Many articles have been published citing Rakhigarhi DNA tests to inform Aryan Migration/Invasion theory is now scientifically proven. This article presents an alternate viewpoint citing nearly a dozen genetic research that disproves the Aryan migration/invasion theory.
So before starting, let’s establish some facts.
- Aryan Invasion theory/AIT as it is was conceptualized by William Jones when he saw a striking similarity between Sanskrit and Greek/Latin languages. Below is the excerpt from Jones speaking to the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1786.
The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of a beautiful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian can also be from the same family.
This stirred quite a controversy in contemporary Britain that an Indian language could be more sophisticated than two of Europe’s most revered languages. Jones himself believed that the Genesis model of human history was the absolute one, and Hebrew was the original language of Mankind, in the words of Jones himself in 1792.
- The Hebrew narrative [is] more than human in its origin and consequently valid in every substantial part of it.” Therefore, “it is no longer probable only, but sure, that the whole race of man proceeded from Iran, whence they migrated at first in three great colonies [those of Shem, Japhet, and Ham]; and that those three branches grew from a common stock
After Jones discovered Sanskrit, there was an initial wave of Indian origin of humans by European scholars.
The astronomer Bailly, the first mayor of Paris, situated the earliest humans on the Ganges banks.
- “the Brahmans are the teachers of Pythagoras, the instructors of Greece and throughout Europe.”
Another scholar Voltaire agreed with him.
- “In short, Sir, I am convinced that everything—astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc.—comes to us from the banks of the Ganges.”
French naturalist and traveler Pierre de Sonnerat (1782) also agreed with the same sentiments.
So did metaphysician Schelling
- “what is Europe really but a sterile trunk which owes everything to Oriental grafts?” (Poliakov 1971, 11).
So did Friedrich von Schlegel: “The Northwest of India must be considered the central point from which all of these nations had their origin.”
In 1845, Eichhoff said the same: “All Europeans come from the Orient. This truth, which is confirmed by the evidence of physiology and linguistics, no longer needs striking proof.
Even as late as 1855, Lord A. Curzon, the governor-general of India, said this: “The race of India branched out and multiplied into that of the great Indo-European family. The Aryans, at a period as yet undetermined, advanced towards and invaded the countries to the west and northwest of India, [and] conquered the various tribes who occupied the land.”
“They must have imposed their religion, institutions, and language, which later obliterated nearly all the traces of the former non-Aryan language, or languages, of the conquered tribes.”
This was viewed as a threat to the classical view of creating the word that was Genesis. Some were revolted that the colonials and Europeans belonged to the same race.
(Legge, 1902, 710).
- “Late Prof. Max Muller [who had] blurted forth to a not over-grateful world the news that we and our revolted sepoys were of the same human family.”
Max Muller himself noted this in 1883
- They would not have it; they would not believe that there could be any community of origin between Athens and Rome and the so-called Niggers of India. The classical scholars scouted the idea, and I still remember the time when 1 was a student at Leipzig and began to study Sanskrit, with what contempt my teachers treated any remarks on Sanskrit or comparative grammar. No one ever was for a time so wholly laughed down as Professor Bopp, when he first published his Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, and Gothic. All hands were against him.
Despite what some people may believe, Muller was very enthusiastic about praising India. In “India: What Can It Teach Us?” (1883), he said “the country most richly endowed with all the wealth, power and beauty that nature can bestow,” indeed, “a very paradise on earth,” a place where “the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, [and] has most deeply pondered on the greatest problems of life.” Such lavish praise was far too extreme for those who, as Muller himself noted, would be “horror struck at the idea that the humanity they meet with [in India] should be able to teach us any lesson”.
So what exactly prompted Max Muller to propose the Aryan Invasion theory? Why evangelical propaganda, of course.
- The Indomania of the early British Orientalists “did not die of natural causes; it was killed off’ and replaced by an Indophobia initiated by Evangelicalism and Utilitarianism, epitomized by Charles Grant and James Mill, respectively (Trautmann 1997, 99).
Charles Grant, a missionary, stated
- “In the worst parts of Europe, there are no doubt great numbers of men who are sincere, upright, and conscientious. In Bengal, a man of real veracity and integrity is a great phenomenon”.
