Today's talk is the second and concluding
part of the analysis of
the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT).
The first part was
about the linguistic arguments
behind the theory and today
we will deal with the textual
and archaeological arguments.
As I pointed out last time,
before 300 years, there was
no such concept as Aryans or Aryan
languages or that any idea
that Aryans had come from outside India
bringing Sanskrit
and the Vedic culture with them.
No one in the world
suspected that such was the case.
It all started when
the Europeans came to India.
They found that the languages
of North India, the languages of Europe,
and the languages of Central
Asia and Iran were related to each other.
This started the science
of comparative linguistics
and they decided
that all these languages belong
to one family called the Aryan
or Indo-European family.
In the beginning they thought Sanskrit
was the original language from which
all these languages were descended.
But after linguistic reconstruction
of the proto-Indo European language,
when it was discovered that
Sanskrit was not the original language,
Sanskrit was also a daughter
language like Latin, Greek etc...
so immediately, as a reaction
they decided that India
was not the original homeland
and the original homeland was somewhere
in central Asia such as south Russia.
This is the only basis for
the Aryan Invasion Theory.
And once it was decided
that the homeland was in South Russia
it automatically meant that
the Aryans came into India from outside.
Because of that, they started searching
for all kinds of linguistic arguments
to show that they came from outside.
In the last talk I had pointed
out that all the linguistic arguments
and shown how they have no basis at all.
For example Hawke admits
that there is no evidence,
the arguments for an AIT
or the arguments
for a homeland outside India
is not based on hardcore
linguistic evidence,
but it is only based on arguments which
are based on plausibility and simplicity.
We examined all those arguments
and we saw that they are
not based on simplicity at all.
They are based on childish
and simplistic notions;
and when we examine them we find that
they are not plausible also. They go
against all the principles of plausibility
In fact while you are
examining those arguments
we come across opposite evidence
showing that India was in fact
the homeland for the Aryan languages.
For example, the evidence
of place and river names in north India;
right from the Vedic times
all the river names
in the northern Pakistan
and northern India areas
are all derived from Sanskrit
and Indo-European languages
but in Europe itself and in most
of the other Indo-European language
speaking areas of the world
you find that the rivers
do not have Aryan names.
They are pre-Aryan or pre-European names
which indicate that before
the Aryan languages were spoken
there, some other languages were spoken.
This is the case everywhere.
In America also you find
Red Indian names, Mississippi, Missouri;
they are all Red Indian names.
They are not names given by Europeans.
Then you find the evidence
of the one way Uralic borrowings.
Now the Uralic languages
of Europe that is Finnish and Hungarian,
they contain many words
borrowed from Vedic and Iranian.
This is usually used as an argument
that the Aryans came from there.
But actually it proves the opposite
because all the borrowings are one way.
That is Sanskrit and Iranian
have not borrowed
even one single word
from the Uralic languages
while the Uralic languages have borrowed
words in all the basic spheres
of basic human activity
from the Indo-Iranian languages.
This does not fit the situation
where the Indo-Iranians came from
Eastern Europe. But it fits in
with the situation where
some groups of Indo-Iranians
went to Eastern Europe and the
Uralic languages borrowed words from them.
Then you find the evidence of Indian
and central Asian animal names
in European languages.
For example, the words for leopard,
elephant and ape, all
of which are found in India
but they are not all found in
other Indo-European language
speaking areas. They are found in Africa,
but that is not an Indo-European
language speaking area.
You don't find them in Europe,
elephants and apes.
So, when we examine
the linguistic arguments,
we find that none of them have any
validity so far as the AIT is concerned.
But in fact, we uncover fresh and strong
evidence for the Out-of-India Theory.
This linguistic case is completely
flawed and fallacious.
now because of that
We find that they also had
to manufacture a lot of
textual and archaeological
arguments for the Aryan Invasion Theory.
Now, you will note that as per the
theory, the homeland was in South Russia
and from there the Aryans migrated
in all directions, east and west.
So according to that the Aryan languages
of Western Europe,
for example, English, German, French,
they are also migrant languages.
They also came from south Russia,
but..
in the case of no other country, do you
find that there are any textual arguments
to show that the Aryans went
there from South Russia.
Why is it only in the case of India
that they have to find it necessarily
to give textual arguments?
The reason is very simple.
The Aryans are supposed to have
gone to Western Europe before 2000 BC
and you don't find any records,
textual records of that period
from Western Europe
and so after the record was found,
2000 or 3000 years after they
are supposed to have gone there.
So obviously you will not find any
evidence about Aryans coming from outside.
In every year the case, the linguistic
case alone is sufficient
to say that the Aryans went there.
But in the case of India alone,
they have textual arguments.
Now why is this necessary?
This is because of the nature
of the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda
is dated by Western scholars;
we have to understand the
chronology of the Aryan expansion
according to the linguists.
According to linguists the Aryans
were together in the homeland,
wherever that homeland is
located, up to almost 3000 BC
and after that they started
migrating in all directions.
What is the date of the Rig Veda?
From the time of the Buddha onwards,
we have dateable records in India
so we know what happened during
that period that the people were speaking
Aryan languages in India.
But before that, we have
the Vedic literature
and the Vedic literature
is definitely pre-Buddhist.
They cannot claim that the Rig Veda
was composed in 500 or 600 BC.
They have to place the Vedic
period before the Buddhist period,
whether they like it or not.
The Vedic literature itself
consists of different layers.
The last layer is the Sutra literature.
Before that we have the Upanishads,
the Aryanankas, the Brahmanas
and then the four Vedas.
The Atharva Veda is the last,
and the Rig Veda is the oldest.
To reach the Rig Veda you have
to pass through many periods
of composition of all
these different texts.
Max Mueller who was the one who
gave this date of 1200 BC for Rig Veda;
he calculated from 600 BC,
the period of Buddha,
he said let us give minimum of 200 years
for each stage of Vedic literature.
This is an arbitrary thing. There is
no reason why should one listen to him.
He went back to 1200
as the date of composition of the
Rig Veda; the final date of composition.
They concluded that since it covered
many generations of composers,
the Aryans, the composition
of the Rig Veda
must have started 200
or 300 years earlier, so 1500.
