the what was the actual IRL appearance of fictional story characters. People get mad when I say fictional, like how do I know? Well, if the character had the head of an elephant and the body of a human, he might have been fictional. If his skin was bright blue and he could fly, he might be fictional. And so on. But to a believer, it's another story. And archeology is involved in finding out what really happened, which can cause problems for believers. For example, if they're digging in the place that sure seems to be the city that Gotham City was based upon... but the archeologists aren't finding Batman's lair, then people who believe in Batman will get mad at the archeologists. That's life.
1:13:20 Exactly... art and technology can move independent of civilizations. That's why a single data point isn't enough. They found Roman coins on Oak Island, digging up a colonial feature. That doesn't imply that the Romans came to North America. Money is the kind of tech that really seemed to travel, thru time as well as space. I even had some Roman coins in a Massachusetts barn, until one of my neices transferred them to a pawn shop. Even easier to travel than physical objects are stories, ideas, copies of something a traveler once described.
Dasarajni war- paras clan, other clans it was caused due to Raj guru appointment between Viswamitra and vasishta and the side of vishwamitra lost and many of the clans were exiled.
@@andreamessiasgomes7118 well my point being history is coded into stories and religion so that we don't discard/forget them,just search the dasrajni war. In valmiki Ramayana sugriva's atlas description lands outside India,how did they know. Maybe people were not isolated as we believe them to be.
Why is it called Harappan civilization even though harappa is much smaller than indus valley or saraswati valley, but in video it's talked like Harappa covers from Gujarat to Afghanistan?
@@WorldofAntiquity I understand that it was explained, but I didn't understand. The other reply from @lakrids-pibe makes sense after googling what a type site is. I think I might've misinterpreted it if the same was told in the video.
Thanks professor for this one. Btw it was me who pointed out the issue of misrepresentation of AIT still being a mainstream issue in K12. Your guest rightly points out how AMT is now being portrayed by some as this single cultural asteroid wiping out the preexisting culture & supplanting a "Brahmanical super culture" on the native populace. And you have correctly pointed out the strawmanning of AMT with AIT by some others. This is bcuz this topic strikes at the heart of nation building & that's why nationalist & communists take opposing sides on this debate and not just leave this matter to be reviewed objectively. It has its parallels with the US immigration narratives as well unfortunately. If Indian culture was brought in by immigrants then India is a nation of immigrants, then there is no central national identity that is native and any immigrant culture can be Indian.
Forgive me but 'peer reviewed articles' have historically been groups of 'scholars' supporting each to maintain their influential positions in academia. So whereas I agree with your position on this issue , lets not pretend that a lot of these scholars did not porport and defend racist and classist sterotypes in their 'peer reviewed junk' despite the evidence.
That’s never been true. You don’t seem to know much about the subject. I give you that they were once racist, but that is not merely a product of peer review.
@WorldofAntiquity What's never been true?. That scholars supported each other's work and feared to or refused to contradict their more established colleagues in these 'peer' reviewed articles or that the presentation is inaccurate? Does one have to be an expert (however defined) in a subject to be able to comment on past and present biases?
@@TimH-o3v this exactly what he doesn't understand. Academia is not a neutral field, it is like any field run by humans wrought with prejudice, beliefs and and biasses. To get published you need to pass the gate keepers of a journal, they of they don't like your ideas, no matter how evidenced, they'll reject it. So academics will to some extent second guess what the journal would like to hear. Once they pass the gate keeper and get published. To stay relevant you need to keep getting published and the easier way of doing that is my quoting and repeating other and not stepping on too many toes, especially if it is not your field of expertise. Suppose you are an archeologist, and you believe a date for an event is wrong, you are still going to quote what the historians say. An example for this is the dating of a famous Buddhist shrine built by Ashoka at Lumbini, the author and had found its carbon dates its earliest foundation was around 1300BCE.(Which also happens to be the date as per the Indian chronology). This is clearly contradicted by what historians said, so the author had to come up with a far fetched explanation that possibly it was Buddhism before the Buddha or a shrine converted later to a Buddhist shrine. If instead they said historians are wrong, they probably wouldn't have got punished. And trust me mate this happens again and again, especially when it comes to Indian history. When real scientists get involved and find evidence the accepted dates are wrong as per hard scientific evidence, historians or linguists will jump in and just quote the old racist creationist scholars who believed in the dogma that no human civilization is older than 4000BCE. Nor can they be 4000BCE, because that is the fertile Cresent (Sumerian etc) and all humans migrated from there after the great flood. The great flood was dated about 2500BCE and they posited another 500 year for the Japerh race to leave fertile Cresent and enter Europe and then India. This chronology thus could not accept for the arrival of the Japerh tribe, Aryans, a date older than 2000BCE. The good professor is in denial that this is exactly how they did history back then -- it was conjecture based. He's also seems to think we've moved ok now from that -- but doesn't realise we still cite their dates. Shaffer called this 'linguistic tyranny " We know archeology doesn't tally up with AMT, but archaeologists still have to cite their dates.
No it didn’t! The archeologist literally said there is no such proof. The archeologist also said they have conclusive evidence for civilizational and cultural continuity. Just debunking some fake news or theories does not automatically conclude that Vedic religion came to India from outside. You have 0 proof and 0 Vedic archeological sites.
I think another lens to consider is that the rig Vedic religions may have been its own thing and differing from other belief systems (Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism and animism) already present and separate from one another in India before the Aryan/Vedic invasions after 1500bc and later unifying them into a single collective religion known as Hinduism now
Never forget the so called Iranian agriculturist( Sumerian farmers) migration that actually gave the civilization that is the Samana tradition that gave religions like Jainism and Buddhism....
@@SunnyKumar-nn5wmonly way to enter India from Africa is through middle east or central asia. So that's the only possible way. Unless you believe out of Africa is bs as well.
@@SunnyKumar-nn5wm claim everything? Use your Ignorant brain first! Ask yourself why ancient Indian temples have Sumerian tablets, go watch Praveen Mohan videos even he has mentioned about anunakki and all watch the recent ones , indigenous Indians were nature worshippers that's it others were all brought in by outsiders, it's a fact .
So Basically 1) archeology doesn’t have evidence for an “Aryan” migration into India or out of India. 2) There have been numerous migrations into and out of India over time. 3) The harappans have left their mark on the subcontinent even to this day. 4) Sanskrit and the Vedas are a product of the Indian subcontinent.
@@WorldofAntiquity that is correct. Seems reasonable to me that, since time immemorial, relatively small bands of people have always been moving around.
Coz when the Britishers & Europeans came with the Aryan invasion theory they claimed that the indigenous Indians were primitive barbarians who were 'civilised' by the invading white Europeans who gave the Indians their current culture. It was a very racist and condescending and biased ideology at the time and hence, it did not sit well with Indians. Understandably so. But we must not let racism of the past cloud our judgements and accept the current evidence whether we like it or not.
Indians don't either lol. We don't deny actual invasions that have been documented in history. In fact our ancient Sanskrit literature records all the invasions by Scythians, Hunas, Persians, Greeks. The vast majority will proudly admit they have mixed central Asian DNA and blood and you will find Indian tribes who trace their ancestry to various Central Asian tribes and even are proud of it. We have a problem with Aryan invasion because it's a completely made up history that was invented in the 19th century by racist scholars employed by the East India company that falsifies our entire history and the history of the rest of the world up until then. For example our dynasty of kings, every name of the kings are recorded , the duration of their reigns and details about s not just in one historical record, but several dozens and not just in Hinduism, but also in anti Hindu traditions. Our kings list goes back to 7000BCE. The Greeks themselves recorded this in 300BCE. Just like you have a calendar based on before and after Christ. We have several too and our main one is before and after Krishna, dated 3102 BCE 17th Feb. Yes, an exact date! South East Asia also records this date and the interactions of their ancient kings with Indian kings back then. So did the Chinese. So did the Persians. When you realise the reasons these racist scholars gave for falsifying all of Indian history was God created the world In 4000BCE, so its impossible civilization existed in India in 3000BCE and prior, HOW CAN YOU NOT HAVE A PROBLEM?
@@RajSingh-xn8qd Nah bro, there is just a lot of genetic, linguistic, mythological and archeological evidence to suggest that there was a gradual migration of the Aryans from the Steppes. A king list isn't enough to counter that. Neither is ancient Greek records a conclusive source. The Ancient Greeks also claim to have seen cyclopes. Modern genetic research far outweighs such ambiguous evidence. C'mmon brother, we can be just as proud of our history and culture whether it started in 7000 BCE or 3000 BCE or 1500 BCE. We don't need psuedo-history to make us feel good about ourselves.
When I was in UK junior school in the 1950s we had pictures on the wall about various historical figures. I only recall Pocahontas and Clive of India. No one explained why he was in Calcutta in the 1st place. Just something about a black hole. On 1964 my O level history syllabus included information about the East India Company and its greed. Not in any depth but we were given to understand that it was a bad organisation. My reading over the years has appalled me. The greed and corruption of European and in India the British imperial takeover was something to be ashamed of. (The African slave trade of the same era was even worse of course.)
Looking forward to the linguistic evidence video. Questions: 1) Will you be examining both Vedic Sanskrit AND Classical Sanskrit? 2) If looking at Classical Sanskrit, will you be looking into the ancient Indian grammarian Pāṇini? (circa 400 BCE, a philologist, grammarian, and scholar in ancient India, but who has also been variously dated between 520 BCE and 350 BCE). The Sanskrit epic Brihatkatha and the Buddhist scripture Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa both mention Pāṇini to have been a contemporary with the king Dhana Nanda (reigned 329-321 BCE), the last monarch of the Nanda Empire before Chandragupta Maurya came to power It is thought that Pāṇini's work (titled the Aṣṭādhyāyī - a grammar text that describes a form of the Sanskrit language) was written in Brahmi script (however, the exact script used by Pāṇini is not definitively known). Of course, the earliest (indisputably dated) and best-known Brahmi inscriptions are the rock-cut edicts of Ashoka in north-central India, dating to 250-232 BCE. But Brahmi must be older than this, since it was already used by royals. Eventually Brahmi became the basis for many of the scripts used in various Indian languages. The Brahmi script is the originator of most of the present Indian scripts, including Devanagari, Bengali, Tamil, and Malayalam, and also Dravidian scripts derive from the Brahmi script. The sudden appearance of the Brahmi writing system is one of the great mysteries of writing in India, as there is no evidence of inscriptions beforehand. 3) If looking at the older Vedic Sanskrit, will you be looking at the similarities it shares with Old Avestan? Vedic Sanskrit wasn't a common language among the laymen, it was used as a liturgical language by the priestly class (much like Old Avestan was). Among common everyday people, and over time, Sanskrit evolved into many different vernacular languages. Vedic Sanskrit has not survived as a script or writing system. There is no Vedic Sanskrit writing that survives (if it ever was written down). The earliest writing system that was used to write the Sanskrit language was Brahmi. But Vedic Sanskrit AS A LANGUAGE bears similarities to Old Avestan. Old Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit are so similar that they can be considered as dialects of the same language instead of two separate languages. Grammatically there is little difference between the older parts of the Avesta (the Gathas), which uses the Old Avestan language, and the older parts of the Vedas (the Rig-Veda), which uses the Vedic Sanskrit language. Both languages underwent systematic phonetic change. However, according to Thomas-Burrow, in his book, The Sanskrit Language, it is quite possible to find verses in the oldest portion of the Avesta (the Gathas), which simply by phonetic substitutions, can be turned into intelligible Vedic Sanskrit. The chief difference between the two lies in certain well-defined phonetic shifts rather than in basic grammar. It is, therefore, quite possible, by simple phonetic substitutions, to transliterate verses from the Gathas into intelligible Vedic Sanskrit. The verbal system in both Old Avestan and in Vedic Sanskrit are in general identical. The accents on the syllables found in both languages, on the whole, are the same. Old Avestan morphology immediately reveals a close relationship to Vedic Sanskrit. The two languages were closely related and a main difference between them was in pronunciations. Some verses from the oldest portions of the Avesta (the Gathas) can be read with knowledge of Vedic Sanskrit by accounting for differences in pronunciations. The languages of the Avesta and the Vedas shared some vocabulary that is not shared with the other Indo-European languages. Some examples are: Word Sanskrit Avestan Gold Hiranya Zaranya Army Séna Haena Spear Rsti Arsti Sovereignty Ksatra Xsaθra Lord Ásura Ahura Sacrifice Yajñá Yasna sacrificing priest Hótar Zaotar sacrificing drink Sóma Haoma member of religious community aryamán Airyaman God Deva Daeva Indeed, speakers of both language subgroups used the same word to refer to themselves as noble: Vedic Sanskrit arya and Avestan/Old Persian ariya. Both words “a-ve-sta” (from the Old Persian abasta, meaning “the law”) and “ve-da” (insight, wisdom) are derived from the same root: “Vid” to know, to gain knowledge, to comprehend. This word “Vae-da” also appears at Yasna 28.10 and 31.2 as knowledge and pertains to “sacred knowledge” or “ritual knowledge”. Similarly, the term “Avesta” is called “Upastha” in Vedic Sanskrit, meaning collection of mantras, or sacred utterances.
There was different tribes. Some were mountain dwelling tribes and some equestrian tribes that developed different customs etc. But ultimately related.
@bobbykiefer4306 Based on the AMT, the aryans who migrated from pontic steppe, diverged after reaching somewhere in the middle east (probably BMAC) and some migrated to what is now India. We have the oldest writing of Sanskrit in Kikuli tablets.
The source of exclusive wide spread male Steppe ancestry appears to be the horse riding War Bands roaming the Eurasian wilderness post horse domestication in 3000bc Also the cause for the dispersal of the IVC in 1900bc and the displacement of native AASI males and the creation of the ANI population with Steppe ancestry post 1500bc
52:14 so 'Trade' was gone and so was 'urban architecture' and 'writing' and then she proceeded to espouse cultural continuity... bruh what? imagine going to a country right now, taking away their writing, trade and cities and then claiming no civilizational collapse happened.
She is nothing to say that if Aryas were outsider or indigenous in hindu context aryas were the noble people who lived in aryavart ( mordern day india ) Refference to Mahabharata war the capital is indraprastha and kurukshetra is also present in haryana state Rakhigarhi (ivc site) is same state Haryana . Your motived by your own political bias Your trying to prove that something else you tried very hard . Hindu nationalism lol people in south are hindu too We never used in race but our colonial masters were to introduce these terms . South is not retaliation nor the north its not even larger debate it often white Americans who try be the owner of other peoples culture . Just like New york times used swastika = hakencruz whole word called it swaztika why ? It should be called hakencruz not swaztika . I think theres no other pagan culture survived but Hinduism still lives and breathes here its very much intertwined with india and its history .
