Who Were the

Aryans?

Recovering the Truth

Naveen Kumar Vadde

George Anthony Paul

Copyright © 2025 Bible Answer

No part of this book may be reproduced, or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without express written permission of the publisher.

Raktha Sakshi Apologetics Series: In the Blessed Memory of Christian Martyrs of India.

ISBN: 9798271258756

Cover design by: Elijah Arpan
Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Dedication 4

Acknowledgments 5

Introduction 7

Chapter 1 Who Were The Aryans? - Aryans of the Avesta and Rig Veda. 9

Chapter 2 Linguistic Evidence For Aryan Migration Into India 75

Chapter 3 Scientific Researches Proving Aryan Migration/Invasion 94

Chapter 4 Scriptural Evidence For Aryan Migration Into India 135

Conclusion: The True Origin and Destiny of Humanity in Light of Christ 169

References 175

About the Author: Naveen Kumar Vadde 195

About the Author: George Anthony Paul 196

Books By Naveen Kumar Vadde 197

Books by George Anthony Paul 198

Dedication {#dedication}

To the One True God, the Author of all truth and the Revealer of all history— who made the nations and fixed their boundaries, that they should seek Him and find Him, though He is not far from any one of us (Acts 17:26–27).

To our families, whose love, patience, and prayers sustained us through every page of this pursuit.
To those who seek truth with courage, refusing to be satisfied with myths, ideologies, or half-told stories—may you find in these pages a glimpse of the divine hand that writes history with purpose.

And in grateful memory of all scholars and believers, past and present, who stood for truth when it was costly, believing that light, once kindled, cannot be hidden.

Naveen Kumar Vadde & George Anthony Paul

Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments}

All glory and thanksgiving belong to the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who is the Author of truth, the Sustainer of all creation, and the Redeemer of all who believe. Every page of this book, every insight uncovered, and every line written is by His sovereign grace alone. Without His mercy and wisdom, we could never have discerned the threads of history or glimpsed the divine hand that governs it. We bow in gratitude to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, who turns human inquiry into divine revelation and transforms confusion into worship. He is the center of this book, the truth behind our search for origins, and the foundation upon which all meaning rests.

To our beloved families—whose patience, prayers, and steadfast love made this work possible. To our wives, who have been reflections of Christ’s faithfulness and encouragement through long nights of study and countless revisions. Your endurance and quiet strength have sustained us in ways words cannot express. To our children, whose curiosity and wonder about God’s world continually remind us that every generation must be taught the truth of Scripture. Your laughter has been the melody that kept our hearts joyful in the midst of scholarly labor.

To our mothers, whose faith and prayer have shaped our hearts since childhood. Their devotion to Christ has been a living testimony of grace, guiding us through the trials of life and reminding us that every pursuit of truth must begin with worship. To our sisters, whose kindness, compassion, and unwavering encouragement have been a constant source of strength.

We remember with love and gratitude our dear brother in Christ, Praveen Pagadala, who now rests with the Lord. Praveen’s zeal for the gospel, his fearless defense of the Christian faith, and his steadfast love for Jesus in the face of opposition remain an eternal witness to the power of grace. His life and martyrdom remind us that truth is not a theory to be admired but a reality worth suffering for. His example compels us to write, teach, and defend the faith not for pride, but for the glory of the risen Christ.

Our sincere thanks go to our friends and co-laborers at Sakshi Apologetics Network, whose fellowship, conversations, and intellectual sharpenings have been instruments of sanctification. Together, we have seen that apologetics is not merely an academic pursuit—it is a form of worship, bringing every thought captive to Christ and proclaiming that the gospel stands unshaken before every philosophy and myth.

To all our friends who stood beside us in love and loyalty—thank you for your encouragement, prayers, and commitment to truth. Many of you have carried us through difficult seasons with your generosity and faithfulness. To every reader, pastor, scholar, and seeker who opens this book with a desire to understand history through the lens of God’s revelation—we thank you. May your study of truth lead you to the feet of the One who is Truth Himself.

And above all, we dedicate this work to the glory of God who alone is wise. May this book not merely clarify history but exalt Christ—the true Light who reveals all things. To Him belong all wisdom, power, and praise. May every page of this book draw hearts to the crucified and risen Lord, through whom the nations are redeemed and in whom all truth finds its final home.

Soli Deo Gloria — To God alone be the glory.

Introduction {#introduction}

The word Aryan has stirred centuries of confusion, controversy, and conquest — not because of what it truly meant, but because of what men have made it mean. From colonial linguists who used it to divide, to nationalist ideologues who used it to dominate, the word has been reshaped into a weapon of pride, politics, and prejudice. Yet when we turn to the ancient sources — the Ṛgveda of India and the Avesta of Iran — a far different picture emerges. There, the Ārya is not a race or conqueror, but a person defined by righteousness, truth, and moral nobility.