After this, there is one more
very strong reason, why 1200.
They cannot go after 1200
for the date of the Rig Veda.
This is because the Iron Age in India
started around 1100 or 1200 BC
and the Rig Veda is accepted by
all the scholars as pre-Iron Age text.
That is it could not have been
composed after the introduction of iron.
Whether they like it or not,
they cannot give a date beyond 1200 BC.
But the way they give it, is like
Max Mueller giving minimum periods
for each thing, they act
as if the Rig Veda,
they finished composing
the Rig Veda in 1200 BC.
It says as if they said the Iron
Age is going to start from tomorrow
so let's conclude
the Rig Veda and finish it off,
so that we don't enter into the
Iron Age. Obviously it is not the case.
So you can't say that
the Rig Veda was composed
just at the few minutes
before the Iron Age stared.
Obviously it must be going
back much earlier than that.
Even then they give a minimum
period. They take 1200,
the date just before the Iron Age started,
as the period of conclusion
of composition of the Rig Veda.
And when did they start?
They again take a minimum period
of 200 or 300 years and go to 1500 BC.
Even after all this squeezing everything
into as short a time as possible,
still we have the Aryans
entering India in 1500 BC
and immediately starting
the composition of the Rig Veda
and if they left South Russia in 3000 BC
then we have only a period of 1500 BC
1500 years from 3000 to 1500 BC
during which the Indo
-Iranians left South Russia;
they travelled all
the way to Central Asia;
on the way they settled on different
spots over a period of centuries;
then they went to Central Asia and formed
the Indo-Iranian culture;
the Indo Iranian culture
the Indo Iranian culture developed there
distinct from other Aryan cultures.
And after that they started
splitting into two directions,
one group coming into India and one group
going into Afghanistan, the Iranians.
All this took place
within the period of 1500 years
and they started composing
the Rig Veda in 1500 BC.
If that is the case, it is
not like the English traditions
which start thousands of years after the
ancestors of the English people
have come up with linguistic answers.
This is supposed to have almost started
immediately after they entered the area,
because they have to squeeze
all these events into as short
a time period as possible.
If that is the case, then you
cannot escape without showing
proof from the text.
If these people had
 just entered in 1500 BC
and started composing the Rig Veda,
then you have to find proof.
You cannot say: no no, it does not need
any proof. Where is the proof for English
so we need not have proof for
the Rig Vedic people? They can't say that.
They have to find. Since
 the last 200 or 300 years
since the AIT was first mooted,
it has become a regular 
industry among Indologists
to find out evidence from
all, particularly, the Vedic texts
for the Aryan Invasion,
which is why textual
arguments are necessary for them.
Because of this, they have spent all
all their efforts in trying
 to find evidence.
But even all of them agree
that there is no evidence
at all in the Rig Veda for external origin
For example Erdosy
who is an Aryan Invasionist scholar
in the West, he admits
that the evidence for the external origins
and likely arrival in the 2nd
millennium BC of Indo-Aryan languages
is the main basis for Rig Vedic studies
and yet he admits that there
is no indication in the Rig Veda,
the Aryan memory of any
ancestral home or of any migrations.
Usually when Indian 
scholars oppose the AIT,
they give this reason that the Rig 
Veda doesnot talk about invasion.
This sounds very simplistic,
but it is not that simplistic.
It is really a very basic argument.
If they had come in 1500 BC and
started composing the Rig Veda, we should
find textual evidence in it.
We have scholars like
Ambedkar and Pargiter who studied
the ancient texts in detail
and they concluded very
strong and in very strong terms that
the Aryan Invasion could
not have taken place because the texts
do not give the evidence
for it. But then after saying it,
people can say how you
can contradict the linguists.
So just in order to keep
 in with the linguists
they finally said okay
they must have come from outside.
So in their writings you
find the two contradictory views.
Because they found in their studies is
different fromwhat the linguists tell them
and since they are not linguists,
they feel how can we
contradict them, maybe they are right.
Maybe they did come from outside.
All of them admit that there is no
direct evidence at all in the Rig Veda
for the Aryan Invasion. How do they
find evidence? They find indirect evidence
in three forms.
First indirect references
vague reminiscences, i.e., vague memories
of foreign localities 
and tribes in the Rig Veda
and the migration of river names.
They claim that certain 
western river names
were applied to Indian
rivers by the incoming Aryans.
Second is, references to non-Indo
-European natives of India. Now if the
Aryans came from outside India,
we know that there were people
already existing in that area.
The Indus Valley civilization,
one of the most ancient and one of the
most extensive civilizations of the time,
with millions of inhabitants
was present in that area.
So if the Aryans came at that time,
they should have encountered those people
and memories of those people
should be found in the Rig Veda.
Finally evidence on
the geographical data within the text
showing a movement 
from the West to the East,
these are the three types
 of indirect evidence
in the Rig Veda that
the scholars concentrate on finding.
What is the factual situation of Rig Veda?
The factual situation is: that all the
geographical information in the Rig Veda
extends only from eastern
and southern Afghanistan.
Northern Pakistan and in
India, you find Punjab, Haryana
and certain parts right up
till the Ganga in Uttarakhand
and Western Uttar Pradesh, that is all.
There is no reference to areas
like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan
or most of Uttar Pradesh and certainly not
Bihar, Bengal, Maharashtra and all that.
So it is a restricted area.
Now, just there is no reference
to any area west of this;
that is only the border
 areas of Afghanistan;
and eastern Afghanistan of
Afghanistan is mentioned in the Rig Veda.
Where do they find
 evidence of western areas
further to the West from
where they must have come?
Witzel tries to argue there
is a word in the Rig Veda called 'rip'
which must be identified with the
Rhipaean mountains in the modern Urals,
in Russia.
Now where that word is in Rig
Veda, I have not been able to locate it.
And how it has been identified
with the Rhipaean Mountains?
Have you heard the name of Ural Mountains?
I am sure none of you have
heard the name Rhipaean.
But there he finds some obscure
word. It's like P. N. Oak
finding obscure words and trying to show
that all these things came from Sanskrit.
It is not logical. And yet
Witzel is indulging in that.
Actually he doesn't indulge in it.