@@bobbykiefer4306sorry to break , Iran is not today Iran 😂 Old Iran is only part of BMAC and to indus Iran is nothing to with current Iran Actual Iran is daitya to hapt hendu ( turkemistan to Indus valley region) Hapt hendu ( sapt Sindhu, indus civilization as whole region ) mentioned in iranic text as land of Aryans
@@bobbykiefer4306medes migrated from BMAC and spread their territory Iran was only used for eastern territory of medes empire ( or Persian Empire) Because they conquered part of aryan land ( Afghanistan and western Indus) Iran was also etymological to iranshar in their culture which means city of Aria ( probably they consider east Persian with Afghanistan or influenced )
@@bobbykiefer4306many of old Iranian ethnicity not even residing in iran Persian forefathers or whome they are descendants from are kambujia people ( which are kamboj people of Punjab right now ) Pastun are also old Iranian tribe Eastern Iranian from central asia to indus still the old Iranian tribe
@@chcomes so much strawmanning. To paint your opponents to be bottom of barrel low iq is unironically low iq behaviour. Plus not much has been conclusively reached via this video
Hey people...the fact that there are so many hidden truths and conflagrations we may never get to the bottom of it all. Even science...mixed with human politics will not give correct facts. Humans are so emotional. We may never know the truth. But that little tribe in africa that talk about sky people from Sirius star system..they may be onto something, for real. They are being attacked by the 3 monotheism cultures trying to stamp them out. I think we are running sown rabbit holes. Like elites want us to be. Get the woke out..lets all do better.
I don't care what she said next but at 15:50 she said that dravidan movement was response of northern nationalist is completly wrong, dravidian movement is one of the oldest movement in india, it was started even before 1920's and at that time hindu society only had caste divide. Because of dravidian movement nearly all brahmins was forced to leave tamil nadu. There is zero contrubition of any north indian in either dravidian movement or aryan invension theory it was all about britishers and south indian. Yes North Indian contriubted in Hindu Nationlism but we don't have to forgot that it was north indians who was under muslim rule for 700yrs, it was north india which was divided in the name of religion, so rise of hindu nationalism is obvious. And currently in north india i have seen that person with hindu nationalist mindset is the least castist people as they focous on uniting hindus rather than caste while in other hand so call secularist people in north is all about dividing hindus for the vote bank. I myslef come from a caste which is known in whole india for the vote bank of castist party.
@@WorldofAntiquity Oh ok, then let me know what's the difference between dravidian movmenet and dravidian nationalism, we all know that even before demand of Pakistan, periyar srated demand of dravridnadu isn't that nationalism, when whole india was fighting for independence at that time periyar and his dravdrian followers were demanding seprate country isn't that dravidian nationalism. And Plz don't just tell me difference between nationalism and movement insted just give us one example where you can proof that dravidan nationalism was started against something done in north.
@@ankushyadav6814 The Dravidian movement was created to fight for justice for Dravidians, and particularly to curb the power of the Brahmins in the government. Dravidian nationalism was created to create an independent Dravidian state. Yes, I am sure there were some people who wanted a separate state earlier, but it didn't take off until the 1930s. It wasn't me who argued that it happened because of something that happened in the north. Disha said that. You will have to ask her.
@@WorldofAntiquity Yes, it was disha who said that but Sir if tommorow terrorist attack happens in any country is that only fault of terrorist isn't there are some goverment's fault too, so if someone said something wrong on your channel isn't it comes on your credibility and responsibility? Thanks for sharing about caste , and whatever you said is completly true but we both know that caste system of india was no different from feudalism of europe, Serfdom in Russia,feudalism in japan and korea and other parts of the world, we both know that till 1900s 90% of europens were peasant class, even after more than 150yrs of abolishing of feudalism in japan we still see some cases of discrimation in japan, while in india it's just been 70yrs. Eventhough i have never faced caste discrimation but it still exist there and i know caste and pollution is two most important thing on which india has to work.
I watched the first 12 minutes of the video. For someone claiming to be “scientific” the tone and tenor of your diatribe against Koenrad Elat was symptomatic of what’s wrong with western scholarship - barely concealed sanctimony aimed to discredit any challenges to the entrenched hypothesis of AMT. The entire proto-Indo-European language hypothesis is passed off as “evidence”, though there is no evidence that there ever existed such a PIE language. There is no consideration for internal astronomical references in the Vedic texts that clearly show both the antiquity and location of where they were composed. You operate under the presumption that the 2000-1000 BCE period is a proven fact of this purported AMT, which a significant part of the Vedas predate by 1000s of years.
*the tone and tenor of your diatribe against Koenrad Elat was symptomatic of what’s wrong with western scholarship* My thinking is that only people with delicate and sensitive personalities would be bothered by any perceive "tone," which is probably imagined anyway. Elst would probably not have a problem with it. That's just you. *The entire proto-Indo-European language hypothesis is passed off as “evidence”, though there is no evidence that there ever existed such a PIE language.* Sorry, but I am going to take the word of the world's linguists over yours. Nothing personal. *There is no consideration for internal astronomical references in the Vedic texts* Last time I checked, astronomy is not archaeology. Please see the title of the video.
Also, please take a look at Yajna Devam’s decipherment of the Indus script, clearly showing it is Vedic sanskrit. While it will take academia to come to terms with it, it is a monumental work of great importance by a computer scientist.
@@daosnet You are now the 5th or 6th person I've seen that's called him out on his cherry picking. It really is that obvious for any intelligent, critical thinking and rational person to see. I am guessing you are university educated, so am I, we are trained to spot BS like this. He is fooling the lay casual youtuber and preaching to the converted, but nobody who thinks independently for themselves will fall for his nonsense. Another of his favourite fallacies is appeal to authority - like he just said linguists said PIE exists -- therefore he accepts it existed. That's a lack of critical thinking right there. In fact linguists have no universal agreement on what was PIE, where was PIE and when was PIE and even whether the methods used to reconstruct PIE are valid. He clearly has not read the research - and yet his next video is going to be on linguistics.
@ yes. Typically I don’t have time to respond to random TH-cam videos, but I’m on a winter break, so had some time. There are so many presumptions/theories accepted as fact in such videos that it would be comical if there weren’t thousands of gullible people lapping it up. There are so many logical fallacies in the material - the circular reasoning, the appeal to authority, cherry picking, and so on.
I belong to the Gujar tribe of Pakistan & my DNA breakdown came back as 60 percent Zagros, CHG & ANF basically from the Iranian platues. 20 percent steppe from the so called Aryans 20 percent of the indigenous population known as AASI And most of my tribe is genetically the same as me As a whole in Pakistan people from most of the tribes are very similar genetically. Indigenous dna makes up very small amounts of the people in Pakistan especially.
@@abc_cbathe minimum steppe level in jats is 28% , in rors it's 29% and th max that steppe can go in both communities is 48% and for rajput gujjar 25% steppe is max . As jats , rors never mixed too much with other groups and rors have all surnames as same as jats . So both are very closely related groups
@@alani3992not likely , Iranian cave belt hunters gather migrated to Indian region and they admixture but they admixture as female ( rarely their is successful of y dna j2 , which they came up with) All Indian Neolithic or agricultural people have h1 (y indigenous haplogroup) And Indian hunters gather male Gave Neolithic Indian culture ( Female cave belt hunters gather+ male Indian hunters gather) Which then steppe arriving male admixture with them So aasi in him more likely male adna
I hope you keep these India-focused videos coming as part of a regular rotation. To my mind, unlocking the archaeological secrets of the subcontinent is likely the key to understanding how homo sapiens made it all the way to Australia, East Asia and beyond (and with what diversity) in what seems like a very short time. There are bound to be some major discoveries in coming years in ancient DNA analysis of various waves of homo sapiens migration into the subcontinent from whenever they first arrived (60 to 70 kya?) in the late Paleolothic through to the early Mesolithic arrival of farmer populations and the much later Indo-European migration. Hopefully there will be a lot of papers published in the coming years linking ancient DNA results to archaeological strata.
I must say that we may be overdoing it a little by negating, or always tempering, the idea of invasions leading to cultural change. A lot of these issues have modern-day equivalents and we should not be blind to the present nor the past. DIsha seems much more sensitive to these topics.
Invasion is an overly politicized term ESPECIALLY in the modern day, with a needlessly negative connotation. Populations move, admix, and integrate. It happens all the time. This is why migration is a better term to use. No one negates the idea that migration and invasion lead to cultural change. But there is not much evidence of any real "invasion" of "Aryans."
He specifically said that invasions do happen, but that we now understand that there are other ways that cultures change. And in the case we're discussing here, they have found no evidence for an invasion.
This young scientist seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge of these matters. She is objective and scientific in her approach and therefore she has no ideological axe to grind. This was a great interview thanks
Wow!!! Pleasantly surprised to see Disha on your channel. I remember watching her on the Charvaka Podcast with Kushal discussing the findings of Rakhigari a while back.
Some more detail on drying of Saraswati river could have been interesting. The general accepted date is about 19K bce yes? And RigVeda mentions this river.
@@aaryameena because Indus valley civilization is only 5000 years old according to ASI first chief n. Kaniggam(british army men) and rig Veda is more older than. At least 30000 years.
Although you have been SLIGHTLY more open than Indian leftist and liberal historians, you are still interpreting the history by keeping your mind closed to other interpretations. This is the biggest problem with what is now generally accepted (that they dismiss any other interpretations). But the good news is India is slowly knowing more about its own history and more places are being dug up to know about India's history. ... Hopefully you will keep track of newer discoveries and many interpretations you have made will be revisited. But I think that you have largely presented a better interpretation than many "establishment historians" of India.(India;s education system (the non-STEM education) was captured by leftists who even now take a great pleasure in showing India in a bad light.
If you like this video, you might also like:
THE AGE OF INDIA'S OLDEST BOOK:
th-cam.com/video/ZvTlJDWG0lM/w-d-xo.html
WHEN DID SANSKRIT APPEAR IN INDIA: THE GENETIC EVIDENCE
th-cam.com/video/NQX5LlJ7YXg/w-d-xo.html
DWARKA: THE SUNKEN CITY OF KRISHNA
th-cam.com/video/5cX_IF5YFo4/w-d-xo.html
i wonder why similar invasion theory didnt hold much of the same effect it did have on harapans as it didnt on elam civilization before iranian plateu became what it is why did iranians invasion theory was much more coexistance and borrowing from settled civilization than the ecological collapse in harrapens case or bmac civilization where its believed to be the first iranian settlement begining to get stronger as bmac grows weaker as a result of climate change etc
Thanks for the video.
Please note that the current researchers in India lack credibility due to the political environment in the country. You have earlier done an episode on someone who claims to be an expert on this topic although his actual field of expertise is something else. But there is another real geneticist who is doing severe damage to science - Niraj Rai. He is a completely confused person now - trying hard but failing to balance between the real science of his profession and the pseudo-science of the ultra-right.
You should read more. Read the decipherment of the Harappan script by Yajnadevam. He showed how the Harappan script can be read with Classical Sanskrit and how Brahmi came from the Harappan script.
@@mallarghosh6915
Has Yajnadevam published his work in any peer-reviewed journal of repute? Or is it another Whatsapp University research meant only for brain-washed Indians? Unless one's work is peer-reviewed by international experts in the field, it becomes only pseudo-science.
You should read kalibanga, ahar, ganeshwar, bairath civilisations. These all are near sarswati river (now invisible) in Rajasthan. These all are older more than indus valley civilisation. These all are in Rajasthan (Indian state) history. Aryan are more older than indus valley civilisation. All above civilizations( indus valley civilisation not mentioned)are mentioned in Mahabharat. In Mahabharat india is called as aryavrat (land of Aryans) .
honesty as an indian i don't care aryans were outsiders or not , every race in modern day is mixed and migration happend and is happening always. in pure sense you can say everyone outside of Africa is outsider settlers, because homo sapiens originated in Africa and migrated outwards. our indian race has it's own unique mixture of aryan-Dravidian-austric-mongoloid groups and i am proud of this unique genetic and cultural identity
There's less than 0.5% differences in human DNA. Our commonalities should push us together, not be used as a dick waving contest.
You are proud of some accidental genetic mix? I am proud of the "current" younger generation of Americans (mosly urban) who are consciously discarding race, religion, language and gender based prejudices. These kids are one of the unique progressive generation we might see. I wish we raise our kids in India in a similar way.
I agree. I am what I consider typically British. My paternal grandfather was an Irish immigrant to England. His wife was native. My maternal line invludes a Polish man said to be a Romany gypsy but his trade was common among Polish Jews. His wife was Irish.
My son's paternal grandfather was half Scottish, half Italian. His wife was Irish. My son married a woman with a Turkish father and English/Irish mixed mother.
So my grandsons have Irish, English, Italian, Scottish and more distant Polish bloodlines. I think that, like with other animals, mixed heritage is healthier, not just physically but mentally.
Also children and grandchildren inherit the drive that led their ancestors to uproot and emigrate for a better life.
agreed but everyone should be aware and appreciate their heritage. Simple principal: be proud for your own people, and love all other people who love you back (NOT who don't) @@capt.bart.roberts4975
@@suryadevararao1795 oh boy there are plenty like that in India, but honestly left leaning worldview doesn't guarantee rationality i can assure you 😂. And you misunderstood the meaning of my usage of the word "proud" . proud doesn't necessarily mean i feel my people are superior, just love and appreciation for my identity.
Omg as an Indian, I wanted to read about this for so long this is the first sane and scientific video on this topic
I was shocked when I found out there's a whole batshit crazy group of Indians who think that basically everything was invented in India, or by Indians, and the rest of the world are inferior subhumans. It's nice to know it's not just we white people who have crazy racist relatives.
There many, he himself has made some
@@Playerone1287 made some what
Even in Mahabharata it saying Aryans migrated to Northern India from far lands.
@@rajannegi8883 🚫 not
So great that today you can have a such conversation with someone on the other side of the world.
Agreed. I am old. From the days we used log books as small calculators didnt exist. 😅 but I love modern tech.
So many younger than I get conned into the negativity so loved by the media. They dont realise that way back some thought that reading would lead to blindness and thay if women were educated their minds would collapse and they would go mad.
😂😂
It's always a pleasant surprise to look through TH-cam on Sunday morning and have one of these great videos pop up.
She will now teach archeology to Dr. Shinde Who has found hundreads of sites,done original research ,found Rakhigarhi and did major work
@@MoreSantosh that is how science works. Through criticism. Science is not a subject. Science is methodology to study a particular subject. The methodologies are always imperfect. And it is criticism of the older researchers by new researchers that has led us to come here where we are today technologically. Einstein criticised newton that is why quantum physics was developed. If by your logic newton could not have been criticised by any younger generation then there would never be any development. So yes she can teach to an experienced researcher. She is also working on the field. And if as a scientist you start shutting people up just because they are junior to you, at that time you stop becoming a scientist and become just another civilian with fragile ego.