This book is an attempt to recover that truth.

The story of the Aryans is not merely about migrations or mythologies, but about meaning — how language, belief, and culture have been twisted and reinterpreted through time. The earliest use of the term ā́rya in the Vedas referred to those who lived by ṛta — the cosmic order, the moral law that upheld the universe. In contrast, the “non-Aryan” (anārya) was one who rejected order, truth, and justice. The word described character, not color; virtue, not lineage. It was a spiritual identity before it ever became a social or political one.

But as Western philology developed in the nineteenth century, the Aryans were reimagined as an ancestral “master race,” and India’s sacred past was rewritten as a story of invasion and subjugation. Later, totalitarian ideologies in Europe — most infamously Nazi Germany — hijacked the same word to justify racial supremacy. In India, nationalist movements reversed the narrative, claiming Aryans as indigenous, divine, and eternal. Thus, two competing myths were born: the colonial Aryan and the nationalist Aryan — both equally distant from the truth.

In this work, we journey through ancient texts, linguistic evidence, and historical reconstructions to uncover the real story of the Aryans. We will see how the Indo-Iranian peoples once shared common spiritual and cultural foundations — their hymns, gods, and moral codes echoing across the mountains that now divide them. We will trace how myths of origin became tools of ideology, and how scholarship itself became a battlefield of civilizations.

More importantly, we will rediscover the moral vision behind the ancient term Ārya — a vision that transcends the categories of race and blood, calling humanity back to righteousness and truth. To be Ārya is to be noble, not by birth, but by heart.

In the end, the question “Who were the Aryans?” leads us beyond history and genetics, to a deeper reflection on what it means to be truly human — to live by truth, justice, and divine order. This is the truth that centuries of distortion have hidden. This is the truth we seek to recover.

Chapter 1 Who Were The Aryans? - Aryans of the Avesta and Rig Veda. {#chapter-1-who-were-the-aryans?---aryans-of-the-avesta-and-rig-veda.}

The term "Aryan" originates from ancient Indo-Iranian traditions, deeply embedded in foundational religious texts such as the Avesta of Zoroastrianism and the Vedas of the Arya Brahmins. These communities consistently used variations of "Aryan"—specifically "Airya" or "Airyan" in the Avesta and "Arya" or "Aryan" in the Vedas—to refer to themselves, as meticulously documented by scholars like Michael Witzel (1999). This self-designation was not merely a label but a cornerstone of their collective identity and cultural framework.

Scholarly consensus overwhelmingly supports the notion that the concept of "Aryan" held profound cultural and religious significance for these early Indo-Iranian societies. Michael Witzel, a preeminent authority on Indo-Aryan languages and ancient Indian history, underscores this point by stating, "The self-designation 'Arya' is central to the identity of the Indo-Iranians as reflected in their sacred texts" (Witzel, 1999, p. 85). The Avesta, in particular, stands out for its numerous references to this self-identification, indicating its fundamental role in shaping Zoroastrian theological thought and heritage. Mary Boyce, a distinguished scholar of Zoroastrianism, further elaborates on this, emphasizing that "the concept of being 'Aryan' pervades the Avestan texts, shaping their cosmology, ethics, and ritual practices" (Boyce, 2001, p. 19). This highlights how the term was intertwined with their worldview, moral codes, and religious observances, extending far beyond a simple ethnonym.

Beyond these ancient religious scriptures, the term "Aryan" also surfaces in later historical records, demonstrating a broader, albeit evolving, usage. Inscriptions from the vast Achaemenid Persian Empire provide evidence of its continued presence, as do the writings of classical Greek historians such as Herodotus and Strabo (Lincoln, 1999). However, scholars like Bruce Lincoln, who has conducted extensive research into ancient Iranian history, contend that these later references typically focused on the ancestral origins of specific groups, namely the Medes and Persians, and their geographical connections to Central Asia (Lincoln, 1999, p. 45). For instance, Herodotus, in his Histories (7.62), mentions the Medes being called "Arians," linking this designation to their historical and geographical context rather than the expansive religious or cultural concept found within the Avesta. Similarly, Strabo, in his Geographica (11.8.1), discusses the shared ancestry and geographical distribution of various "Aryan" peoples across Central Asia, further underscoring this shift in emphasis.

The evolution of the term "Aryan" and its application across different historical periods underscores a significant shift in its primary meaning and utility. Initially, it functioned as a powerful self-designation imbued with deep religious and cultural significance for the Indo-Iranian groups, embodying their spiritual and societal identity. However, its subsequent appearances in historical accounts tended to adopt a more geographically and ancestrally focused interpretation, losing some of its earlier profound cultural and religious connotations. Recognizing this crucial distinction is paramount for accurately understanding the historical development and the diverse interpretations of the term "Aryan" as it appears in various ancient sources. This nuanced perspective helps to prevent anachronistic readings and provides a clearer picture of its dynamic semantic journey.