He is quoting another scholar,
so that he is safe. He can say,
I am not saying, I am quoting it.
I am quoting it doubtfully,
but then why is he quoting him in
the first place, because there is no other
evidence that he give.
He is using this doubtful quotation
to show that there is something
in the Rig Veda which
 refers to outer areas.
Then another thing is the river names.
There are two river names in
the Rig Veda: Saraswati and Sarayu. Sarayu
we know there is a Sarayu
in UP where Ayodhya is situated.
There is a Sarayu or Harayu in Afghanistan
which is mentioned in the Avesta,
similarly there is Saraswati
India which flowed through Haryana,
Rajasthan and went out to Gujarat.
That is the Saraswati of the Rig Veda.
In Afghanistan you find a river Haraquaiti
which is also Saraswati in another form.
What Witzel claims and what
invasionist scholars claim
is that the original rivers were
the Haroyu and Haraquaiti of Afghanistan
and the Aryans came through that
area bringing those river names with them
and when they settled down
in the Sapta-Sindhu region
they transferred those river
names to these two Indian rivers.
The fact is that these are the only
two river names you can find.
And the Sarayu of the Rig Veda
is not the Sarayu of Uttar Pradesh.
It is not the Sarayu of Ayodhya.
is actually a river of Afghanistan.
It is river tributary of the Indus which
flows into the Indus
 River from Afghanistan
and the present name is Siritoy
and that time it was called Sarayu.
There is no question of transfer of river
names it is within the Rig Vedic area
itself that the river name is
mentioned. It is not some external river.
So far as the river 
Saraswati is concerned.
Linguistically the words Haraquaiti
and Horoyu are derived
from Saraswati and Sarayu
as no linguist will deny that.
So what they say is
originally the Afghanistan Rivers must
have been called Saraswati and Sarayu
and later they changed them
to Haraquaiti and Horoyu.
It is what is called special pleading.
When linguistically is clear that Indian
rivers have the original linguistic forms
and Afghan rivers have
 the later linguistic forms.
Obviously the transfer of names was
from east to west not from west to east.
There is no actual textual evidence
as they say Rig Veda is the oldest text
and this is the geographical
horizon of Rig Veda from
southern Afghanistan to Western
UP and Uttarakhand.
So the area of Afghan
Haraquaiti is outside this area.
There is no evidence anywhere,
textual evidence that the
Vedic people ever lived in that area.
On the other hand,
in the Rig Veda you find evidence which
will be the subject of the future
talk when I give the textual
evidence in the Rig Veda
for the OIT or Out of India theory.
and Medians
and all the Iranian tribes
were living in Punjab
at that point of time when the older
parts of Rig Veda were being composed.
Thirdly the Rig Veda can be
divided into old and new parts.
The Saraswati River is mentioned
in the oldest parts of the Rig Veda.
The Avesta as a whole
is contemporaneous with the
later part of the Rig Veda which I will
show tomorrow because that is the
most damning evidence against the AIT.
What I will be presenting tomorrow
in the chronology of the Rig Veda
that is evidence which nobody
in the world will be able to challenge.
It is absolute evidence 
which is showing that
India was the homeland
from where the Aryans went out.
The Avesta is contemporaneous
with the later parts of the Rig Veda.
And within the Avesta,
the Haraquaiti is referred to only once
in the Vendidad which is the
latest part of the Avesta,
so the reference in the Rig Veda is
much much older than
 the reference in the Avesta.
From no point of view textual
or linguistic or any other thing
can you say that the transfer
of the names was from west to east?
It was definitely from east to west.
And apart from these two
 names there were no other
river names that they can claim.
All the evidence shows that movement was
not from west to east butfrom east to west
We come to the second thing,
non-Aryan natives in the Rig Veda.
If the Aryans came from outside
in 1500 BC and started
 composing the Rig Veda,
obviously they didn't enter a place
which was completely bare of people.
It was in fact one of the
most densely populated areas
of the world at that point of time.
The Indus Valley civilization,
whom these people claim were non-Aryans.
The Vedic Aryans came from
outside, they settled in that area
and if that is so, 
you should find some reference
of non-Aryan people of that area.
That is also compulsion of the
Aryan Invasion theorists 
because they have to find
evidence of non-Aryans
mentioned in 
the Rig Veda. It is a compulsion
If they can't find that automatically 
proves thatAryan Invasion Theory is wrong.
Somewhere or the other it should be found.
How can it be possible that the
moment that these Aryans came into India
all of them disappeared into thin air?
What kind of references should you find?
Let us assume that the people of that
area spoke a language. No one knows
what they claim. People claim
that no one knows what
language the people
 of Indus valley were speaking.
Let us assume they  were speaking
 some kind oflanguage related to Chinese.
I am just giving
 a hypothetical example. If so,
then in the Rig Veda then you should find
references to people with names like cing,
shi, wu which you can immediately
identify, these are the Chinese.
So here are the non-Aryans
who were there in India before.
No one claims that they were Chinese.
But they claim they were Dravidians,
Austric,
or some other unknown language family.
So you should find Dravidian
 names, Austric names
or some other kind of names
which you can find with some
known or unknown 
language family in the world.
Nothing of that kind is found.
In order to maintain the Aryan
Invasion Theory it is
absolutely essential
 for them to find non-Aryans,
so this has become 
another part of the industry.
Aryan Invasion industry, they have
to find non-Aryans in the Rig Veda.
The Rig Veda as I said does
not contain a single Dravidian,
Austric or
any other specific language
 family found in India
or recorded anywhere in the world.
Over two centuries of frenzied
efforts in this direction
??
What do the scholars do? They pick
up some name from the Rig Veda
and say this sounds like an un-Aryan name.
MacDonnell suggests that two
of the names of the demons of darkness,
whom Indra killed in
the Rig Veda, Srbinda and Ilibisha,
have 'an un-Aryan appearance'.
Now what does this mean?
Linguistics is a precise science.
What do you mean 
by an un-Aryan appearance.
They can't say this is a Dravidian name,
an Austric name, a Chinese
 name, an Arabic name.
It just has an un-Aryan appearance.
Kosambi suggests that the world
'pani' does not seem to be Aryan.