Great video! This is an excellent topic to tackle. I want to see more of this kind of stuff, not just in India, but everywhere where modern beliefs (cultural, economic, religious, political, etc) feel the need to intrude and take precedence (for whatever reason) over the objective reality of the past.
Representing a horse and domesticating a horse are two quite different things. At Chauvet, representations of horses date to 36 000 years ago, but they weren't domesticated....
@@RojaJaneman I'm not trying to prove anything. What are you talking about?
@@RojaJaneman proving what? Again: what are you talking about? My comment was about ancient representations of horses. Have you read my comment, or perhaps are you answering someone else?
But if they are represented surely humans interacted with the horses in some way there could have some sort of domestication of horse much earlier that we think not saying it's true just speculating
@@petrapetrakoliou8979 aren't there depictions of Humans on horses, I mean what do you call domestication if it isn't a man riding on a horse like creature.
@@saheellodhia270there are no riders in paleolithic cave depictions of horses. Nobody thinks that horses were domesticated before the Neolithic or perhaps even after. They were hunted: you find their bones on the Gravettian sites. Many animals like horses had a long existence as game before getting domesticated. Representing a horse does not mean you are used to riding on it.
I feel the guest didn't quite articulate this well, but South Indian/Dravidian nationalism is all in on the Aryan Invasion Theory because it supports their narrative of imperialist subjugation by Northerners who aren't "native", unlike Dravidians. Brahmins, like myself, are also considered Aryan invaders and oppressors in this logic. Thus, the Brahmin population is generally more in support of Hindu nationalism and the OI theory.
Did you even watch the video? There is no such thing as the Aryan Invasion Theory in modern times. And you shouldn't let politics determine what you accept or reject from science.
@brucetucker4847 And you didn't read my comment at all. I simply said that Dravidian nationalists wholeheartedly endorse an Aryan Invasion Theory for their own agenda. Not that such a thing is a well-supported scholarly theory.
You are the one who clearly missed the entire conversation because both Dr. Miano and his guest repeated that the Aryan Invasion Theory still has plenty of currency in mainstream Indian society.
@@MrGksarathy Okay, that's fair.
@@brucetucker4847 there was an invasion but the invasion was not done by steppe people. It was done by steppe mixed North Indians.
@@MrGksarathy But don't Brahmins and other sanghis believe Islam spread to India through Islamic conquest. Kettle calling pot black.
No amount of evidence will persuade certain devout Hindus that Brahmins weren't speaking Sanskrit in India for literally millions of years.
Don’t you think the theory that the Indo-European language originated in Russia is somewhat half-baked? Recent studies suggest that the Indo-European language originated in western Iran. Genetic studies have discovered a Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers component that spread to the steppe and a similar Iranian Neolithic component (in the Zagros) that spread eastward. This component was found in Bronze Age Anatolia without steppe ancestry.
The Yamnaya were roughly 1/3 CHG or Iran_Neolithic. Iran_Neolithic ancestry comprises 40-60% of all modern Indians. Don’t you think Iranian Neolithic farmers migrated toward Russia around 7,000-8,000 years ago, forming the Yamnaya culture? Perhaps these people originated from Mehrgarh or Bhirrana in the Indian subcontinent, as India and Iran were better suited for human settlement 10,000 years ago than Russia, which experienced a cold and temperate climate heavily influenced by the last Ice Age.
The cow is significant in Indo-Aryan culture. The Indo-Europeans were central to the domestication of the bull/cow, the invention of the wheeled wagon, dairying practices, and milk consumption. However, the cow was domesticated in the Indus Valley Civilization over 9,000 years ago and in Anatolia separately. If one believes the steppe people domesticated the horse and then entered India, this migration never affected the genetic lineage of Indian cow breeds. Cattle genetics conclusively prove that no admixture of Taurine cattle into India has ever occurred. It seems silly to think that Indo-Aryans came to India without a single cow.
If we look at Russia, the Proto-Uralic language formed around the same time as the Indo-European language in relatively close proximity without any connection between them. In the Caucasus region or near the Black Sea, there are unrelated Kartvelian languages that formed around the same time or earlier than Indo-European.
Do you think the Burushaski language in northern Pakistan might be related to a pre-Proto-Indo-European language, given that haplogroup R2 is significantly present among the Burusho people? Haplogroup R2 is estimated to have emerged around 15,000 years ago, likely in the Indian subcontinent, while R1 originated in Central Asia and R itself in West and South Asia. It seems likely that the Indo-European language originated in Iran, the Indus Valley, or the BMAC culture.
They're as bad as Christian creationists. But each will vehemently deny that they're like the other.
@@pannobhasa
Wait until they figure out that the Gita is not a history book and most of it is fictional stuff like the bible 🤣
That's a strawman. Hindus don't need to their civilization to be older than 3000-4000 years to feel proud about it. It's not like most other civilization/nations have even that long of a continuity
@@someone-w9n A lot of the Bible's history isn't fiction. There was an Assyrian king named Sennacherib (Sîn-ahhī-erība) and he did besiege Jerusalem and he did fail to capture it, we confirmed that in modern times from Assyrian sources. I imagine the same is true for Hindu scriptures. The trouble, of course, is that in the absence of outside corroboration you have no way of knowing which parts contain fact and which don't.
Love the video and it was wonderful to hear from Disha. I am fascinated by Harrappan Civilization and always look forward to new discoveries. Thank you
thanx for collabing with an actual Indian archiologist
In the 1990's there was a UK Channel 4 TV program that said the Max Mueller era inventors of the AIT were incorrect!
She is not , she is a junior archaeologist .Do you know who her boss was?
Why should her nationality or ethnicity matter in this context?
@@GajanaNigade Check Karl Marx letters to The Guardian about India.
Marxist historians have a certain view informed by Marx.
the one who starts the discussion with a claim that dravidian politics started by north?
I visited Bhimbetka caves recently. It's a stunning place to visit, with narrow paths snaking through large imposing boulders in the middle of a conserved tropical forest. However, I was very disappointed by the widespread depiction of horses and even people riding horses. I went there with the impression that the paintings were prehistoric, but the horses would automatically date it to after say 1000 BC, with sign-boards around the place claiming even more recent dates. However, if you know what to look for, you will be able to spot older red ochre paintings which are pretty faded now, where animal depictions favour other non-equestrian indigenous species. So it is indeed a prehistoric site, but seems to have been continuously occupied, with much of the older stuff mostly degraded, and more recent paintings showing the change in animal populations.
Everyone is biased. Even the speakers here. Truth is inevitable and nothing else.
Is it because you can't digest the fact
@andreamessiasgomes7118 maybe they can't digest the fact
@RISHABH2222222 or is it you who can't digest the fact
@@andreamessiasgomes7118 who will decide what's the fact and how? New findings are proving out of India theory, and they're still into dead AIT theory.
@@RISHABH2222222so give us some facts then...
15:50 she is completly wrong dravidian movement and demand for seprate nation was started in south north has nothing to do with it. She is a great lier i can point out thousands of her lies in this video. Ask her to proof that this aryan and dravidan was started by north indians, this north south was srated by a south indian Periyar.
The Dravidian movement is not the same as Dravidian nationalism.
She is biased. I skipped her part in this video. I don't know why she's the best archeological that India can produce
Well you are also wrong. Dravidian movement started by periyar has nothing to do with the north and south division. That was all about elimination of caste oppression, which is unfortunately still prevalent in india.
Just extra information:
Learn about recent archeological excavation on keezhadi and adhichnallur nera south india
@@IndianTiger-0P She is speaking facts
Not south indian periyar but Tamilian periyar. This bs dravidian nationalism has no place in Telugu and Kannada land.
Romans build Roman empire, but steepe people created Indian civilization. That seems like Europeans & Iranians want to claim Indian civilization, even though Vedas was written in India, even says Aryans were living in-between areas of Himalayas & Indian Ocean. There is no denying we have conmon ancestors but stop claiming Aryan lineage. Never seen Indians claiming Persian or Roman empire. Don't forget early Indo Europeans from Europe were not civilized unlike their Indian cousins.
The steppe nomads acquired civilisation only after coming to india .
There's a deep inferiority complex in them that they try to mask with a supremacist attitude.
European historians 🤣🤣🤣
@@bpmalanadu7136 Proved by genetics as well as linguistics.
@@tsMuthuraman-hm6wg how did nepalis became hindu? Through race? Hindus invaded not aryan the white love to lie they lie over Alexander's conquest similarly
8:48
Every single online self proclaimed expert, debater and internet troll needs to read all 9 of these points over and over again. I think you listed and explained them so well to the point that simply addressing these points is enough for so many misinformed people to understand what they got wrong.
Ive seen propagandists from both sides of this argument and its gradually getting more absurd.
Ive seen both:-
1. Europeans conquered and invaded India and civilised the Indians and created the Indus Valley Civilisation
And
2. Indians left India and invaded and violently replaced the natives in Europe and influenced early European culture.
Both are obviously wildly inaccurate and unhinged and just puts a sour taste in the mouths of anyone who genuinely wants to learn more.
I heard European Aryans invaded and created the Vedic Civilization in India, not the Indus Valley Civilization.
@@bobbykiefer4306They weren’t European. The european identity didn’t exist back then and they came from a mix of the Caucasus hunter gatherers who were most closely related to Iranian Hunter Gatherers, who went into India around 8-10k years ago and contributed significantly to Indian ancestry, and the Eastern European Hunter Gatherers which diverged from Western Eurasians (the ancestor of the majority of the lineages which led to modern Middle Eastern and European peoples) around 38k years ago (eastern eurasians as a whole diverged from WE around 42-45k years ago), and are also most closely related to Native Americans, certain Siberian peoples, and the extinct Botai culture in central asia, so they are neither closely related to the early european farmers, who contribute up to 70% of the ancestry of southern european people from portugal to greece, or the western european hunter gatherers who’s ancestry survives in if i remember correctly up to 40% in baltic peoples. The Proto Indo European people did form in Eastern Europe so by geography that makes them a population which _formed_ in what we now call europe, but back then it was not considered europe and the populations which made the PIE are more related to non european populations.
The reason I think this information is worth focusing on is because a lot of people think the Proto Indo European theory is an attempt to try to claim asian cultures as coming from a “noble white race” who came from a population similar to modern europeans when factually speaking that is incorrect.
@@Rudol_Zeppilithis isn't an accurate account of the genetic data. EHG are not very similar to native Americans or eastern Siberians, they are by far most closely related to Europeans. Proto-indo-europeans don't primarily descend from Iranian hunter gatherers.
@@alexdunphy3716 EHG are not similar to the East Eurasian component to Native Americans but they certainly are to the ANE component in Native American genetics which makes up to a maximum of 30-40% of their ancestry, while ANE components make up around 70% of their DNA of the EHG scanned and fairly close to half of the DNA of Yamnaya remains. (Though the EHG were noted to have around 9.4% east asian derived dna by the study “Bronze age Northern Eurasian genetics in the context of development of metallurgy and Siberian ancestry“.) Your exact point is why I mentioned the Botai Culture and not just Native Americans, as the Botai remains had around 80% ancestry from the ANE if i remember correctly.
Modern European populations only have a maximum of 20% ANE DNA according to the study “Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans” by Lazaridis et al., so the EHG ancestry they do have is much less, at most 28.5% assuming the proportion of WHG & ANE DNA the EHG had remained proportionally constant (which likely isn’t the case but it’s the best approximation I can make without a study that shows how much EHG DNA they have rather than just ANE DNA). Another thing I should note about that study is that it’s from 2014 so perhaps the techniques it’s using are not as accurate as more modern 2024-2025 studies, so I will try to present a modern study if I can find one.
Also the CHG are closely related to Iranian Hunter Gatherers, recent studies such as “The Persian plateau served as hub for Homo Sapiens after the main out of Africa dispersal” by Vallini et al. show/claim that CHG come from the WEC2 population that stayed in Iran as the WEC (Kostenki-14) split off from it and expanded into regions such as Europe.
@@bobbykiefer4306no . You should read kalibanga, ahar, ganeshwar, bairath civilisations. These all are near sarswati river (now invisible) in Rajasthan. These all are older more than indus valley civilisation. These all are in Rajasthan (Indian state) history. Aryan are more older than indus valley civilisation. All above civilizations( indus valley civilisation not mentioned)are mentioned in Mahabharat. In Mahabharat india is called as aryavrat (land of Aryans) .
Because the term Harrapan is not loaded, whereas Indus Valley or Sariswati are loaded terms leaning toward Pakistan and India respectively!
here before the literal *millions* of Indian right wingers dislike this and spam the comments with pseudoscience!
😮in the baghavat gita arjuna on his chariot with horses is described as fair haired
Yup. I am not looking forward to that. Those people make American far righters look measured and composed.
@@MrGksarathy atleast in America they try to hide their hatred for minorities
Our priests wear toga's, the Romans wore toga's, therefore the Romans must've been Hindu originally. That is Hindutva logic.
@@mver191 And our priests don't even wear togas...they'd say that Roman priests wore veshtis.
While you say World Scholarship does not accept Aryan Invasion.... I watched an in depth video on Indian DNA that covered all groups an in that video they explicitly show the evidence that it did happen, and how the caste system stopped the genetic mixing.
A video by whom?
@@WorldofAntiquity Sir ,you should read the above comment by @crimsonNBlack
I wish Hindu nationalists of My country wouldn't see this. If they did, the comment box would be filled with nonsense.
Listen to the archaeologist. Even she is denying the white man's over simplistic analysis.Look how the white man tried to say that it is indus valley and not indus - saraswati but the archaelogist explains correctly that it is not limited to the indus.
These youtubers have no knowledge. They just regurgitate pop things
@@Anomander5622 sometimes I wonder if these people even listen to the video before commenting. The archeologist categorically denied his AMT theory!
@@BeaJai-xl5he The Archaeologists in Modi era are Andh bhakt who are recruited for Spreading lies by Modi no Value for them
ശശി video കണ്ടോ😅 . The video accepts origin of Vedas in India, existence of Saraswati which are the main pts of Hindu nationalists and categorically denies Marxist and Dravidian's Aryan Invasion Theory.
@@Anomander5622the "youtuber" is a PhD in ancient history, specialising in the regions of near east and India, has several publications to his name and has been an academic for many years. Disha Ahluwalia herself said that Harappan civilization is the more appropriate term instead of IVC or indus-saraswati civilization, to which Dr Maino agreed. Were you even listening to what they were talking about or did you get distracted by some shiny object in your vicinity?