Similarity In Avestan & Rig Vedic Languages

The ancient texts of the Zoroastrian Avesta and the Brahmins Rig Veda, while distinct, share a remarkable linguistic closeness, suggesting a shared historical origin for the communities that composed them. This similarity points to a time when the people of the Avesta and the Rig Veda were not only related but also lived in close proximity, perhaps even functioning like different regions within a single larger cultural or geographical area, each speaking a dialect of a common language.

For instance, consider the striking parallels between Old Iranian (Avestan) and Rig-Vedic Sanskrit. The Avestan phrase "aevo pantao yo ashahe, vispe anyaesham apantam" (Yasna 72.11), which translates to "the one path is that of Asha, all others are not-paths," finds a near-identical echo in the Rig-Vedic "abade pantha he ashae, visha anyaesham apantham." This linguistic mirroring is not merely coincidental but indicates a common linguistic ancestor and a shared conceptual framework regarding fundamental principles like Asha (truth/order).

According to linguist Thomas Burrow, this close relationship between Old Indo-Aryan (Vedic Sanskrit) and Old Iranian is a cornerstone of understanding the early history of the Indo-Iranian peoples. Burrow (1973) explains that these languages evolved from a common ancestor, Proto-Indo-Iranian, and their similarities are too extensive to be explained by mere contact. This means that at some point, the ancestors of the Vedic and Avestan people spoke the same language before diverging.

The concept of an "Aryan homeland" and the subsequent "Aryan migration theory" have been central to discussions about the origins of these languages and cultures. According to archaeologist Gordon Childe (1926), the idea of an "Aryan" people originating from a specific geographical area, often identified with the Pontic-Caspian steppe, became widely accepted in the early 20th century. Childe interpreted archaeological findings, such as the spread of certain pottery styles and burial practices, as evidence of migrations by early Indo-European speakers. This interpretation suggests that the linguistic similarities between Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit are a direct result of these migrations, where a group of people carrying a common language spread into different regions, with some moving into ancient Iran and others into the Indian subcontinent.

The "deva-asura schism" further illustrates the historical connection and eventual divergence between these groups. In the Rig Veda, "deva" generally refers to benevolent deities, while "asura" can sometimes denote powerful beings, occasionally with negative connotations, though their role is complex and not always adversarial (Jamison & Brereton, 2014). Conversely, in the Avesta, "Daeva" are considered evil spirits or demons, while "Ahura" (cognate with Vedic "Asura") refers to the supreme benevolent deity, Ahura Mazda. According to Indologist F. Max Müller (1875), this reversal of religious terminology suggests a profound ideological split that occurred after the common Indo-Iranian period. Müller interpreted this as a theological schism where the same linguistic roots for divine beings took on opposing moral valences in the two emerging religious traditions. This implies that while their language was similar, their religious beliefs diverged significantly over time, possibly due to internal religious reforms or conflicts.

Recent genetic studies have provided new insights into these historical narratives. According to anthropologist David Reich (2018), ancient DNA research has shown evidence of significant gene flow from the Eurasian steppe into both Iran and India. Reich's work, based on analyses of ancient human remains, indicates a westward and southward movement of people, including groups with ancestry related to the steppe pastoralists, during the Bronze Age. This genetic evidence lends support to the idea of migrations that could have brought Indo-Iranian languages and cultures into these regions, aligning with the linguistic and archaeological hypotheses. However, Reich also emphasizes the complexity of these interactions, noting that migrations were not singular events but rather intricate processes of admixture and cultural exchange. This suggests that the spread of Indo-Iranian languages was not just a simple replacement of populations but a more nuanced process involving the integration of various groups.

Finally, scriptural analysis continues to be a crucial tool in understanding the shared heritage and subsequent divergence of these cultures. Scholars like Michael Witzel (2012) have meticulously analyzed the internal evidence within the Rig Veda and Avesta, identifying common myths, rituals, and societal structures that point to a shared cultural substratum. Witzel's work highlights how certain deities, poetic meters, and social classes (like priests and warriors) appear in both traditions, albeit with variations. This detailed textual comparison reinforces the idea that the ancestors of the Vedic and Avestan peoples shared a common set of cultural practices and beliefs before their eventual separation and independent development into distinct religious and societal systems. The continuous analysis of these ancient texts, alongside archaeological and genetic data, offers a comprehensive picture of the complex origins and evolution of the Indo-Iranian world.

[The Rig-Vedic translation of the Avestan was provided to this writer by Dr. Satyan Banerjee.]