Now, this pani
is a mythical element
 in the Rig Veda which has
correspondences in German
 and Greek mythologies.
There
pani of the Rig Veda 
is identical with the Vanir
of Germanic mythology and the pan
of Greek mythology.
In my book in a chapter 
called sarmas and panis
I have shown every single
mythological feature of these three
entities that is the pani in the Rig Veda,
pan of Greek mythology and the
Vanir of Greek mythology; they correspond.
??
It is only in the case of India
they try to find textual evidence
but in this particular case,
during my investigations I found
one book on European mythology
where the writer tries to use
the same technique for Germany.
He claims that the Vanir
 is related to pani,
the Vanir of Germanic mythology
were pre-Aryans of Germany.
This is the only case where they
have tried to find textual evidence
and you find the same thing that
these Aryans of South Russia 
they went to Germany,
there also they found the same
people. They came to India,
here also found the same people.
This is what happens when they
try to find non-Aryans in the Rig Veda.
??Rahurkar,
one more of the Invasion
 theorists, he claims
that the rishis of the Kanva
family have non-Aryan names.
Among non-Aryan he includes
Ashwasuktin and Gosuktin,
both these names 
are pure Aryan. Ashva and Go
have equivalence in all
 European languages.
And Suktin means the one who
composes the suktas or hymns of Rig Veda.
It is a purely Rig Vedic code.
So there is no logic behind how they
decide that these names are non-Aryans.
How to find some non-Aryans,
 so they pin point someone...
Over two centuries of speculations they 
have discovered non-Aryans everywhere.
For example, the most common
 elements which they claim as non-Aryans
are Dasas, Dasyus, Asuras and pani.
All these are found 
in European mythologies.
Then they find all names 
of demons destroyed by Indra.
There is a whole list of them.
They claim that all the demons 
destroyed by Indra are actually
non-Aryan natives of India 
who were destroyed by the Aryan invaders,
because Indra was the kind of the Aryan
 invaders. This is their interpretation.
Thirdly, all classes of 
supernatural beings other than devas,
danavas, daityas, rakshasas, yakshas, 
gandharvas, kinnaras, 
pishachas these were all
non-Aryan natives 
of India destroyed by the Aryans.
All these claims have not 
been made by the same scholar
but all different scholars when
 you put together all of them this is the
long list of non-Aryans 
that you find in the Rig Veda.
They have even found non-Aryans
 even among the Vedic people,
for example the Vedic tribes, 
the main Vedic tribes Ikshvakus,
Purus, Anus, Druhyus, Yadus and 
Turvashas. These are the main Vedic tribes
some scholars have claimed that even
these are non-Aryans. Then the Vedic gods:
some people have claimed 
that Varuna, Mitra, Rudra, Ushas,
Surya, Pushan, Savitr, Vishnu, 
even Indra from the paternal side
is a non-Aryan. What is the logic
 behind this, no one can explain.
Finally the Vedic rishis Kanvas,
 Agastyas, Vasishthas, Bhrgus,
even 'all rishis except the 
Vishvamitras' for some reason,Vishvamitras
are not counted as non-Aryans;
all the other rishi families 
are called as non-Aryans.
So what is left Aryan 
in the Rig Veda after this?
What is the flaw in
 all this? The first flaw is
that non-Aryan can only mean
 non-Aryan in the linguistic sense.
You cannot take a word
 which is linguistically Aryan
and claim that it refers 
to a non-Aryan person.
As I said, there should 
be someone like shing or lu,
or there should be 
someone like illangovan,
illangovan, which is a Tamil word...
if you find some name related to that
you can say these are
 the Dravidian non-Aryan
whom the Aryans invaded and took over,
but all the names are linguistically
clearly Aryan or Indo-European names.
Linguistically you cannot 
classify them as non-Aryans.
Most of these have equivalent
 in the mythologies of Europe.
How can it be that the 
non-Aryan natives of India
are mentioned in
the mythologies of Europe,
because the European Aryans 
never came to India? For example,
Dasa, Dasyu and Asura
 are found in Iranian.
They are even found in the Uralic 
languages. They have words borrowed by the
Uralic languages, Finnish
 and Hungarian from Vedic.
So how can they be the natives of India?
Asura and pani are found in 
Germanic and pani is found in Greek
and yet all these are 
classified as non-Aryans.
All the conflicts in the 
Rig Veda are also identified.
All the enemies of Indra whom
 the demons whom Indra destroys.
Basically Indra is a Nature god.
He represents the rain and the thunder
and when there is no rain 
people used to pray to Indra for rain
and he used to destroy the demons 
 which were supposed 
to stop the rain from falling;
and that is the mythology
 behind all these myths.
These people, they claim are non-Aryans
and in fact many of these conflicts
 are found in European mythologies too.
When Indra destroys all these 
demons which are in the form of a snake,
you find in Greek mythology
 as well as in German mythology
that the thunder God of that 
mythology also destroys the snakes.
The main feat in those two 
mythologies is also killing of a snake.
You also find it in the Hittite
 mythology of West Asia.
We come to the most important criteria
and the most clinching one: the direction 
of expansion of the Vedic Aryans.
According to their logic, 
the Aryans came to India from outside
through Afghanistan, they entered India
and by the time of composition 
of the Rig Veda they had extended
their entry as far as 
western Uttar Pradesh.
It was after the Rig Veda was 
composed that they extended further into
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and 
the rest of North India while
by the time of composition
 of the Atharva Veda
they had managed to reach 
right up till West Bengal.
Within this area,
according to them, the Rig Veda
 shows a movement from west to east.
It shows that they came
 from the north-west
and they came into India,
further into India after 
the composition of the Rig Veda.
??
The main argument that they
 give is the names of the rivers.
for example as i told 
you the Rig Vedic area
extends from southern Afghanistan
 to Western Uttar Pradesh.
In western Uttar Pradesh you find
 only two main rivers which are mentioned,
the Ganga and the Yamuna; 
whereas in Afghanistan
you find at least 15 tributaries 
from the Indus
which come from Afghanistan 
and named in the Rig Veda.
They point out the numbers. 
See only two rivers
of the east are mentioned, 
Ganga and Yamuna whereas,
ten to fifteen rivers of Afghanistan which
flow into the Indus 
are mentioned in the Rig Veda.