Omg an update to my favourite argument this channel partakes in!
Thank you, thank you, thank you for finally settling my confusion about Harappan vs Indus Valley Civilization. I had thought that the discovery of Mohenjo-Daro was what made Harappan obsolete, and I hadn't even taken into consideration that finds were also located in Pakistan, Afghanistan and, possibly, in Iranian Baluchistan. I was more aware of the decline of respectability of the Aryan Invasion theory, and had heard some religious/pseudoscience "out of India" notions. AFAIK, the Indo-European "homeland" has sometimes been suggested as in or near Kazakhstan. Thanks, Professor Miano, [PS my autocorrect keeps telling me that your name is really Milano] for another fascinating and thought provoking video.
The Indo-European homeland is a place where oak, ash and beech trees grew since there are common indo-european words for these plants. There are no Beech trees beyond the Ural mountains, therefore the language developed at least partially in Europe
@@ΕρνέστοςΣμίθ They did migrate around quite a lot, think the current theory is that they started somewhere in northern Mesopotamia. Considering the commonality with more eastern Indo-European languages, and Proto-Indo-Aryan word borrowed into the Finno-Urgic languages (though not the opposite), The early Proto-Indo-Aryan speakers would've probably spread from far eastern Europe and far eastern Asia considering who we know who they interacted with and are more closely linguistically "related" to. Think there's some material evidence that points to that, but obviously material evidence don't show what language they spoke.
I think aryan and Dravidian issues is like Anglican and Welsh. Brittons ruled Britain, then anglos came, Britton who remained true to their culture became Welsh and moved to extremities of island, most Britons adapted anglo ways and became english, later remaining welsh also adopted english influences, similarly aryan came into proto Dravidian/post ivc people and converted them or influenced them, whatever, and some Dravidian moved south and later they also got aryanised. India is called jambudwipa i.e, Island of the jambu(🫐 berry) grove, welsh means outsiders or barbarians in english, similarly melachha(ivc malluha) became outsiders or barbarians in aryan culture. Parallels are fascinating.
@@narutouzumaki2157 To welch is a verb meaning to fail to keep a promise or pay off a debt, the personal noun is welcher. I wonder if this is related to your analysis.
@JMM33RanMA maybe, but i think something like maluha was the original name of civilization or people who lived in settlements and aryan morphed that name into malechha to degrade it's meaning like nowadays many dumb people call rajpoots Mughalpoot or other indentor names that are morphed to degrade it's meaning.
Idk what's the actual correct meaning of the word malechha, i think it means mal+ echha or mal ki terah ke log, maybe skin se sambandhit tippani h sakti h.
just a curious question - Did not once the AIT an accepted and peer-reviewed theory by academics which is still influencing many disclosures in this debate? It could be possible that the current AMT should be wrong as well? it is possible. Also, it is also interesting to notice that the Aryan discussions is only happening in and about India, not in any places they might have originated from or the places on the migration route like Iran.
Anything can be wrong. But we go with the explanation that best fits the evidence until something better comes along.
@@WorldofAntiquity thanks for the response. I am not sure what basis those times academics decided the validity of AIT which is more or less the same amount of proof OIT folks are putting forward. My point is, that the whole AIT or AMT is still carrying the colonial baggage and in my layman's eyes, I still see a lot of pushback from the western scholars. It is even puzzling that most of the school history books in the world carry AIT nonsense, which I am not sure how much academics are fighting to eradicate. I love this channel and on history, I can always rely upon it.
@@wehh The seriousnouss of an archaeologist can be measured on how unsure he is about Indo-European origins. More they are sure, more they tend to be amateurs, albeit sometimes sitting in university cathedras.
@@wehh True. Both sides only have theories and minimal proof but the western historians seem to have a chip on their shoulder. BTW, everyone disagrees with the AIT - it's just that the western historians renamed it to AMT, while the indigeneous Aryanism folks (OIT Indians) say that both Aryan invasion/migration circa 1200 BCE are hogwash.
@@petrapetrakoliou8979 what????
Thank you so much brother and sister! I’m glad as a Brazilian this information is available for me in the tip of my fingers
Learning a lot from your channel, please keep it up 🤍
I have heard your argument and to be fair your argument was weak in terms of proving any aryan migration. You argument of calling rig vedic society as a society primarily involved in horse breeding is false. There are multiple things to point out in your argument but it is difficult to write long comment(with a lot of passion). The point is rig vedas do mention many different animals apart from the horse, horse is important as it is a metaphor for elegance, virility, power, speed and regality. It isn’t the most sacred animal, zebu cattle(native to India) is, black buck(native: India) is even more sacred as it’s grazing grounds denotes the land fit for vedic ritual and worship. Linguistic evidences suggests that rig veda was written over hundreds of year if not thousands. One can linguistically create a chronology of rig vedic mandalas. Rig vedas have no memory of being outside the indian land they mention saraswati as a roaring wide river not possible in 2000BC. The older manadals talk about saraswati whereas newer mandalas go deeper into the gangetic plains and then again back to the indus saraswati plain. Mahabharta which is the later vedic period mentions saraswati drying up and not reaching the sea which balaram notices. Earlier there were no traces of the grand mighty and most important river saraswati hence people believed that so called aryans might have come from a different place but now with ample scientific evidence one can pinpoint the channel of the saraswati along the vedic description of the geography. Moreover saraswati dried up during later vedic age while in the early vedic period it was ‘roaring’ and flowing with a great strength. Now we also have evidences from the mittani kingdom they are clearly later rigveic people based on the mention of lingusic evidences such as names which have clear later rigvedic Identity. They are dated as 1500-1300 BC it is widely accepted rig veda can not be later than that. It is alo important to not saraswati dried up in 1900bc and completely dried up by 1500bc in any case if the aryan arrived and settled in India they have to be here before 1900bc to have seen saraswati as a perennial river. and have to write vedas as well in sanskrit. Now to keep aryans away from the Harrapan debate one has to date them after 1900 bc as the excepted dating for the decline of the harrapan civilization which is not possible. The BIGEST PROBLEM is that the rigvedas define their geography as Sapta sindhu the exact geography of the Harrapan civilisation. If both of them were living in the same area why is there no archeological evidence of migration and why is there no evidence of different group of people living in the same geography in vedic literature especially when they had such a grand civilisation? And if they came around 1900bc and wrote rigveda in 100 years why you see lingustic differences between early and later rigvedic mandalas which shows development over centuries and even the earliest ones are pointing to indian geography. It is very very difficult to prove the migration theory through linguistic and archeological data. Indians never claimed we came from outside or our languages came from outside. The scholars who claim this the onus is on them to prove their theory first. They can untill they omit things here and there. Also rigveda is important as the migration theory bases its claim on the fact that there is similarity between the vedic language and the european languages. Rigveda is the sources of greater culture of ancient India. Never ever in history anyplace else this has been the case that a language which comes from outside completely replaces the existing language without any trace of the vocabulary of the earlier languages Rigvedic sanskrit has in total 40 odd words which come allegedly from dravidian and munda in total. Without replacing the population in majority a handful of foreign group of people without invading and capturing anything completely replaced the existing culture as well as language. How stupid that sounds. There are thousands of other arguments. I wont say harrapan civilization is vedic as I can not prove that conclusively without a widely accepted decipherment of it’s script. But I can not certainly say that some aryan people migrated into india and made everyone vedic and sanskrit speaking all at once. You need to know veda to even discuss this argument and most historians don’t. Most archeologists don’t And even your guest certainly rejected a cultural discontinuity and mass migration making your defence of AIM even weaker. Plase be more open and sensitive to this discussion rather than riding the high horse. One more thing AIM is not a new theory it is a reduction and diluyion of Aryan invasion myth. Hence you can not call it completely free from the already set bias of Aryan invasion as it reduces it’s stance to migration (because absence of any evidence of invasion whatsoever) without changing any other pillars of the theory. And essentially continuing with a refined stance of migration rather than a relook. Can add tons of argument some strong some weak but this is already too long.
Absolutely 👍 right
There is no "controversy". Only people who actively deny the evidence call it a "controversy".
Aryan indegnious to india is a far right political policy, it's like afrocentrics or hebrew archeology.. all are juat nonsensical political psuedohistory.
Baghavat gita states that arjuna was blond
@@someone-w9n what is your criteria for being “indigenous”?
*Aryans came from outside India is actually far left politcs and pseudo history
@@henk3202you are right but in WhatsApp univ 😂
Lol because Eurocentrism is so much better lol
ASIAN SYMBOLS are always from OUTSIDE India and never OUT OF INDIA although majority of these are found in India???
Are you dense?
@@andreamessiasgomes7118 Don't you understand English?
What are you blabbing about?
@miltonbates6425 totally missed OUT OF INDIA ancient Harappan writings all over OMAN, SUSA, Afganistan, Halifa ship tin ingots with indus Harappan inscriptions
@@HarappanEnigma2024 what rubbish, send the links for what you are saying
She gives contradictory statements. At one place she says there was no break in continuity but admits that Harappan cities declined suddenly and the new cities that came up did not use Harappan style, architecture, bricks or layouts.
She is a confused person. He should have had a more seasoned senior archaeologist. By the way, while the Harappan civilization declined, it merely reverted to pre-mature period regionalisation phase. Settlements became smaller and there is a decline of sophistication. These are the changes. Yet it was still the same culture that existed from early Harappan period. There is no proof of any foreign culture intruding and there is ZERO artefact from the steppe. So there is no proof for the Aryan migration theory in the archaeological record.
Language, culture (religion) and race are independent components over time. In prehistory we only have mythology to fall back on.
The only thing confuses me is that
Rigveda and also Mahabharata mentions saraswati river as large roaring one with full of water running parallel to Indus.
But then we don't find saraswati anywhere today except some Geological traces with small hakkar ghagra river which is supposed to be saraswati.
Geological and Archeological excavations suggest that Saraswati river dried out 2000-3000 BC,
Then how came Aryans wrote so much about it in detail even before they came to India.
Also they gave utmost importance to the Saraswati more than Ganges, Indus or any other river.
Why would anyone gave that much importance to a river which has already dried out or drying out in front you.
That really confuses me.
And I'm a buyer of Saraswati and haraxwati sh*t.
As the Nadistuti hymn of Rigveda 10.75 clearly mentions Saraswati to be flowed between sutluj and Yamuna.
And all the rivers in West to East order in which they flow.
Only confusion is If Saraswati dried out or almost about to dry 4000 years ago then how came Aryans wrote a full literature about her.
What is the oldest Rig veda you have with carbon dating? Definitely not 4000 years..
Meaning it was written or added to not so long ago
They came to India a lot earlier. At least 7000 years ago.
Yes. They must hv come long back. How long, is yet to be found out.
1. It is sheer foolish to assume nomadic people came from outside, got enlightened overnight and produced phenomenal philosophical texts.
2. It must hv been a gradual revelation happened over a period of time. Rigbeda itself has mandalas composed during diff periods
3. The sheer Volume of the texts running to couple of lakhs of slokas could not hv been composed in the 1500 - 500 BCE period.
@pvvenkatachalam8022 Exactly my opinion too
because its all lies
Also your pet archaeologist is dead wrong about the origin of politics surrounding the Aryan migration.
The Aryan/Dravidian separate race/religion theory started in the second half of the 1800s by Christian missionaries in the South. It was picked up by Dravidian politicians and 'social reformers' in the early 1900s (in 1 out of 5 Dravidian states in south).
The entire mess if the result of Protestant Christian evangelists trying to cretae a fertile ground for their nefarious activities. Indigenous vs non-indigenous, tribal vs non tribal, this caste vs that caste, South vs North, Aryan vs Dravidian.
Yes.
Before the evil missionaries, there was no evil in India, oops, BHARAT😂😂😂
no caste hatred, caste based ra*es, infact no rap*s in BHARAT.
SUPERPOWER SAAAAAR.
BEST CULTURE IN THE WORLD SAAAAAAAARRRRRRR.
Exactly! Thank you for the comment.
@@BeaJai-xl5he your ego is satisfied? Now shut up
Whether you like it or not it's true
@@andreamessiasgomes7118 it's true that C Missionaries where successful hence ur name.
Lot of love from kerala india 🇮🇳
But i think she is completly wrong south is very distinct within
The tamil chavanists are extremly xenophobic to all other states and theur politics are extemly xenophobic and erase all characters with sanskrit influence there was dravidian nationalist movement which was a seperatist terrorist movement
Don't throw words around idiot.
We Tamils are not chauvinists nor we are xenophobic.
Their is no sanskrit in Tamil nor is it in indus valley civilzation.
sanskrit came from outside india.
Not Tamil.
your glazing up sanskrit because you think it has some influence in your language want to be aryan so bad.
Please talk properly without throwing around words.
If we were that xenophobic we wouldn't have allowed a mallu like mgr to become cm in our state.
Nothing wrong with linguistic purism
@plazmagaming2182 then nothing wrong with purifying minorities of Islam and Christianity and convert then to hidnusim and buddhism using state funds how does that sound to u
Can't show hypocrisy both is same thing
Tamil elites imposing their version of xenophobic tamil to the entire state dictating how ppl should walk think is xenophobic imo
@@plazmagaming2182 there is a thin line , old kings of south
weather from Chola , Chera , Pandya etc. all who built monuments try to add sanskrit and their native(as there are multiple)
for ex. temples, structures have instructions , or let us say historic text both in sanskrit and native .
Dravidian nationalists are fascists who are trying to preserve racial purity of Dravidian people like Hitler wanted to do with Germans.
46:56 River sarasvati is actually Haraxvaiti river in Avestan (Arghandab), NOT the river related to indus valley civilization.
It was later named not original
@@classicmusic5656 wow even the indian government is changing the name of harappa civilization into sarasvati civilization... 🤣
Proof?
@@memesins5647Say with proof.
Now, if we had continuous occupation, then the river would have been referred to by the same name.
So either we had
a) Continuous civilization and the river was not called Saraswati Or,
b) The river was called Saraswati and the original civilization was lost, and the newer groups called the river Ghaggar and Hakra.
@@anamelessmonsternaam tumhare angrezi wale hote hai lekin likhte ho tum ganv wali English
8:32 The Pontic Steppe is today considered European and Indo-Aryans specifically are now attached go not a direct Yamnaya origin but an indirect one, through Corded Ware which is even further West and North than the Pontic steppe.
@@ikengaspirit3063 but cordedware people were Germanic
2:52 is it possible they were simply translated into the new language at the time?
As a south indian telugu(part of dravidian language family) speaking person i see in this 21st century my language is heavily influenced by english ...2nd wave of indoeuropian influence after 2000 years.😊
Wow so many comments....