Another Reverend Alexander Duff stated
- “They have no will, no liberty, no conscience of their own. They are passive instruments, moulded into shape by external influences—mere machines, blindly stimulated, at the bidding of another, to pursuits the most unworthy of immortal creatures. In them, reason is in fact laid prostrate. They launch into all the depravities of idol worship. They look like the sports and derision of the Prince of darkness”.
Max Muller stated in 1875
- This shows, better than anything else, how violent a shock was given by the discovery of Sanskrit to prejudices most deeply ingrained in the mind of every educated man. The most absurd arguments found favor for a time, if they could only furnish a loophole by which to escape the unpleasant conclusion that Greek and Latin were of the same kith and kin as the language of the black inhabitants of India.
Thus was born the Aryan Invasion theory, a theory to appease evangelists about Europeans and Christianity’s superiority.
According to G Smith
- “The English-speaking Aryans had been providentially trained to become the rulers of India and evangelizers of India” since “the youngest civilization in the world was to instruct and correct the oldest.”
According to Samuel Laing
- “Two races so long separated meet once more the younger brother has become stronger, and takes his place as the head and protector of the family, we are here, on a sacred mission, to stretch out the right hand of aid to our weaker brother, who once far outstripped us, but has now fallen behind in the race”.
Muller himself said this:
- “it is curious to see how the descendants of the same race, to which the first conquerors and masters of India belonged, return to accomplish the glorious work of civilization, which had been left unfinished by their Arian brethren”.
So Max Muller dated Vedas to 1200 BC, which is the standard date to which AIT/AMT proponents hang to this day, despite Muller himself later retracting his calculations.
- “I need hardly say that I agree with almost every word of my critics. I have repeatedly dwelt on the hypothetical character of the dates. All I have claimed for them has been that they are minimum dates. Like most Sanskrit scholars, I feel diat 200 years is scarcely sufficient to account for the growth of the poetry and religion ascribed to the Khandas period”.
At the end of his life, he straight up said his calculations were arbitrary:
- “Whether the Vedic hymns were composed 1000, or 1500, or 2000, or 3000 years B.C., no power on earth will ever determine”.
Despite Muller himself retracting his statements, it was sacrilegious to oppose the fixed date for Vedas.
- It became a habit already censured by W. D. Whitney, to say that Max Muller had proved 1200-1000 B.C. as the date of the Rg Veda. It was only timidly that a few scholars, like L. von Schroeder, ventured to go as far back as 1 500 or even 2000 B.C. And when all at once, H. Jacobi attempted to date Vedic literature back to the third millenary B.C. on the grounds of astrological calculations, scholars raised a great outcry at such heretical procedure. Strange to say, it has been quite forgotten on what a precarious footing stood the “opinion prevailing hitherto,” which was so zealously defended. (Winternitz [1907)
These excerpts are taken from The Quest for the Origin of Vedic Culture by Edward Bryant.
So what exactly is this Aryan Invasion/Migration theory?
It postulates an Aryan race with a proto Indian European language that either invaded or migrated to replace indigenous Indians (Dravidians) to become the dominating society.
So, let’s examine this theory based on genetically based research.
Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists
Below is the summary of the work which states that there is no pronounced genetic input from Central Asia (Current Aryan homeland as accepted by most AIT/AMT supporters)
- Although the considerable cultural impact on social hierarchy and language in South Asia is attributable to nomadic Central Asian pastoralists’ arrival, genetic data (mitochondrial and Y chromosomal) have yielded dramatically conflicting inferences on the genetic origins of tribes and castes of South Asia. We sought to resolve this conflict, using high-resolution data on 69 informative Y-chromosome binary markers and ten microsatellite markers from a large set of geographically, socially, and linguistically representative ethnic groups of South Asia. We found that the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in most Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000–15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain South Asia’s observed genetic variation. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with recent single history. Associated microsatellite analyses of the high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate recent independent histories of the Indus Valley and the peninsular Indian region. Our data are also more consistent with Dravidian speakers’ peninsular origin than a source with proximity to the Indus and with significant genetic input resulting from demic diffusion associated with agriculture. Our results underscore the importance of marker ascertainment for distinguishing phylogenetic terminal branches from basal nodes when attributing ancestral composition and temporality to either indigenous or exogenous sources. Our reappraisal indicates that pre-Holocene and Holocene-era—not Indo-European—expansions have shaped the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape.
Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia
Another paper by researchers informs that there are indeed two different ancestral populations to the Indian populace, the Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI)—both of which are older than 3500 Years Before Present (YBP). The whole of the Indian population is derived from a mixture of both populations. If this mixture happened at the fabled time of 1500 BC (Aryan migration time), it would confirm the migration was true. But that’s not the case here. When these researchers modeled the data, they could not find any evidence of a dramatic Central Asian migration for this period. So they went back and tilled about 12500 Years Before Present (YBP), they could not find any evidence.
Thus the mixing of the ANI and ASI did not happen 140 generations before, as was believed, but probably more than 500 generations back (Each generation is 25 years). What’s more, the article directly states that Max Muller’s theory of Aryan Migration/Invasion has to have happened before this mixing occurred.
The deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages
Here’s another genetic study that correlates the genetic difference between different castes and AMT.
To quote, “Only a small fraction of the ‘Caucasoid-specific’ DNA lineages found in Indian populations can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture. Some other excerpts from the study.
One migration took place between India and Europe 51,000–67,000 years.
There is a split between both groups 53,000 ± 4,000 years ago.
It debunks a massive wave of the mixture of any race to Indian DNA. Straight up says that the so-called Aryan gene is specifically Indian origin from the Pleistocene age or may have already happened in African migration.
Now, let’s talk about Rakhigarhi DNA tests. What they will tell you would be this.
1 R1A “Aryan gene.”
Or this victory dance by Scroll (“Forgetting” that the specimen was female, not male) (Scroll .in/article/893308…)
Now, what exactly does the paper say?
- IVC population is the most significant source of ancestry in the modern south Asian population
- Iranian related ancestry branched off from the South Asian population 12000 years ago.
Now here’s the hoodwink created by the leftist cabal. R1A is hardly “concluded” to be the “Aryan” gene or “Steppe” gene.
- It’s established that there was very little intermixing of genes between castes and tribes from The Human Genetic History of South Asia by Partha P. Majumder
Now, here is the twist.
- Even a tribe called the Chenchu tribe has 26% of R1A, and the high repeat diversity of the R1A gene suggests that it originated from India. From “The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations”
Indians virtually lack the HIV-1–protective Ccr5 allele.
(Majumder and Dey 2001) that is frequent in Europe,western Asia, and central Asia, implying either that this allele arose very recently in Europe or that there has not been substantial gene flow to India from the northwest.
Yet another research also supports this.
Human evolution: The southern route to Asia by Todd R. Disotell.
- Summary of the work
- The actual effect of the migration on the Indian gene pool was negligible
- 3.Two migration (one from Eurasia to India 53000 years ago and one from India to Eurasia 32000 years ago happened as marked by the higher and lower density of different haplogroup)
- Actual summary of AMT
Another research confirms the same.The deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages
- It directly questions AIT/AMT in its summary
- The first migration happened over 50000+ years ago 2nd migration happened 30000+ years ago
- Eurasian heritage is similar between north Indians and south Indians, and it didn’t give any direction in gene flow
1 and 2. The final migration happened from 9000 to 6000 years ago
3 and 4. The overwhelming majority of Eurasian DNA lineage is actually from
50000+ years ago and not from 3500 years ago as claimed by AIT/AMT
Yet another research confirms that the Eurasian DNA lineage is from the bronze age rather than recent migration.
The Genetic Ancestry of Modern Indus Valley
Populations from Northwest India
Jat and Ror are the highest in steppe ancestry lineage, but it happened before the AIT/AMT age given. It dates back to the late bronze age.
So to summarize the research, I’ve cited
- Timeline of AIT/AMT does not fit into the genetic research timeline
- R1A gene may have started in India rather than in the steppe population, so it can’t be called the “aryan gene.”
- Rakhigarhi DNA results are half-truths as spoken by the left.
- Any migration happened at least 12000+ years ago to have any significant effect on the Indian populace
- AIT/AMT is not supported by genetics research
Another research paper shows that R1A haplogroup was among the Indians long before any migration of “Aryans” and is more than 12000 years old.
Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy, Vol 1, №1, 2010
Inconsistencies in the steppe hypothesis of Aryan homeland as per the same research.
Some supplementary information. David Reich, one of the foremost champions of AIT/AMT, doubts upon it now. and concedes that there is little similarity in steppe culture and Vedic culture.
Niraj Rai’s (Co-author of Rakhigarhi tests) interview on AIT/AMT.