This shows that they were 
very familiar with the west
but they were not familiar with the east.
Is this a correct interpretation
 of the data and the Rig Veda?
Let us examine the rivers.
The three areas into which we can
 divide the geography of the Rig Veda:
firstly the western region, that is 
the areas to the west of the Indus;
that is the north-west frontier 
province of Pakistan
and eastern Afghanistan; these are
 the regions to the west of the Indus
Then you find the central region,
that is the areas between
 the Indus and the Saraswati,
that is northern Pakistan more
 or less, present day Pakistan,
that is the central area known 
as the Sapta-Sindhu;
and the finally the eastern region, 
the areas to the east of the Saraswati,
that is Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh.
So these are the three areas
 of the Rig Veda.
What are the rivers that you find?
 The western rivers you find,
all these rivers are named: Trshtama,
 Susartu, Anitabha, Rasa, Shvetya,
Kubha, Krumu, Gomati, Sarayu, Mehatnu,
Gomati and Sarayu as I said
 are rivers of Afghanistan,
tributaries of the Indus coming from 
Afghanistan. They are not the rivers of UP
and Shvetyavari, Suvastu, Gauri, 
Sindhu (Indus), Sushoma, Arjikiya.
These are the rivers of the West.
While in the east there is Saraswati
and its tributaries: Drshadvati
/Hariyupiya/Yavyavati, Apaya.
Ashmanvati, Amshumati, Yamuna are
 the alternative names of the Yamuna.
And Ganga and Jahnavi are
 the names of the Ganga.
These are the eastern rivers, basically
 just three of four rivers are mentioned,
whereas there you find even small
 tributaries of the Indus are mentioned.
So this is the argument which 
is used all these years.
Let us examine where all these
 rivers are mentioned in the Rig Veda.
We saw the geography of the Rig Veda;
what is the chorological 
division of the Rig Veda
as accepted by all the western scholars?
The Rig Veda consists of ten
 books called Mandalas,
of that books two to seven 
are called the family books
because each of them was 
composed by one family of rishis,
for example two was 
composed by the Grtsamadhas,
three by the Vishwamitras, 
four by the Vamadev-Angirasas,
five by the Atris, six by the 
Bharadwajas and seven by the Vashishthas.
So these are called family
 books. Also the language:
the arrangement of these six Mandalas,
all of them show that these
books were composed first and this
 is accepted by all the western scholars.
They point out that books two to seven
were the oldest parts of the Rig Veda.
Then one and eight were added
and finally nine and ten were
 added, one after the other.
We have two groups of books,
 two to seven which are the older books
and one, eight nine, ten 
which are later books,
but now further research 
has shown that book five
is later than the other 
family books and it shows
many similarities with
 the non-family books
that is one, eight, nine, ten. Now 
you get two clear distinct categories.
The old books two, three, four, six, seven
and the middle book five because
 it is a family book and yet it
comes after the others. And then
 you have the new books,
one, eight, nine, and ten. This is the
chronological division accepted
 by all the western scholars.
In my second book I have
 given even further
data which shows that they
 can be arranged in this order: six,
three and seven are 
the three earlier old books.
Four and two are the later old books,
then among the new books, five is earlier
obviously because it is a family book
and then you get one, eight,
 nine, ten. Now here are the
eastern rivers. I have already given the
list of the eastern and the western rivers
Here is where the eastern
 rivers are found in the books.
In the earlier old books, you
 find them in six, three and seven;
so many references. These are 
references to the verse, hymns and verses
in the Rig Veda. In books six, 
three and seven the three
earlier old books, you find plentiful
 references to these eastern rivers.
They have pointed out that Ganga, 
Yamuna and Saraswati and its
tributaries are the only three
 or four rivers mentioned,
but see where they are mentioned
 and how many times they are mentioned?
They are mentioned in 
all the three old books
many times. In the middle books, 
they are mentioned only in books two.
They are not mentioned in book four. 
Because book four as I will show you later
represented the movement 
of Vedic Aryans from east to west.
And the section of Vedic
 Aryans who composed book
four had already moved to the west, so 
they had not mentioned the eastern rivers.
In the book five, eight, one nine 
ten you find all these references.
Contrast this with the distribution
 of the western rivers.
In the three earlier old books,
you find not one of the western 
rivers, neither the Indus itself,
nor its western tributaries.
None of them are found 
in the three old books.
In the two later books they 
are found only in book four,
because as I said that was the
 book where they had moved to the west,
they had expanded to the west.
Then you find them in all the other books.
This is very clear.
If you compare where these rivers
 are mentioned in the Rig Veda you find
that four of the five old books show 
great familiarity with the Saraswati
and rivers to its east,
 the Ganga, the Yamuna
and the eastern tributaries
 of the Saraswati.
Four of them show. 
The eastern most river, Ganga
is mentioned in the two oldest 
books of the Rig Veda, six and three.
The Yamuna the second easternmost 
river is mentioned in the third book
and the Saraswati is referred 
to in a total of thirty three
of the three oldest books 
and three whole hymns in its praise.
It is the only river mentioned 
in the fourth oldest book, two.
Book two mentions only 
the Saraswati, no other river.
All these four old books
show absolutely no acquaintance
 with the Indus or rivers to its west.
The Indus and rivers to its west 
first appear in the later old book four
because that was the expanding
 section of the Aryans.
After that you find them in all the
 new books, you find these references.
Other things are mentioned
 in the Rig Veda.
You find, place names in the Rig Veda.
That is Gandhari or present day Kandahar.
Or Gandhar of later texts. 
It is called Gandhari in the Rig Veda
and the Gandharvas are a mythical
 race of people living in that area.
These are western place names.
In the eastern place names 
you find Kikata,
Ilaspada/Ilayaspada, (indirect=)
 nabha+prthivya, vara-a-prthivya.
All these refer to places in Haryana.
So the western places in Afghanistan
 and the eastern in Haryana
to the east of the Saraswati 
and that is to the west of the Indus
The mountains in the Rig Veda in 
the west, you find Sushom, Arjik, Mujavat.
There are no eastern mountains mentioned.