We borrowed words like bus car rail pencil cake biscuit graph cricket
At least we English also 'borrowed' few Indian words. And the national dish of Britain is now curry. 😂
And this time it was not a good experience.
@@helenamcginty4920 I think Jungle is an Indo-Aryan word too, which got borrowed into most European languages
All languages in India have sanskrit influence. The term dravidian is not a race. It is direction. Aryans is not right word. It is aryavartha. Indians are aryavartha.
@@drbachimanchi Are you Sure Telugu Existed 2000 Years Back ? 😉
Where is the archiological evidence for the origin of a civilisation in the steppes which then spread to Europe and India?
In the case of OIT, there is the archiological evidence in the form of 'Sindhu Saraswati' or Indus civilisation.
Recently, strong evidence has been putforth showing the language behind the script in Indus seals was Sanskrit.
Do you have a counter to Taligiri's analysis of Rigveda in this connection showing evidence for OIT?
This is a linguistic, not archaeological, argument.
Because nothing originated in the Steppes ever. The Arya only went to the Steppe later.
The AIT is not true. Out of Aria( Thrace) is true. Sindhu comes from the Thracian Sintians. Sinti/Sindi in their language. There were several Thracian migrations to India by different Thracian tribes. One of them the Sinti, another the Brigi( Brighus) known as Phrygians.This the reason the Iliad and Mahabharata are similar. The same people (by origin) took part. Absolutely nothing "Greek" in the Iliad ,the Trojan war was between Thracians ( known to fight among themselves).
AIT and OIT are equally wrong.
Very good! 💯
I like topics related to Indian history! ✨
I already knew Disha from a podcast she participated in. She's really good! 🦋
I think aryan and Dravidian issues is like Anglican and Welsh. Brittons ruled Britain, then anglos came, Britton who remained true to their culture became Welsh and moved to extremities of island, most Britons adapted anglo ways and became english, later remaining welsh also adopted english influences, similarly aryan came into proto Dravidian/post ivc people and converted them or influenced them, whatever, and some Dravidian moved south and later they also got aryanised. India is called jambudwipa i.e, Island of the jambu(🫐 berry) grove, welsh means outsiders or barbarians in english, similarly melachha(ivc malluha) became outsiders or barbarians in aryan culture. Parallels are fascinating.
ireland = srilanka
@rizkyadiyanto7922 only if tamil tigers had won the north.
Wondering if you've already done one, or if you plan to do a video deep dive into the Clovis and Pre-Clovis cultures. Hopefully a deep dive into origins, migrations, new fundings, old beliefs versus new and so on. 🦋
O thought Clovis was just a type of tool manufacture like Acheulian etc.
@helenamcginty4920 I'm not really sure. That's what I was hoping to find out. But alas, I fear yet another comment and question on this particular channel will go unseen.
The problem here is the special pleading. While yes, it's true that anthropologists have been aggressively de-emphasizing violent conflict in the past, especially involving population replacement events, this has gone way too far and become ideological. Since this movement in the 1970's-80's, genetic evidence has smashed much of this pollyanna thinking about the human past. The genetic markers in Europe suggest mass waves of population replacement occurred with suspiciously odd replacement of male genetic lineages, as if males were being eliminated and some females kept. Also, the changes are so total, that earlier populations seem to have been *wholly* replaced by newcomers. This has happened in Europe at least 3 times (European HG's, Neolithic/Anatolian farmers, and the Beaker People (likely Indo-Europeans).
Given *** all *** of human history as we know it, it's absurd to dismiss violence as a major factor in past population replacements, ,but the ideological compulsion to do so still remains strong. But the obvious fact of these (likely quite violent) population replacements remains stubbornly difficult to ignore.
Given the likely extremely violent nature of the extirpation of previous European populations by the Indo-Europeans, thinking that this happened happily and peacefully on the other end of the Indo-European chain in India is indicative of motivated reasoning.
R1a2 haplotype originated in India. This will prove massive migration OIT.
No.
Please share the research papers.
Totally wrong Steppe hypothesis. Most migrations happened much before start of Neolithic in about 10000 BCE and at start of Neolithic 10000 to 7500 BCE.Vedic Aryas desribed perrenial river Saraswati, talked of elephant, peacock and spotted deer. And imported the horse.
i started laughing when you started telling the "points to remember" . i thought you must have read a lot and observed the indian society closely for explaining so much before going ahead.
You ask for things you could have mentioned towards the end: I think a dedicated video analyzing the various cultures believed or posited to be Indo-Aryan would be worth looking at. These are highly relevant to the question at hand:
A review of the evidence dealing with Pre-Indo-Aryan cultures, or cultures associated with the Para-/Proto-Indo-Iranian world would be a good start (Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo-Balanovo, Abashevo, Srubnaya, Sintashta-Petrovka-Arkaim, Andronovo, Yaz).
Then it would be worth looking at cultures in & around India and the arguments & narratives surrounding them: Swat, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard, Painted Grey Ware. Maybe there are others I don’t know about.
Even the Chalcolithic cultures of India.
@@yashagrawal88 explain please
Your channel, Sir, is a jewel of the internet. I am so happy to have found it.
A Tight slap on the face of ITI pass Self declared Archeologist 'Science Journey' 😂😂😂
@@user-k2ahajw how ?
lol. its a tight slap on you.
@@Kalashok-k9p he rejects Aryan migation theory ..To deny Hinduism'sexistence before Buddhism😂😂😂
North-South division was started by the British/ CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES. North Indians were made to believe they were the lost cousins of White people hence they were superior. Rest of the division was TRIED TO achieve by communists who painted North Indians as the conquerors of south. For example, Hindu god Ram (dark colored!) was projected as someone who attacked demon Southern king Ravana born as a Brahmin! The lady is not convincing when comes to politics part.
These days North-South division is a non-issue. Hindus across the spectrum has issues with the "Aryan Invasion theory" because of some silly interpretations of Vedas by the earlier scholars (Indra destroyed cities like Harappa, Agni has golden hair....may be like blond white people and Vedic Saraswati river is in Afghanistan).
According to Shrikant Talageri, early Aryans in Rigveda's earliest mandalas were using bullock carts not horses. Based on Vedas he also interpreted the movement of Aryans was from east to west. He was offered a scholor position by some famous Indologist in West if he moderates his views and also he was discredited as a bank employee by Indian communists! I remember reading this in preface to his book ..History of Rigveda OR IN ONE OF HIS TALKS ONLINE.
How about You interviewing Talageri for the oppsite view or the OIT? To me he looked a very simple and intelligent individual.
*North-South division was started by the British*
That's what Disha said in the video. But she also said that it was Hindu nationalism that started before Dravidian nationalism. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
As soon as Talageri gets an article published in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal, I will be happy to interview him.
@@WorldofAntiquity To read and interpret a book like veda one doesn't have to be a historian or publish in journals. Moreover, Talageri's book quotes the published literature. Unfortunately such an outright rejection from your side supports the existing suspicion that only one view is promoted. Your's is a youtube channel not a peer reviewed website gives you the freedom to discuss different viewpoints( at least that is how I see it). You can question Shrikant on his views (provided he agrees) and put to rest such "non-peer" reviewed or may be... propagandist views if they are illogical. The other point is, after listening to him you may start thinking after all this alternative view point is not that baseless, Who knows?
Dravidian nationalism and Hindu Nationalism are two different issues. Hindu nationalism did not call Dravidians not Hindus but the so called Dravidian nationalism treats Hinduism as its enemy and Tamil as the oldest language though 90% Dravidians were Hindus and respect Vedas ( South Indian Brahmins are well versed in almost all religion related Sanskrit literature. In fact it is Southern Indian Adi Shankara who defeated Buddhists through religious aguments and re-established Hindu prominence in India in 8 th century AD) until Christian missionaries started converting people (beginning mostly with the untouchables) in South India. These days may be 30% people are converted to Christianity besides the 5-10% Muslims that were converted few hundred years back.
@@WorldofAntiquity that’s not correct. The lady said the controversy was started by North Indians and the South is now retaliating.
As an Indian from the South (so called Dravidian) I am telling you that statement made no sense!
Dravidian nationalists had made this an issue long before Indias independence (Periyar lived before 1947) How did North Indians trigger these crazies?
It was the British that promoted AIT dividing north and South Indians. Yes, North Indians were made to believe light skin is superior.
@@BeaJai-xl5he shows your ignorance
@@suryadevararao1795 another ignorant
The followers of Vedas who live south of Himalayas and north of the great Ocean and speak Sanskrit are Aryas.
- Rig veda
Darius the Great was none of those things but described himself as an Aryan.
@@brucetucker4847 Aryan is a parsia word and Arya is a Sanskrit word
@@lipun1531 Sure but they're plainly cognates.
@@brucetucker4847 Yeah, they prolly migrated from India. Avesta also says that the Iranians had an original homeland called 'Aryanam Vajeh' and mentions the Saraswati river. Vedas do not mention another homeland, call India 'Arya Varta' land of Aryans. Saraswati river too is in India. Mittani and Iranians prolly migrated from India at some point.
@@brucetucker4847 Avesta actually says that the Iranians came from somewhere else. That place was probably India. Read this-
I do feel that it is possible that there might have been migration into India earlier that popularly believed, and also a migration westward from India, at least towards the middle-east during the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization. Here are my reasons-
IRAN AND MITTANI
Popular narrative seems to be that Mittani, Iranians and Indians separated from a common people somewhere outside of these places. I don't think the facts line up as well.
Mittani : It is very likely that they migrated from India probably around the time Saraswati was drying up and conflicts arose.
1. Mittani are established in the middle east in 1500 BC.
2. Mittani Language is actually quite close to Sanskrit. The words they use seem to be closest to the comparative words used in India. The word they used for one is 'eka/aika'. It is also only used in India alone as far as we know. Not even in Iran. In Iranian texts 'Aiva' is used.
3. They quite clearly worshipped vedic gods. Indra, Mitra and Varuna are mentined in there texts. I don't think there is any other civilization in the whole world that worships a monsoon GOD named Indra. It seems India has to be the most probable place of origin. Not even the Iranians worship Indra. (Although they are clearly aware of him)
Iranians and Avesta :
1. It uses a language very close to Sanskrit, in structure, grammar, and vocabulary.
2. When compared to Vedic literature, Avestan ancient literature is extremely limited(Like 17 long Hymns). Vedas have thousands of hymns, dozens and dozens of named authors and families. Verifiable places, rivers, tribes and kingdoms, many of which can be traced and identified to this day.
3. For the creation, preservation and study of the Vedas, vedangas were created later on. Chanda Vedanga studies the various meters of the vedic hymns. Meters used by Avesta are mentioned in Chanda Vedanga.
4. Considering this, Rig vedic tradition seems much more developed, robust, exhausive, expansive. Avesta on the other hand seems like a Spin-off that later developed into a full-fledged religion.
5. The study and translation of the Avesta is extremely dependent on the Vedas and not the other way around.
6. On top of that, Avesta mentions an 'original homeland' and calls it 'Aryanam Vajeh'. Avesta also mentions Saraswati river.
7. Vedas do not suggest a homeland outside of India nor any migration. Instead, Indian texts seem to call North India the land of Aryans. Vedas do not mention any geographical feature that has been identified outside India with any level of confidence. The rivers mentioned in Rig veda are in order from west to east. They are present in the same order and identified.
8.Saraswati has also been mentioned in the Rig Veda very prominently and its location is also mentioned as between between Yamuna and Satluj. Archeological evidence also suggests that this was probably one of the most important rivers for the Indus Valey people.
9.Saraswati did dry up. It is a fact. People living around it did migrate. They even moved thousands of kilometers into South India through the forests. WHY WOULD THEY NOT MOVE TO IRAN WHICH WAS MUCH CLOSER? In fact, just next door to western Indus valley Settlements.
Considering all this, I do feel that a westward migration from India is very likely.
Now, if Vedic people came from outside, NO settlements in central Asia following the Vedic culture have been clearly identified. A lot of empty speculations.
In fact, central Asian settlements were very small, mostly like a few hundred people. They were no match contemporary Indian settlements.
SO, THANK YOU FOR READING THIS!
ALL THE BEST!
Excellent video's, Dr Miamo is kicked the ball out of the park in 2024.
Thanks Doc.
Aryans were, are and will always be from Bharath ...
Battle of 10 Kings happened around 50,000 year ago.
@@Supremist_3😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@Mani-my8ob Cry 🥵😘
@@Mani-my8ob Cry Qt🥵🥵😘
@@Supremist_3 1300-1500 BC Not 50000 BC
Thanks for bringing that lady to interview, Im not watching this because of her.
Just as the word Hindu is a corruption of the word Sindhu by the Arabs and is a geographical term similarly Indus is a corruption of Hindu by the British. In the same way Saraswati has also got corrupted to Haraxwati which is a river still flowing through Afghanistan
15:57 My girl doesn't seem to be aware of Dravidian movement. North had to come up with OIT just because of the alienating Dravidian movement.
We were talking specifically about nationalism. Hindu nationalism came before Dravidian nationalism.
Hindu Nationalism started with Chhtrapati Shivaji Maharaj @@WorldofAntiquity
@@WorldofAntiquity Hindu nationalism,indeed has longer history, dating back to the 19th century. But OIT is a recent one. When the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) emerged, Dravidian ideologues adopted this theory in the early 20th century, modifying it to portray India as a land inhabited by Dravidians, who were invaded by white nomadic men from the west. These invaders allegedly subjugated the locals, establishing a caste system to oppress them.
The Dravidian movement gained traction primarily in Tamil Nadu, where it led to the de-Sanskritization of Tamil and efforts to culturally and linguistically distance the state from North India. Dravidian parties have dominated Tamil Nadu's politics for nearly 60 years, utilizing various mediums, including films, education, and news, to propagate anti-Brahmin and anti-North Indian sentiments.
A notable quote from the movement's leader illustrates this mindset: "The Jews are only interested in themselves... Are they not comparable to the Brahmins?" This rhetoric perpetuates the notion that Hinduism, the caste system, Sanskrit, and the Vedas are foreign to India, imposed upon the native population.
However, evidence suggests that the caste system may have predated the Indo-Aryan arrival in the subcontinent. The reality is that the Indian subcontinent's history is complex, with diverse cultures, including AASI and Austro-Asiatic populations, followed by the arrival of Neolithic Iranian farmers who intermixed with local populations, before the arrival of Indo Aryans.
Interestingly, Neolithic Iranian ancestry is more prevalent in South India's upper and middle castes.
While Hindu nationalism predates the Dravidian movement, the Out of India Theory (OIT) emerged as a counter-narrative in the late 20th century, challenging colonial and Dravidian interpretations.
And an important thing to note that Hindu nationalism emerged as a cultural revolution, not religious revolution. If you can refer to the thoughts of prominent leaders of the movement, you can see that they all wanted to preserve the diverse local cultures that existed in India.