The lakes in the Rig Veda, 
the western is the Sharayavati
and the eastern is the Manusha.
The animals in the Rig Veda,
 the western are
Ushtra or camel which is found 
in central Asia or northern Afghanistan.
The Mathra, a particular species
 of horse found in Afghanistan,
then Chaga, Mesha, Vrshni, Ura, 
Varaha, that is different species of goats
and sheep which are found 
in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
They were not originally 
found in eastern India.
Whereas the eastern animals are ibha/
varana/hastin/srni that is the elephant;
the mahisha, the wild buffalo,
gaura, the Indian bison,
mayura, or the peacock, prshati, 
or the spotted deer. These are
animals which are found throughout Indian
 subcontinent but not in Afghanistan.
Whereas those animals which
 are found in Afghanistan
at that time they were not found in India.
Where the eastern geographical 
data that is the mountains,
lakes and animals are found, 
they are found in every single
one of the ten books of 
the Rig Veda in such numbers.
Whereas in the five old books
you find only the western geographical 
data, you find only one hymn,
and that hymn has been classified
 by the western scholars
as an interpolated hymn in the Rig Veda;
it was added afterwards, 
which mean that the five old books
do not contain a single 
reference to a western mountain
a western place, a western
 lake or a western animal.
Whereas in all the later 
new books, even the book five,
the earlier new book
which is a family book, that also does 
not contain a reference to any of these.
It is only the four non-family books
 which contain reference to all these
western geographical data.
If in the old books you find 
references to the eastern places
and in the new books you find 
references to the western places
then the Rig Veda itself should
 show a movement from east to west.
??
We have examined the geographical data
to the west of the Indus 
and the east of the Saraswati.
The central area between 
the Indus and the Saraswati,
the Sapta-Sindhu region, 
you find these rivers:
Marudvrdha , Shutudri, 
Vipash, Parushni, Asikni, Vitasta;
these are the five rivers of the Punjab
and the central plain is the Sapta-Sindhu.
??
As you know all scholars
 claim that the Rig Veda was
composed in the Sapta-Sindhu region.
Even the central place names
 are not found in the earlier old books
and in three and seven 
you find river names in these
three hymns.
That is very significant; I will show
 you why those river names are found
in the three early books.
In the later books you find
 all these central references.
In the earlier books you
 don't find any place names.
Sapta-Sindhu is not referred to in it.
And three rivers are mentioned.
Here is the chart showing
 the movement from east to west.
The first mandala six;
that fix big long line 
represents the Saraswati.
This long line represents the Indus
and from east to west all 
the rivers are placed in that chart.
You will see the first book six
is totally to the east of the Saraswati.
It does not even know 
the Sapta-Sindhu region;
then in the second book 3,
they have advanced westwards
to the second river of the Punjab.
In the third book 7,
you find they have advanced
 till the fourth river of the Punjab
and after that you find all the books,
know the whole area. 
But in the first three books,
you see that movement from east to west.
This is not just based on the chart.
Just because the names 
of rivers are found like that
we can draw these conclusions.
 But there are actual historical events
which relate how they 
moved from east to west.
See the places names.
In the early period 6, 3, 7 you find only
eastern region... Haryana
 is mentioned throughout,
because it was the centre 
of the Rig Vedic composition
but otherwise you will again 
see the movement from east to west.
How this expansion is there?
 The oldest book 6
does not mention a single
 river west of the Saraswati.
But the second book
3 describes an Ashwamedh Yajna 
performed by the Bharata king Sudas,
in the east of the Saraswati. 
Then in this hymn
it talks about him expanding 
east west and north.
Then in another hymn it describes 
Sudas and the Bharata warriors
crossing the first two easternmos
t rivers of the central area
in a historical movement 
which the Rig Veda itself
described as an expansion
 in all directions.
Then after they have crossed 
that in the third oldest book,
Sudas has crossed two rivers.
Now he is fighting The Dasharajna Battle,
The Battle of Ten Kings which is the most 
important historical event in the Rig Veda
These fighting it on 
the banks of the third river
Parushni and his enemies
 whom he is fighting
they are described as 
the people of the Asikni
that is the fourth river.
 In that oldest book,
it refers to the ancestors 
of Sudasas, that is Devavata,
was one of his ancestors.
Devavata is described as 
performing a Yajna in Haryana.
It is specifically described
 that place in Haryana,
where he is supposed to have 
established an eternal fire.
Like Zoroastrians for example 
still have eternal fires
which they don't allow
 to get extinguished.
These talk about the ancestors of Sudas.
Then it talks about Devavata,
and then his son Srinjaya 
and his son Divodasa, so three generations
of Sudas's ancestors are already
 mentioned here. The next two books
refer to Sudas's period. 
 In that again  he tells 
Sudas to the east of Saraswati
because that is where he performs Ashwmedh
 and then he starts expanding westwards.
And it describes his movements 
across the first two rivers.
It describes it as a movement 
with Sudas and his army.
Then the last one, the third book 7
talks about a battle which 
took place on the Parushni.
And his enemies were 
the people of the Asikni, that is
which shows that Sudas was coming from 
the east and his enemies were to the west.
??
All the geographical data in the Rig Veda
shows that it was a movement
 from the east to the west,
whether it is the rivers or 
the place names or the actual historical
narratives which are
 described in the Rig Veda.
All of them show a movement 
from east to west.
It shows the movement of 
the Vedic Aryans through the Punjab
was from east to west 
and not west to east.
??
What do we see from the textual arguments?
The Rig Veda has no memory 
of any external homeland,
or any migration to India or even 
of any acquaintance to areas to its west.
It does not refer to a single
 person, friend or enemy
who can be identified 
on linguistic ground as a non-Aryan.
Finally, the pattern of distribution
 of the geographical data
clearly shows that 
the movement was from east to west
and not only on the basis of the data
 but also from the basis of the historical
narrative which is given in the text.
The textual evidence which 
they have been trying to search
since 200 years, there is nothing. In fact
all the time for example when 
they are talking about the evidence
of the rivers they just 
point that in the west,
find ten fifteen rivers mentioned and 
in the east you find only Ganga, Yamuna
to the east of the Saraswati, 
but when you actually examine
where they are found and how 
many times they are found
then you find that it is exactly opposite
for what they have been 
claiming for all these years.