@@WorldofAntiquity In what universe ? Dravidians / justice party used the theory to divide 1st . Initial Hindu nationalists were agreeing to Aryan Invasion theory (tilak,Savarkar etc) . These counter arguments began post 1980s. Read about EV Ramaswamy for more info.
@@WorldofAntiquity If that's the case then why is she blaming north indians, we all know that hindu nationalism in india was started by Chitpavan brahmin community which lives in southern maharastra, northern karnataka and Goa. So in basic word hindu nationalism was also started by south indian. And also don't forgot it was north india which was ruled by islamic invaders for 700yrs and then it was north india which was divided in the name of religion so rise of hindu nationalism is obivous in india. But still i am saying dravidan nationalism movement was started first by by a south indian periyar and even though for a second i belive that hindu nationalism was started first but what it has to do with dravidian movement even whole world knows that hindu nationlism is all about countring muslims so how can you bring dravidian here.
35:35 Listen to Disha saying "It has been established that Saraswati river once flowed."
I remember in your video of Rig Veda you said that these descriptions of Saraswati being a mighty river is just a poetic exaggeration 😂
He said Saraswathi is the Hakra Ghaghar river
It once flowed but during rig vedic time it only flowed as a decent stream in northernmost India - Himalayas and plains near Himalayas
That's what he said
Saraswati is harauvati (Helmand) river in Afghanistan and has nothing to do with ghagra hakar river chut ke bhut
What crap. North started ? Did they came up with slogan we are aryans and superior? There was no such issue before brits came. No one considered himself to be superior north or south
She said clearly that the British started the Aryan/Dravidian division. But Hindutva began before Dravidian nationalism. Look it up.
@@WorldofAntiquity hiindutva calls for unity of hindus, merging of caste lines. why will hindutva call for the aryan dravidian divide?
@@saptarshichatterjee36
Hindutva is just anti Islam.
Caste superiority and division stays 😂
@@WorldofAntiquity Stop demeaning Hinduism and take your shitty Jesus and go back . Hinduism has been inclusive long before Jesus was born.
@@WorldofAntiquity could you give any proof for your statement of Hindutva ideologue. The founders of this ideologue are not from the North. They are mainly from Maharastra which is west. They never claimed this. Infact they unite Hindus across multiple lines.
People in comment section mostly politically motivated busy attacking the boogeyman of RW. While Disha the archeologist completely says the opposite of what they think.
Listen to the full video 😂
The new deciphering of the Indus script as Sanskrit should also be covered
New proposed decipherments appear all the time. The problem is that there are not enough remains of the writing system to be able to decipher it. Unless long inscriptions are found, no proposed decipherment can be proven.
Sir ,you should read the above comment by @crimsonNBlack
35:35 Listen to Disha saying "it has been established that river saraswati once flowed "
I remember your video on Rig Veda where you claimed that descriptions of Saraswati as being a mighty river is just poetic exaggeration.😂
Can you explain how flowing means mighty?
The good professor loves cherry picking. In that video he finally admitted the Saraswat river existed and had dried up, but says that there was still a part of in the upper north that was still monsoon fed, so he said that part of the river Vedic Aryans were talking about and they based used poetic exaggeration to say it was mighty and mother of all floods. This is a fallacy of special pleading, he wants us to accept that the Vedic people would desribe barely almost completely dead river as mighty and flowing and the sustainer of all the people, when at the time the Indus, Ganges and Yamuna had become the most important for the people. However, even if we grant him this special pleading, he invokes yet another fallacy the description clearly mentions the river is flowing out from the mountains and into the sea(and it has been scientifically validated this was once true in an earlier geological epoch) and now he evokes another fallacy, his fav - cherry picking - ignores that verse. It gets even more convoluted for the good professor, the Sanskrit texts from the Rig Veda to the Brahmanas - then the Mahabharata describe it as gradually drying up and each describes a receding vanishing point(vinasana). To this he doesn't even an answer, as I launched this argument at him in his earlier video and he never responded.
The good professor picks whatever suits him and disregards what doesn't and changes at will whatever suits his narrative. This is highly frowned upon in science.
@@RajSingh-xn8qdExactly. It's actually funny . Even about AMT , Disha herself admits that migrations happened but the migrating people didn't start completely new cultures here.
Even Mr Professor says in the starting disclaimer that AMT doesn't mean sanskrit was not indigenous.But watch his video on Sanskrit language origins ,where he would present exactly opposite assertions.
whatever she says is not fact till the evidence is given
@@RajSingh-xn8qdthank you
Hi world of antiquity please stop straw manning the out of India theory and please have dialogues with real out of India proponent and also disha didnot ruled out OIT she only said there is not archaeological evidence to propose both ways stop misleading people
Truth
I'm a professional linguist, and the linguistic evidence from the subcontinent is incompatible with OIT. The Indic or Indo-Aryan languages, i.e. Sanskrit and its descendants, are clearly closely related to the Iranian languages, Armenian, ancient Anatolian languages like Hittite, and most of the languages of Europe. The reconstruction of the ancestor of all of these languages (termed Proto-Indo-European) has been proceeding for more than 200 years now, and it is one of the best-understood reconstructed ancestor languages anywhere in the world. We know, from both the types and direction of sound changes, and the reconstructed vocabulary of this language, that it was spoken in an area near the Black Sea - most proponents think the Ponto-Caspian Steppe, in today's Ukraine and southwestern Russia, and a few think Anatolia or the South Caucasus, in today's Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. A branch of this language, termed Indo-Iranian, was carried by migration down the eastern side of the Caspian sea, towards modern-day Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan, before dispersing through the Hindu Kush in two directions: into the Iranian plateau, and into India. The linguistic evidence overwhelmingly favors this migration scenario. An assumption that Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Indo-Iranian began in India before expanding outward, doesn't match any of the linguistic facts we know.
@@aaronmarks9366 I appreciate that you shares the current linguistic evidences on this topic. Then again, the linguistic aspect alone is also not enough to prove an 'into- India-migration), since it doesn't match the traditional Indian records from texts such as the Rig Veda.
@ please see the works of Mr talgeri the linguistic does not hold it is a old colonial view the latest research shows the Uralic languages have Sanskrit loan words but Sanskrit does not have Uralic loan words which means Vedic went from India to Uralic region not the other way round wake up smell the cofee leave this colonial mindset
@ hi your linguistic argument is not sound please see the works of Shrikant tanager
So how would the Indo-Aryan expansion into the continent be characterised differently to the Yamnaya expansion, which did indeed lead to a change in the cultural situation? (I'm only 25mins in so if you cover this in the video I apologise for the question, just ignore it.)
It's a matter of what we have evidence for.
@@WorldofAntiquity Oh! Thanks for your response. I'm gonna get that archaeological book you showed and have a deeper look at it. Much appreciated.
I think that steppe people migrated to India, mixed with northern Indians. Then after mixing those steppe/indian hybrid carried out invasion of rest of India, after getting absorbed by local population. There's 15% gene replacement event in north western India so likely invasion happened. But it's only 15% so 85% remained local. It has no impact on Indian history since it was not complete wipeout like Europe.
@@patman-bp3qg how did Europe get wiped out
I tend to believe there were a multitude of cultures in India, including IVC, and probably a closely related Gangetic plains culture which may be the Vedic culture.
Dr Miano i think you've met a few local archaeologists from the subcontinent which resulted in this video because yeah they need this crash course on a weekly basis LOL
I have no personal stake in this. Proceeds to cherry pick data
@@AdityaThakur-vf3ot that's just your mindset
@andreamessiasgomes7118 lol okay. 🤡 because you are an expert on other cultures as well
The world is big, but once you start walking, you can cover a lot of ground, even in a few years.
People (and other species) have always been getting around and back & forth to mix it all up.
Plenty of people walked between the Middle East and Europe. Marco Polo made it to the Central Asian Mountains (Pamirs?) in 2 years.
@bobbykiefer4306 Didn't he use the Mongol horse relay infrastructure?
@NotASeriousMoose I don't know. There were outposts on the Silk Road, so they probably did relay info on horseback from an early period.
@@bobbykiefer4306 If I remember correctly Marco was robbed blind by the first or second Mongol ruler he met, but got to use their horse stations part of the way east. Quickest infrastructure we humans have invented until trains.
@@NotASeriousMoose It's not hard to imagine, especially in an emergency. The Silk Road is fascinating.
Dear Professor, thanks again for your work on India(and also other regions as well). You graciously asked for suggestions about the things you may look at. I would be grateful if you can look at this because it bugs me-
I am obviously no archeologist or historian, but I am an Indian, and might slightly be more aware of the tradition. I do feel that it is possible that there might have been migration into India earlier that popularly believed, and also a migration westward from India, at least towards the middle-east during the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization. Here are my reasons-
IRAN AND MITTANI
Popular narrative seems to be that Mittani, Iranians and Indians separated from a common people somewhere outside of these places. I don't think the facts line up as well.
Mittani : It is very likely that they migrated from India probably around the time Saraswati was drying up and conflicts arose.
1. Mittani are established in the middle east in 1500 BC.
2. Mittani Language is actually quite close to Sanskrit. The words they use seem to be closest to the comparative words used in India. The word they used for one is 'eka/aika'. It is also only used in India alone as far as we know. Not even in Iran. In Iranian texts 'Aiva' is used.
3. They quite clearly worshipped vedic gods. Indra, Mitra and Varuna are mentined in there texts. I don't think there is any other civilization in the whole world that worships a monsoon GOD named Indra. It seems India has to be the most probable place of origin. Not even the Iranians worship Indra. (Although they are clearly aware of him)
Iranians and Avesta :
1. It uses a language very close to Sanskrit, in structure, grammar, and vocabulary.
2. When compared to Vedic literature, Avestan ancient literature is extremely limited(Like 17 long Hymns). Vedas have thousands of hymns, dozens and dozens of named authors and families. Verifiable places, rivers, tribes and kingdoms, many of which can be traced and identified to this day.
3. For the creation, preservation and study of the Vedas, vedangas were created later on. Chanda Vedanga studies the various meters of the vedic hymns. Meters used by Avesta are mentioned in Chanda Vedanga.
4. Considering this, Rig vedic tradition seems much more developed, robust, exhausive, expansive. Avesta on the other hand seems like a Spin-off that later developed into a full-fledged religion.
5. The study and translation of the Avesta is extremely dependent on the Vedas and not the other way around.
6. On top of that, Avesta mentions an 'original homeland' and calls it 'Aryanam Vajeh'. Avesta also mentions Saraswati river.
7. Vedas do not suggest a homeland outside of India nor any migration. Instead, Indian texts seem to call North India the land of Aryans. Vedas do not mention any geographical feature that has been identified outside India with any level of confidence. The rivers mentioned in Rig veda are in order from west to east. They are present in the same order and identified.
8.Saraswati has also been mentioned in the Rig Veda very prominently and its location is also mentioned as between between Yamuna and Satluj. Archeological evidence also suggests that this was probably one of the most important rivers for the Indus Valey people.
9.Saraswati did dry up. It is a fact. People living around it did migrate. They even moved thousands of kilometers into South India through the forests. WHY WOULD THEY NOT MOVE TO IRAN WHICH WAS MUCH CLOSER? In fact, just next door to western Indus valley Settlements.
Considering all this, I do feel that a westward migration from India is very likely.
Now, if Vedic people came from outside, NO settlements in central Asia following the Vedic culture have been clearly identified. A lot of empty speculations.
In fact, central Asian settlements were very small, mostly like a few hundred people. They were no match contemporary Indian settlements.
SO, THANK YOU FOR READING THIS!
ALL THE BEST!
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Most of what you say is not about archaeology, but linguistics, which will be the subject of a future video. But I will give you my overall thoughts briefly.
I don't see any problem with the idea of some people leaving India and going west. This may indeed be what happened in the case of Mitanni. However, I do not think the Avesta shows evidence of this. The arguments that you use are not logical to me. So, for example, the reason why the Vedas are used to study the Avesta is not because the Avesta comes from the Vedas, but because the languages are similar, and we understand the Vedas better than we understand the Avesta. Plus there is more of it. So we use the one we understand better and with the most information to figure out the one we understand less so. We already know the word Arya was used by the Iranians, so the name of their homeland is not necessarily connected with India.
There is no mention of a homeland in the Vedas, because the composers are not from that homeland. It was their ancestors who came from elsewhere, not them.
As for migration away from the Saraswati, the Ganges river was much closer. Not Iran.
@@WorldofAntiquity ❤❤❤❤
Thanks professor for your reply. I understand what you are saying and it does make sense.
The thing is, if the Iranians are so closely related, their language is almost the same, their hymns are similar, when they know Indian Gods, they even follow the same terminology, they even know and write about the Indian rivers like Saraswati and Indian regions like the Sapta-Sindhu, THEY EVEN USE THE SAME NAMES FOR THE RIVER AND THE REGION IN INDIA, why cant they have migrated from India?
Anyways Proff, I don't think you realize how amazing you are, because in India, people start calling me slurs lol. And you, despite being a learned Proff and big youtuber, you even reply and discuss. ❤ I guess it's just too polarised and politicized in India.
There has recently been an exciting development in this area actually, I don't know if you'd be aware, a computer science guy, specialization cryptography- name Yajnadevam. He deciphered the IVC script. The problem is that he might be even more of a 'Hindu Nationalist' than me lol. But the work is actually quite good. He deciphered it using cryptography. I must say, very very interesting results. The paper is not peer reviewed, but its published online and available for everyone to see. It's been out for two years now and has been gaining traction in India, but till now, no expert has refuted it.
It may not be in your area of work, but see if it interests you. I have watched like many videos of him now and my confidence in him is actually growing.
Thanks again for you insightful reply! ❤
Really liked the video sir
Loved that you actually talked to an actual archaeologist from India...thanku to you for providing an actual platform
Can you please suggest me some books to read about "Indian valley civilization"...which are based on current evidence I would really love that??
Subbed❤
16:00 she doesn't understand India. She's conflating modern day socio-electoral issues into history, and Although I would not completely doubt her credentials pertaining to the 1500 BCE, Her understanding of the present modern politics of Southern India is rooted in plain misinformed ignorance at best, or informed disingenuity at worst. I dont think she understands what she's talking about.
She is actively campaigning to save archeological sites in the area she is talking about and is seeing these sites being lost firsthand due to local politics
@tornicade a noble work indeed, sadly it doesn't absolve her off the objectively erratic statements made at the timestamp.