We come finally to archaeology.
First I presented the linguistic 
case for the Aryan Invasion Theory.
But whenever you are going 
into the history of any nation,
it is not usually linguistics 
which is required. It is
textual evidence, inscriptional 
evidence, or archaeological evidence
and as we saw there is neither textual
 nor archaeological evidence. It is based
purely on the linguistic assumptions
 which also as we saw have no basis.
Finally we come to archaeology. 
What is it that archaeology can tell us?
Before that we should 
know what it cannot tell us.
If in some certain area 
they dig up the place and they find
some city buried under it with
 all kinds of material remains;
pottery, bones, burial sites,
 all those things.
You do not know what language
 those people are speaking.
Suppose you find this site 
somewhere in Tamil Nadu,
the natural assumption will 
be that, the people of that
site must have been speaking
 a Dravidian language.
If you find it in the Indus valley area,
the natural assumption should 
have been that they were speaking
 Indo European languages
because nowhere is any non Indo
-European language recorded that area
It is a natural assumption but it is
 not necessary that it may be right.
If the Aryans have come
 from outside then obviously
??
archaeology can tell us whether
 there were Aryans are not.
Maybe the original people 
were not Aryans, but the thing is
that the same material culture
 can be found in sites
representing different linguistic groups.
Or sometimes, different areas where 
the same linguistic group is found
you will find different 
archaeological material.
So the archaeological material itself
without any linguistic evidence cannot
 tell us what language
 the people were speaking.
To this day, nowhere have they 
found the proto Indo-European language
recorded in any archaeological 
site. Nor have they found an Indo
-Iranian language recorded
 in any archaeological site,
not even the Vedic Aryans inside India.
From that do we conclude 
that these people never existed?
Obviously they did and they have 
not been found in archaeological surveys.
But actually we have found archaeological
 sites in India, the Indus valley;
the only reason they 
are not accepting that
they represent the Vedic 
of Indo-Iranian people.
Strictly speaking,
unless you find in any site you find some 
written material and that written material
is in the particular language
 then you can identify that the
people of that area spoke that language;
or else even if you don't find
 written material, suppose you find
some neighbouring civilization.For 
example in Mesopotamia, suppose you found
some textual material of 3000 BC
and they had mentioned that to the east
in the Indus valley area certain
 language was spoken.
So even if you don't have linguistic 
evidence within that sight,
if you find in some other 
site outside which tells
us what language these people are speaking
then only you can identify
 that site as being 
people who speak that language.
You cannot say whether 
they were Aryans or non-Aryans.
In the case of Indus valley civilization,
actually they have found,
what we may call Yajna 
kundas, sacrificial altars.
What the western people said
 that these are not sacrificial altars,
they are just cooking areas, 
or ovens where they were cooking.
We can say that these 
are sacrificial altars; they will say 
 they are ovens,
so either way it is a question 
of what we want to believe.
So until and unless you find linguistic
 evidence, you cannot give a final answer.
When you have not found the proto-Indo-
European people or the Indo-Iranian people
or the Vedic people anywhere in any site
how can you decide
 what is not and what is not?
So obviously archaeology
 cannot tell us that. In spite of that,
archaeologists who have
 dug up sites in central Asia
or somewhere on the path from South Russia
they have tried to identify the site
that they have dug up as Indo-Iranian.
Again totally without any linguistic 
evidence just because they have
dug up the sites, they have claimed that 
those sites represent Indo-Iranian people.
Indo-Iranian people.
Here we have an archaeological 
Frankfort who is pointing out,
that all these identifications 
have no base.
He claims that simple 
linguistic space-time argument
of locating the speakers
if anything goes. That is, if they
 find boats in an archaeological site,
they will say boats were used
 by Aryans so this is an Aryan site.
But boats were used by everyone; 
you will find them in China, Egypt,
among the red-Indians,
 and among the African tribes.
Tomorrow they will say the
bones that men and women
 both lived in that sites. Because
we know from the Rig Veda that 
Vedic culture had both men and women
so that is Vedic site, 
or Indo-Iranian site
Such general things cannot 
be used to identify the linguistic
nature of that particular site. 
This is what these two linguists,
Frankfort and Lamberg-Karlovsky;
they are pointing out: 'identifying
 archaeological remains of
Indo-European populations in central
 Asia has been one of the main questions
that has occupied number 
of linguists and historians everywhere.'
They have been trying to every time
 they find a site they say this must be
an Indo-Iranian or indo-European
but there is nothing in those sites
which shows that they are either
 Indo-Iranian or Indo-European
and as he says this is simply 
a case of space-time location,
that is according to the theory
the Aryans left South Russia 
in 3000 BC and they reached
the Vedic area in 1500 BC
so according to that time table,
the Aryans should appear 
in that spot in that year.
If you find the archaeological site that 
automatically means that they are Aryans.
That is not the way you can identify them.
This is what these two 
archaeologists are saying...
Lamberg-Karlovsky says that
when any material culture is identified
as Indo-Iranian by these archaeologists...
He is himself a top archaeologist
 and he is referring to the
the particular archaeologists who tried
 to identify these sites as Indo-Iranian
and he says that the material they 
identify as Indo-Iranian is so general
that the Arabs and Turks and the Iranians
also can be identified with that site.
Or you can even find a site in China 
and say that they were also Indo-Europeans
The Bronze Age Chinese can 
also be called Indo-Europeans.
Or even the Plains Indian of North America
 can be given an Indo-Iranian identify.
If you search something 
like they use boats
so they must be Indo-Iranian and they
buried the people and so
 they were Indo-Iranian.
As he said: 'what is the relevance 
of archaeological material
if any sort of assemblage present at the
 expected or supposed time/space spot
can function as the tag 
of a linguistic group?'
If you are determined 
that site is going to be Iranian
whatever you find, even
 if you find a stone,
you will say that proves 
that they are Indo-Iranian.
So archaeology does not tell us
what language the people are 
speaking unless you actually find
the evidence of what language
 you are speaking.
When you find peculiarly
 Indo-Iranian things
such as fire altars in the Indus sites,
because it does not fit in with
 their time space predictions,
they refuse to accept it.