1:00:50 It's obvious to me that Vedic culture and Avestan culture had a connection, and probably were adversaries, judging by the similarities between devas/devis and asuras/ahuras, and which were the good guys and bad guys in each culture. And the name Indo-Iranian hints at shared ancestors, too. That doesn't involve Sumer or Egypt, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that ideas and trade goods made the journey, by game of "telephone" if not directly, all the way from India to Egypt and back. At least language is more reliable than "they both drew cow dieties", but you have to back that up with physical remains or DNA, and a big enough sample size, before drawing any conclusions. So, that's why I used the word "assume".
The similar drawings can be enough for a hypothesis, which you then test against available evidence, and gather new evidence. If there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion, then it stays as an open question... you can have preliminary findings.
I think the problem arises when people cherry pick the data because they seek to justify a political or religious stance, and/or a grift. IOW, some people decide what is their truth, and then look to various academic disciplines for support for their beliefs. Someone who's caught up in that mentality won't be able to understand where they went wrong, or why other people don't seem to get it. You end up with conflicting conspiracists arguing about the what was the actual IRL appearance of fictional story characters. People get mad when I say fictional, like how do I know? Well, if the character had the head of an elephant and the body of a human, he might have been fictional. If his skin was bright blue and he could fly, he might be fictional. And so on. But to a believer, it's another story. And archeology is involved in finding out what really happened, which can cause problems for believers. For example, if they're digging in the place that sure seems to be the city that Gotham City was based upon... but the archeologists aren't finding Batman's lair, then people who believe in Batman will get mad at the archeologists. That's life.
1:13:20 Exactly... art and technology can move independent of civilizations. That's why a single data point isn't enough. They found Roman coins on Oak Island, digging up a colonial feature. That doesn't imply that the Romans came to North America. Money is the kind of tech that really seemed to travel, thru time as well as space. I even had some Roman coins in a Massachusetts barn, until one of my neices transferred them to a pawn shop. Even easier to travel than physical objects are stories, ideas, copies of something a traveler once described.
Search dasarajni war
Dasarajni war- paras clan, other clans it was caused due to Raj guru appointment between Viswamitra and vasishta and the side of vishwamitra lost and many of the clans were exiled.
@@saagar2002 your point???
@@andreamessiasgomes7118 well my point being history is coded into stories and religion so that we don't discard/forget them,just search the dasrajni war.
In valmiki Ramayana sugriva's atlas description lands outside India,how did they know. Maybe people were not isolated as we believe them to be.
Why is it called Harappan civilization even though harappa is much smaller than indus valley or saraswati valley, but in video it's talked like Harappa covers from Gujarat to Afghanistan?
Harappa is the type site
Explained by the archaeologist in the video.
@@lakrids-pibe oh, thank you.
@@WorldofAntiquity I understand that it was explained, but I didn't understand. The other reply from @lakrids-pibe makes sense after googling what a type site is. I think I might've misinterpreted it if the same was told in the video.
@@PK_1024 It is customary to take the name of the first place that was discovered/dug up - which in this case, was Harappa
Thanks professor for this one. Btw it was me who pointed out the issue of misrepresentation of AIT still being a mainstream issue in K12. Your guest rightly points out how AMT is now being portrayed by some as this single cultural asteroid wiping out the preexisting culture & supplanting a "Brahmanical super culture" on the native populace. And you have correctly pointed out the strawmanning of AMT with AIT by some others. This is bcuz this topic strikes at the heart of nation building & that's why nationalist & communists take opposing sides on this debate and not just leave this matter to be reviewed objectively. It has its parallels with the US immigration narratives as well unfortunately. If Indian culture was brought in by immigrants then India is a nation of immigrants, then there is no central national identity that is native and any immigrant culture can be Indian.
IVC sites are found all over India for eg Daimabad and inamgaon nearly 150 km from Pune in Maharashtra
Forgive me but 'peer reviewed articles' have historically been groups of 'scholars' supporting each to maintain their influential positions in academia. So whereas I agree with your position on this issue , lets not pretend that a lot of these scholars did not porport and defend racist and classist sterotypes in their 'peer reviewed junk' despite the evidence.
That’s never been true. You don’t seem to know much about the subject. I give you that they were once racist, but that is not merely a product of peer review.
@WorldofAntiquity What's never been true?. That scholars supported each other's work and feared to or refused to contradict their more established colleagues in these 'peer' reviewed articles or that the presentation is inaccurate? Does one have to be an expert (however defined) in a subject to be able to comment on past and present biases?
@@TimH-o3v this exactly what he doesn't understand. Academia is not a neutral field, it is like any field run by humans wrought with prejudice, beliefs and and biasses. To get published you need to pass the gate keepers of a journal, they of they don't like your ideas, no matter how evidenced, they'll reject it. So academics will to some extent second guess what the journal would like to hear. Once they pass the gate keeper and get published. To stay relevant you need to keep getting published and the easier way of doing that is my quoting and repeating other and not stepping on too many toes, especially if it is not your field of expertise. Suppose you are an archeologist, and you believe a date for an event is wrong, you are still going to quote what the historians say. An example for this is the dating of a famous Buddhist shrine built by Ashoka at Lumbini, the author and had found its carbon dates its earliest foundation was around 1300BCE.(Which also happens to be the date as per the Indian chronology). This is clearly contradicted by what historians said, so the author had to come up with a far fetched explanation that possibly it was Buddhism before the Buddha or a shrine converted later to a Buddhist shrine. If instead they said historians are wrong, they probably wouldn't have got punished. And trust me mate this happens again and again, especially when it comes to Indian history. When real scientists get involved and find evidence the accepted dates are wrong as per hard scientific evidence, historians or linguists will jump in and just quote the old racist creationist scholars who believed in the dogma that no human civilization is older than 4000BCE. Nor can they be 4000BCE, because that is the fertile Cresent (Sumerian etc) and all humans migrated from there after the great flood. The great flood was dated about 2500BCE and they posited another 500 year for the Japerh race to leave fertile Cresent and enter Europe and then India. This chronology thus could not accept for the arrival of the Japerh tribe, Aryans, a date older than 2000BCE. The good professor is in denial that this is exactly how they did history back then -- it was conjecture based. He's also seems to think we've moved ok now from that -- but doesn't realise we still cite their dates. Shaffer called this 'linguistic tyranny " We know archeology doesn't tally up with AMT, but archaeologists still have to cite their dates.
History is the biggest tool for propaganda and manipulation. Those who deny and think science is "pure" are naive.
This dude is one of them bunch of racists patting each others back in an echo chamber and calling it peer review
So Vedic Religion did come from outside India huh …. Interesting
Read his points again at 8:29
It didn't. Vedic Aryans were barbarians who had little to no culture, just like scythians and Huns.
No it didn’t! The archeologist literally said there is no such proof. The archeologist also said they have conclusive evidence for civilizational and cultural continuity. Just debunking some fake news or theories does not automatically conclude that Vedic religion came to India from outside. You have 0 proof and 0 Vedic archeological sites.
What wow @@RojaJaneman
@@kushagra892 you read again
I think another lens to consider is that the rig Vedic religions may have been its own thing and differing from other belief systems (Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism and animism) already present and separate from one another in India before the Aryan/Vedic invasions after 1500bc and later unifying them into a single collective religion known as Hinduism now
Never forget the so called Iranian agriculturist( Sumerian farmers) migration that actually gave the civilization that is the Samana tradition that gave religions like Jainism and Buddhism....
Lol you people claim everything Jainism and Buddhism is Indian not Sumerian Iranian Jainism and Buddhism use vedic philosophy and yoga
@SunnyKumar-nn5wm the Samana tradition is away from your stupid vedism bro...We are a philosophical religion not idiot ritualistic...
@@SunnyKumar-nn5wmonly way to enter India from Africa is through middle east or central asia. So that's the only possible way. Unless you believe out of Africa is bs as well.
@@SunnyKumar-nn5wm claim everything? Use your Ignorant brain first! Ask yourself why ancient Indian temples have Sumerian tablets, go watch Praveen Mohan videos even he has mentioned about anunakki and all watch the recent ones , indigenous Indians were nature worshippers that's it others were all brought in by outsiders, it's a fact .
@@SunnyKumar-nn5wm Buddhism never uses vedic philosophy and Veda doesn't talk about yoga. Yoga is samana culture not vedic
From what I understood, archaeologically there's no conclusion of migration whether inwards or outwards. Thus, no consensus?
The consensus is there is no evidence archaeologically.
@WorldofAntiquity You mean consensus is that there is no evidence of IA migration be it from West to East or East to West, as per archaeology?
@@tobey_maguire_ Right.
So Basically
1) archeology doesn’t have evidence for an “Aryan” migration into India or out of India.
2) There have been numerous migrations into and out of India over time.
3) The harappans have left their mark on the subcontinent even to this day.
4) Sanskrit and the Vedas are a product of the Indian subcontinent.
Correct.
I assume by your #2 that you are not talking about archaeological evidence, and you are not talking about major migrations.
@@WorldofAntiquity that is correct. Seems reasonable to me that, since time immemorial, relatively small bands of people have always been moving around.
Why this controversy of Aryan invasions? The English don’t deny the Norman Invasion, the Mexicans don’t deny the Spanish conquistador invasion.
Coz when the Britishers & Europeans came with the Aryan invasion theory they claimed that the indigenous Indians were primitive barbarians who were 'civilised' by the invading white Europeans who gave the Indians their current culture.
It was a very racist and condescending and biased ideology at the time and hence, it did not sit well with Indians. Understandably so.
But we must not let racism of the past cloud our judgements and accept the current evidence whether we like it or not.
Indians don't either lol. We don't deny actual invasions that have been documented in history. In fact our ancient Sanskrit literature records all the invasions by Scythians, Hunas, Persians, Greeks. The vast majority will proudly admit they have mixed central Asian DNA and blood and you will find Indian tribes who trace their ancestry to various Central Asian tribes and even are proud of it.
We have a problem with Aryan invasion because it's a completely made up history that was invented in the 19th century by racist scholars employed by the East India company that falsifies our entire history and the history of the rest of the world up until then. For example our dynasty of kings, every name of the kings are recorded , the duration of their reigns and details about s not just in one historical record, but several dozens and not just in Hinduism, but also in anti Hindu traditions. Our kings list goes back to 7000BCE. The Greeks themselves recorded this in 300BCE. Just like you have a calendar based on before and after Christ. We have several too and our main one is before and after Krishna, dated 3102 BCE 17th Feb. Yes, an exact date! South East Asia also records this date and the interactions of their ancient kings with Indian kings back then. So did the Chinese. So did the Persians.
When you realise the reasons these racist scholars gave for falsifying all of Indian history was God created the world In 4000BCE, so its impossible civilization existed in India in 3000BCE and prior, HOW CAN YOU NOT HAVE A PROBLEM?
@@RajSingh-xn8qd Nah bro, there is just a lot of genetic, linguistic, mythological and archeological evidence to suggest that there was a gradual migration of the Aryans from the Steppes.
A king list isn't enough to counter that. Neither is ancient Greek records a conclusive source. The Ancient Greeks also claim to have seen cyclopes. Modern genetic research far outweighs such ambiguous evidence.
C'mmon brother, we can be just as proud of our history and culture whether it started in 7000 BCE or 3000 BCE or 1500 BCE.
We don't need psuedo-history to make us feel good about ourselves.
When I was in UK junior school in the 1950s we had pictures on the wall about various historical figures. I only recall Pocahontas and Clive of India. No one explained why he was in Calcutta in the 1st place. Just something about a black hole.
On 1964 my O level history syllabus included information about the East India Company and its greed. Not in any depth but we were given to understand that it was a bad organisation. My reading over the years has appalled me. The greed and corruption of European and in India the British imperial takeover was something to be ashamed of.
(The African slave trade of the same era was even worse of course.)
Srila Prabhupada: From Kaśyapa the Caspian they come. "Lectures on SB 1.8.45. Los Angeles, May 7, 1973."
Looking forward to the linguistic evidence video. Questions:
1) Will you be examining both Vedic Sanskrit AND Classical Sanskrit?
2) If looking at Classical Sanskrit, will you be looking into the ancient Indian grammarian Pāṇini? (circa 400 BCE, a philologist, grammarian, and scholar in ancient India, but who has also been variously dated between 520 BCE and 350 BCE). The Sanskrit epic Brihatkatha and the Buddhist scripture Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa both mention Pāṇini to have been a contemporary with the king Dhana Nanda (reigned 329-321 BCE), the last monarch of the Nanda Empire before Chandragupta Maurya came to power It is thought that Pāṇini's work (titled the Aṣṭādhyāyī - a grammar text that describes a form of the Sanskrit language) was written in Brahmi script (however, the exact script used by Pāṇini is not definitively known). Of course, the earliest (indisputably dated) and best-known Brahmi inscriptions are the rock-cut edicts of Ashoka in north-central India, dating to 250-232 BCE. But Brahmi must be older than this, since it was already used by royals. Eventually Brahmi became the basis for many of the scripts used in various Indian languages. The Brahmi script is the originator of most of the present Indian scripts, including Devanagari, Bengali, Tamil, and Malayalam, and also Dravidian scripts derive from the Brahmi script. The sudden appearance of the Brahmi writing system is one of the great mysteries of writing in India, as there is no evidence of inscriptions beforehand.
3) If looking at the older Vedic Sanskrit, will you be looking at the similarities it shares with Old Avestan? Vedic Sanskrit wasn't a common language among the laymen, it was used as a liturgical language by the priestly class (much like Old Avestan was). Among common everyday people, and over time, Sanskrit evolved into many different vernacular languages. Vedic Sanskrit has not survived as a script or writing system. There is no Vedic Sanskrit writing that survives (if it ever was written down). The earliest writing system that was used to write the Sanskrit language was Brahmi. But Vedic Sanskrit AS A LANGUAGE bears similarities to Old Avestan. Old Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit are so similar that they can be considered as dialects of the same language instead of two separate languages. Grammatically there is little difference between the older parts of the Avesta (the Gathas), which uses the Old Avestan language, and the older parts of the Vedas (the Rig-Veda), which uses the Vedic Sanskrit language. Both languages underwent systematic phonetic change. However, according to Thomas-Burrow, in his book, The Sanskrit Language, it is quite possible to find verses in the oldest portion of the Avesta (the Gathas), which simply by phonetic substitutions, can be turned into intelligible Vedic Sanskrit. The chief difference between the two lies in certain well-defined phonetic shifts rather than in basic grammar. It is, therefore, quite possible, by simple phonetic substitutions, to transliterate verses from the Gathas into intelligible Vedic Sanskrit. The verbal system in both Old Avestan and in Vedic Sanskrit are in general identical. The accents on the syllables found in both languages, on the whole, are the same. Old Avestan morphology immediately reveals a close relationship to Vedic Sanskrit. The two languages were closely related and a main difference between them was in pronunciations. Some verses from the oldest portions of the Avesta (the Gathas) can be read with knowledge of Vedic Sanskrit by accounting for differences in pronunciations. The languages of the Avesta and the Vedas shared some vocabulary that is not shared with the other Indo-European languages. Some examples are:
Word Sanskrit Avestan
Gold Hiranya Zaranya
Army Séna Haena
Spear Rsti Arsti
Sovereignty Ksatra Xsaθra
Lord Ásura Ahura
Sacrifice Yajñá Yasna
sacrificing
priest Hótar Zaotar
sacrificing
drink Sóma Haoma
member of
religious
community aryamán Airyaman
God Deva Daeva
Indeed, speakers of both language subgroups used the same word to refer to themselves as noble: Vedic Sanskrit arya and Avestan/Old Persian ariya. Both words “a-ve-sta” (from the Old Persian abasta, meaning “the law”) and “ve-da” (insight, wisdom) are derived from the same root: “Vid” to know, to gain knowledge, to comprehend. This word “Vae-da” also appears at Yasna 28.10 and 31.2 as knowledge and pertains to “sacred knowledge” or “ritual knowledge”. Similarly, the term “Avesta” is called “Upastha” in Vedic Sanskrit, meaning collection of mantras, or sacred utterances.
Iran is the land of Aryans.
The word aryan first was used to refer to learned persons especially knowledge about horses.
There was different tribes. Some were mountain dwelling tribes and some equestrian tribes that developed different customs etc. But ultimately related.
@bobbykiefer4306 Based on the AMT, the aryans who migrated from pontic steppe, diverged after reaching somewhere in the middle east (probably BMAC) and some migrated to what is now India.
We have the oldest writing of Sanskrit in Kikuli tablets.
@dom4068 yep. No doubt. Now we are talking actual archeological finds.
The source of exclusive wide spread male Steppe ancestry appears to be the horse riding War Bands roaming the Eurasian wilderness post horse domestication in 3000bc
Also the cause for the dispersal of the IVC in 1900bc
and the displacement of native AASI males and the creation of the ANI population with Steppe ancestry post 1500bc
52:14 so 'Trade' was gone and so was 'urban architecture' and 'writing' and then she proceeded to espouse cultural continuity... bruh what?
imagine going to a country right now, taking away their writing, trade and cities and then claiming no civilizational collapse happened.
She is nothing to say that if Aryas were outsider or indigenous in hindu context aryas were the noble people who lived in aryavart ( mordern day india )
Refference to Mahabharata war the capital is indraprastha and kurukshetra is also present in haryana state Rakhigarhi (ivc site) is same state Haryana .
Your motived by your own political bias
Your trying to prove that something else you tried very hard .
Hindu nationalism lol people in south are hindu too
We never used in race but our colonial masters were to introduce these terms .
South is not retaliation nor the north its not even larger debate it often white Americans who try be the owner of other peoples culture .
Just like New york times used swastika = hakencruz whole word called it swaztika why ?
It should be called hakencruz not swaztika .
I think theres no other pagan culture survived but Hinduism still lives and breathes here its very much intertwined with india and its history .
Sorry to break it to you but there are numerous places named Aria/Arya. Just look at Iran. It's not in India.
@@bobbykiefer4306sorry to break , Iran is not today Iran 😂
Old Iran is only part of BMAC and to indus
Iran is nothing to with current Iran
Actual Iran is daitya to hapt hendu ( turkemistan to Indus valley region)
Hapt hendu ( sapt Sindhu, indus civilization as whole region ) mentioned in iranic text as land of Aryans
@@bobbykiefer4306medes migrated from BMAC and spread their territory
Iran was only used for eastern territory of medes empire ( or Persian Empire)
Because they conquered part of aryan land ( Afghanistan and western Indus)
Iran was also etymological to iranshar in their culture which means city of Aria ( probably they consider east Persian with Afghanistan or influenced )
@@bobbykiefer4306many of old Iranian ethnicity not even residing in iran
Persian forefathers or whome they are descendants from are kambujia people ( which are kamboj people of Punjab right now )
Pastun are also old Iranian tribe
Eastern Iranian from central asia to indus still the old Iranian tribe
@@greaterbharat4175 Persians like Cyrus the Great/Darius the Great are said to be Aryan. Which doesn't necessarily equate to Vedic Indian.
The comment section will be a carnage of Hindu nationalists vs. reality...
@@chcomes so much strawmanning. To paint your opponents to be bottom of barrel low iq is unironically low iq behaviour.
Plus not much has been conclusively reached via this video
@@njeeva using superficial terms does not make you intelligent
@@andreamessiasgomes7118 and the op comment is not superficial at all?
Hey people...the fact that there are so many hidden truths and conflagrations we may never get to the bottom of it all. Even science...mixed with human politics will not give correct facts. Humans are so emotional. We may never know the truth. But that little tribe in africa that talk about sky people from Sirius star system..they may be onto something, for real. They are being attacked by the 3 monotheism cultures trying to stamp them out. I think we are running sown rabbit holes. Like elites want us to be. Get the woke out..lets all do better.
I don't care what she said next but at 15:50 she said that dravidan movement was response of northern nationalist is completly wrong, dravidian movement is one of the oldest movement in india, it was started even before 1920's and at that time hindu society only had caste divide. Because of dravidian movement nearly all brahmins was forced to leave tamil nadu. There is zero contrubition of any north indian in either dravidian movement or aryan invension theory it was all about britishers and south indian. Yes North Indian contriubted in Hindu Nationlism but we don't have to forgot that it was north indians who was under muslim rule for 700yrs, it was north india which was divided in the name of religion, so rise of hindu nationalism is obvious. And currently in north india i have seen that person with hindu nationalist mindset is the least castist people as they focous on uniting hindus rather than caste while in other hand so call secularist people in north is all about dividing hindus for the vote bank. I myslef come from a caste which is known in whole india for the vote bank of castist party.
Not Dravidian movement. Dravidian nationalist movement. They are not the same.
@@WorldofAntiquity Oh ok, then let me know what's the difference between dravidian movmenet and dravidian nationalism, we all know that even before demand of Pakistan, periyar srated demand of dravridnadu isn't that nationalism, when whole india was fighting for independence at that time periyar and his dravdrian followers were demanding seprate country isn't that dravidian nationalism. And Plz don't just tell me difference between nationalism and movement insted just give us one example where you can proof that dravidan nationalism was started against something done in north.
@@ankushyadav6814 The Dravidian movement was created to fight for justice for Dravidians, and particularly to curb the power of the Brahmins in the government. Dravidian nationalism was created to create an independent Dravidian state. Yes, I am sure there were some people who wanted a separate state earlier, but it didn't take off until the 1930s.
It wasn't me who argued that it happened because of something that happened in the north. Disha said that. You will have to ask her.
@@WorldofAntiquity Yes, it was disha who said that but Sir if tommorow terrorist attack happens in any country is that only fault of terrorist isn't there are some goverment's fault too, so if someone said something wrong on your channel isn't it comes on your credibility and responsibility?
Thanks for sharing about caste , and whatever you said is completly true but we both know that caste system of india was no different from feudalism of europe, Serfdom in Russia,feudalism in japan and korea and other parts of the world, we both know that till 1900s 90% of europens were peasant class, even after more than 150yrs of abolishing of feudalism in japan we still see some cases of discrimation in japan, while in india it's just been 70yrs. Eventhough i have never faced caste discrimation but it still exist there and i know caste and pollution is two most important thing on which india has to work.
Nothing constructive to add, but I'll feed the algorithm by saying I enjoyed the video and learned a lot.
I watched the first 12 minutes of the video. For someone claiming to be “scientific” the tone and tenor of your diatribe against Koenrad Elat was symptomatic of what’s wrong with western scholarship - barely concealed sanctimony aimed to discredit any challenges to the entrenched hypothesis of AMT.
The entire proto-Indo-European language hypothesis is passed off as “evidence”, though there is no evidence that there ever existed such a PIE language.
There is no consideration for internal astronomical references in the Vedic texts that clearly show both the antiquity and location of where they were composed. You operate under the presumption that the 2000-1000 BCE period is a proven fact of this purported AMT, which a significant part of the Vedas predate by 1000s of years.
*the tone and tenor of your diatribe against Koenrad Elat was symptomatic of what’s wrong with western scholarship*
My thinking is that only people with delicate and sensitive personalities would be bothered by any perceive "tone," which is probably imagined anyway. Elst would probably not have a problem with it. That's just you.
*The entire proto-Indo-European language hypothesis is passed off as “evidence”, though there is no evidence that there ever existed such a PIE language.*
Sorry, but I am going to take the word of the world's linguists over yours. Nothing personal.
*There is no consideration for internal astronomical references in the Vedic texts*
Last time I checked, astronomy is not archaeology. Please see the title of the video.
@ you can’t cherry pick evidence. That’s just poor science :)
Also, there IS the field of archeoastronomy - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy
Also, please take a look at Yajna Devam’s decipherment of the Indus script, clearly showing it is Vedic sanskrit. While it will take academia to come to terms with it, it is a monumental work of great importance by a computer scientist.
@@daosnet You are now the 5th or 6th person I've seen that's called him out on his cherry picking. It really is that obvious for any intelligent, critical thinking and rational person to see. I am guessing you are university educated, so am I, we are trained to spot BS like this. He is fooling the lay casual youtuber and preaching to the converted, but nobody who thinks independently for themselves will fall for his nonsense. Another of his favourite fallacies is appeal to authority - like he just said linguists said PIE exists -- therefore he accepts it existed. That's a lack of critical thinking right there. In fact linguists have no universal agreement on what was PIE, where was PIE and when was PIE and even whether the methods used to reconstruct PIE are valid. He clearly has not read the research - and yet his next video is going to be on linguistics.
@ yes. Typically I don’t have time to respond to random TH-cam videos, but I’m on a winter break, so had some time. There are so many presumptions/theories accepted as fact in such videos that it would be comical if there weren’t thousands of gullible people lapping it up. There are so many logical fallacies in the material - the circular reasoning, the appeal to authority, cherry picking, and so on.
"I want to know as many true things as possible." AronRa.
I'm thankful for what he,Matt,Forrest,and the others do.
I belong to the Gujar tribe of Pakistan & my DNA breakdown came back as 60 percent Zagros, CHG & ANF basically from the Iranian platues.
20 percent steppe from the so called Aryans
20 percent of the indigenous population known as AASI
And most of my tribe is genetically the same as me
As a whole in Pakistan people from most of the tribes are very similar genetically.
Indigenous dna makes up very small amounts of the people in Pakistan especially.
It's the same for Indian Gujjars and Jaats as well as most of the light-skinned Rajputs.
@@abc_cbathe minimum steppe level in jats is 28% , in rors it's 29% and th max that steppe can go in both communities is 48% and for rajput gujjar 25% steppe is max . As jats , rors never mixed too much with other groups and rors have all surnames as same as jats . So both are very closely related groups
Is your Aryan dna on the Y (paternal) side.
The indigenous AASI will be on the X side.
@@alani3992not likely , Iranian cave belt hunters gather migrated to Indian region and they admixture but they admixture as female ( rarely their is successful of y dna j2 , which they came up with)
All Indian Neolithic or agricultural people have h1 (y indigenous haplogroup)
And Indian hunters gather male
Gave Neolithic Indian culture
( Female cave belt hunters gather+ male Indian hunters gather)
Which then steppe arriving male admixture with them
So aasi in him more likely male adna
@thegreat2353 yes nomad Tribe were being fucked by Kings and that changed their DNA
I hope you keep these India-focused videos coming as part of a regular rotation. To my mind, unlocking the archaeological secrets of the subcontinent is likely the key to understanding how homo sapiens made it all the way to Australia, East Asia and beyond (and with what diversity) in what seems like a very short time.
There are bound to be some major discoveries in coming years in ancient DNA analysis of various waves of homo sapiens migration into the subcontinent from whenever they first arrived (60 to 70 kya?) in the late Paleolothic through to the early Mesolithic arrival of farmer populations and the much later Indo-European migration.
Hopefully there will be a lot of papers published in the coming years linking ancient DNA results to archaeological strata.
Short answer no. Long answer absolutely no
I am pretty sure the stories of some vedas and the gods in them came from outside the Indian subcontinent.
Why? Have you not heard of convergent development? The same or very similar solution to a problem. It happens in nature all the time.
@helenamcginty4920 It's already documented the Mitanni used Vedic Sanskrit outside India.
Before u say the vedas and now u say some then ull say one god 😊
@@bobbykiefer4306 Again, it wasn't Vedic Sanskrit and it wasn't their native language.
@@brucetucker4847I didn't see much evidence present for OIT in the video. Horses chariots etc. All from outside India in the archeological record.
I must say that we may be overdoing it a little by negating, or always tempering, the idea of invasions leading to cultural change. A lot of these issues have modern-day equivalents and we should not be blind to the present nor the past.
DIsha seems much more sensitive to these topics.
Invasion is an overly politicized term ESPECIALLY in the modern day, with a needlessly negative connotation. Populations move, admix, and integrate. It happens all the time. This is why migration is a better term to use. No one negates the idea that migration and invasion lead to cultural change. But there is not much evidence of any real "invasion" of "Aryans."
He specifically said that invasions do happen, but that we now understand that there are other ways that cultures change. And in the case we're discussing here, they have found no evidence for an invasion.
This young scientist seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge of these matters. She is objective and scientific in her approach and therefore she has no ideological axe to grind. This was a great interview thanks
Wow!!! Pleasantly surprised to see Disha on your channel. I remember watching her on the Charvaka Podcast with Kushal discussing the findings of Rakhigari a while back.
Some more detail on drying of Saraswati river could have been interesting. The general accepted date is about 19K bce yes? And RigVeda mentions this river.
See my video on the Rig Veda. The link is in my pinned comment.
Why there is nothing told about indus valley civilization In Rigveda then ???
@@aaryameena because Indus valley civilization is only 5000 years old according to ASI first chief n. Kaniggam(british army men) and rig Veda is more older than. At least 30000 years.
@@Akdstde rig veda is 3000000000 billion years old actually. Plz dont spread lies 🙏
@@CallmeTomorrow65ha ha. Times ten. 😊
Although you have been SLIGHTLY more open than Indian leftist and liberal historians, you are still interpreting the history by keeping your mind closed to other interpretations. This is the biggest problem with what is now generally accepted (that they dismiss any other interpretations). But the good news is India is slowly knowing more about its own history and more places are being dug up to know about India's history. ... Hopefully you will keep track of newer discoveries and many interpretations you have made will be revisited. But I think that you have largely presented a better interpretation than many "establishment historians" of India.(India;s education system (the non-STEM education) was captured by leftists who even now take a great pleasure in showing India in a bad light.