We cannot emphasize that as 
we also have no evidence
evidence of that site, about it.
What can archaeology can tell us.
 This is what it cannot tell us;
it cannot tell us the language of any
excavated site but it can tell us,
when a change has taken
 place in some area.
??
change the can tell a new
race of people has come
and there has been a change 
in the culture of the area.
That is what the archaeologists 
can identify;
they can identify ethnic 
cultural changes in any area,
or migrations of ethnic-cultural
 groups of material culture.
Of course, even here they cannot
 identify who those people are.
Suppose they can say, here
 we have a race of people
who have migrated
 from this area to that area,
but unless you can find a linguistic proof
 of what language they are speaking
they cannot tell us that these
 are Aryans or Semitic or Chinese.
The fact is that no such change
 has taken place at all in India.
This is the strongest possible
 archaeological evidence
against the Aryan-invasion theory.
Because no ethnic changes have 
taken place at all, which should have
taken place in archaeological 
data if they had come.
The main thing is that this is not 
the views of Indian archaeologists only.
It is not that that Dr S R Rao 
or S P Gupta, that some
Indian or Hindu archaeologist,
 who can be branded as
Hindutva supporter, or at least
 a nationalist minded Indian,
is saying this. It is not like this.
It is what the western 
archaeologists are saying.
In fact here is the seminar
 which took place in the USA
which was organized by none
 other than Michael Witzel and Erdosy
the two strongest supporters
 of the Aryan Invasion Theory.
All those papers have been
 complied in one book,
called the Indo-Aryans 
of Ancient South Asia,
Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity.
In the very Preface to that book,
Erdosy tells us that the Aryan 
invasion in the second millennium BC
has recently been challenged 
by archaeologists.
All of these archaeologists 
are western ones, not Indian ones.
He says, the
theories of the linguists 
have been challenged
and it is found to be in direct
 conflict with the findings
of the other discipline claiming a 
key to the solution to the Aryan problem.
That is linguistics is the science which
 claims that the Aryans came from outside
but he claims that the 
perspective of archaeology
of material cultures is in 
direct conflict with that idea.
For example, here are
 the different western archaeologists
who have given their papers 
in that book: a book which as I said
is edited by Michael Witzel and 
Erdosy, not by any Indian archaeologist.
K. A. R. Kennedy, he says that 
from the 5th, 4th millennium
 to the 1st millennium BC
there have been no changes at all 
in the ethnic composition of the area;
??
what took place in that, and to the 
1st millennium BC that is after 1000BC,
he says it is too early and too late
 to have any connection with 'Aryans'.
In the period in which Aryans
 are supposed to have come into India
the archaeologists completely
 deny that such
an intrusion has taken place.
 D. A. Liechtenstein
describes the indigenous development
 of the South Asian civilization
from the Neolithic onwards.
She concludes that there has been 
no change in the ethnic composition
or the material culture of that area,
because of some external
 intrusion into the area.
J. G. Schaffer also writes
the diffusion or the migration
 of a culturally complex
indo-Aryan people into the south Asia
is not described by
 the archaeological record.
Finally Michael Witzel,
who is the king or the leader
 of the Aryan Invasion Brigade,
he also writes in the same book,
so far clear archaeological 
record has just not been found.
This is archaeological evidence, not just
 picking up some site and saying that it
represents Indo-Aryans or non Indo-Aryans.
On the other hand, all the other
 Indo-European language speaking areas,
there is archaeological evidence showing
that the Aryans migrated into those areas.
. So archaeology clearly 
negates any Aryan immigration.
These are the three fields
on which the Aryan Invasion 
Theory is supposed to be based:
linguistic, textual analysis
 and archaeology.
As we saw all the three fields we studied,
totally negate the Aryan Invasion Theory.
Why is it that this theory 
is still going on in spite of all that?
Since more than 200 years 
western scholars and later Indian 
scholars have been writing on this subject
As Erdosy says,
their assumptions long taken 
for granted and buttressed
by the accumulated weight
 of two centuries of scholarship
and even today the scholars 
entrance scholars in the west
are scholars who have 
already on this subject
and backed all this Aryan
 Invasion Theory literature.
They cannot backtrack 
and say yes yes, I was also wrong.
So they continue to support this theory.
??
To sum up the two talks, as we saw
when we examine the three fields of study,
which deal with the Aryan Invasion Theory
all of them give evidence they not 
only show that their arguments are wrong
but they actually throwup evidence showing
 that India was the original homeland,
that the movement was from 
east to west in all the three fields.
But this is only when we are 
examining the Aryan Invasion Theory.
Now the Out of India Theory 
is totally different and there we find
such solid evidence that it cannot
 be challenged by anyone.
It consists of three parts:
first is the chronology of 
the Rig Veda on which I will talk tomorrow
It is based on the geography
 of the Rig Veda in this.
It is based on the data in the Rig Veda.
It is not based on picking up one
word from the Rig Veda
 giving it a twisted meaning
and making up stories from it.
It is based on a total study 
of the total data in the Rig Veda.
Second is,
according to their theory, the Aryans
 suddenly appeared in India, Greece
and different places. 
But where were they before?
When is the history when they 
were together? No one knows.
That they claim is in 3000 BC,
but in 3000 BC we have 
recorded history in Egypt,
in Mesopotamia and in China
so why should the history 
of the Aryans be lost in obscurity?
It is recorded in the Rig Veda
 and the Puranas
and the evidence again is so compelling 
and so final that no one can challenge it.
Thirdly, they have constructed
 a linguistic case
about how the Aryans and t
he Indo-Europeans languages
originated in one area; they
 claim it is South Russia
and spread everywhere. However,
that theory fails to answer 
most of the linguistic problems.
However, the Out of India Theory 
answers every single linguistic problem
associated with the Indo-European 
homeland question.
These are the three out of 
India theory presentations,
each of which by itself proves that India
 is the original homeland of the Aryans.
Even one of them by itself can prove 
it and the sum total of the three
fields of evidence is
 absolutely conclusive.
Tomorrow I will be speaking on the
 chronology of the Rig Veda.
That ends the analysis of
 the Aryan Invasion Theory.