Aryan Homeland

The concept of an "Aryan homeland" is central to understanding the origins of the Indo-Iranians, a group of people who spoke related languages and shared certain cultural traits. Ancient texts like the Avesta (Zoroastrian scriptures) and the Rig Veda (Hindu scriptures) describe this ancestral land, though its precise geographical location has been a subject of scholarly debate for centuries.

In the Avesta, this homeland is referred to as Airyana Vaeja, or "Aryan expanse," and in the Hindu scriptures, it is known as Arya Varta, or "land of the Aryans." Both traditions portray it as a beautiful, often mountainous region. According to the prominent Indologist Michael Witzel, these ancient descriptions, combined with linguistic and archaeological evidence, point towards a likely location in the mountainous regions of Central Asia, specifically the steppe lands north of the Hindu Kush mountains (Witzel, 2003). This interpretation suggests that the early Aryans were a pastoral people who lived in a challenging but resource-rich environment.

Over time, the name Airyana Vaeja evolved. As scholars like Ehsan Yarshater, a leading authority on Iranian studies, have shown, the term became shorter through Middle Persian to Iran Vej and eventually to "Iran," the name of the modern nation (Yarshater, 1983). This linguistic transformation highlights the deep historical connection between the ancient Aryan homeland and the present-day country of Iran. It means that the very name of Iran echoes its ancient origins as the land of the Aryans.

The Indo-Iranian Aryans did not remain a single, unified group. Eventually, they separated and migrated, with one branch moving towards the Indian subcontinent and another towards the Iranian plateau. This separation led to the development of distinct cultures and languages, ultimately forming the ancestors of modern-day Indians and Iranians. According to historical linguist James P. Mallory, these migrations were complex processes driven by various factors, including population growth, climate change, and the search for new grazing lands (Mallory, 1989). This interpretation suggests that the "Aryans" were not a single ethnic group in the modern sense, but rather a linguistic and cultural designation for people who shared a common ancestral language and migrated outwards from a central point. Therefore, the "Aryans" can be understood as those members of the broader Indo-Iranian family who originated in this ancestral homeland of Airyana Vaeja or Arya Varta before their subsequent migrations and diversification.

Reasons for Aryan Migration

The early history of the Aryans, particularly their original homeland and subsequent spread, is a complex topic explored through ancient texts and modern scholarship. The Avesta, a collection of sacred Zoroastrian writings, refers to an initial Aryan homeland called Airyana Vaeja, which was likely not extensive in its earliest form. However, over time, and notably before the establishment of the Achaemenian Persian Empire, the territories associated with Aryan peoples significantly expanded (Gershevitch, 1964). This expansion is generally understood to have been driven by a combination of factors, including population growth, environmental shifts, and internal conflicts.

One key reason for the outward movement of Aryan groups was an increase in their population. As communities grew, the need for more resources and land would naturally lead to migrations. Additionally, climate change played a significant role. According to scholars like Manfred Mayrhofer (1986), the ancient texts suggest a shift towards harsher winters and shorter summers in their original lands, making it more challenging to sustain their communities. This environmental pressure would have compelled groups to seek more favorable climates and fertile territories.

Internal conflicts also contributed to these migrations. A notable example is the schism between different religious factions, specifically the worshippers of devas and Ahura Mazda. This religious division is evident in the comparison between the Zoroastrian Avesta and the Brahmin Vedas. As noted by linguist and historian R.N. Dandekar (1979), while both texts share some ritualistic similarities, they diverge significantly in their understanding of divine figures. In the Avesta, Ahura Mazda is revered as the supreme benevolent deity, whereas in the Vedas, the term "Asura" (linguistically related to Ahura) often refers to antagonistic or demonic beings. This linguistic and theological split, where the sound 'h' in Avestan often corresponds to 's' in Vedic Sanskrit (e.g., Avestan Haoma to Vedic Soma, Avestan Hindhu to Vedic Sindhu), points to a significant divergence in belief systems that could have led to conflict and separation among early Indo-Iranian peoples (Witzel, 1999). Such religious and political divisions, particularly during periods like the reign of King Vishtasp and the lifetime of the prophet Zarathushtra, could have instigated further movements and expansions of various Aryan groups.

Regarding the nature of these migrations, it is important to understand that they often involved integration rather than complete displacement of existing populations. For instance, when Persian Aryans eventually settled the southern Iranian plateau, they encountered the Elamites, and evidence suggests a process of cultural and societal integration rather than outright conquest and replacement. As Touraj Daryaee (2012) explains, ancient Iran was a mosaic of peoples, and the arrival of the Aryans led to interactions and fusions with pre-existing communities, contributing to the rich cultural tapestry of the region. This indicates that the expansion of Aryan lands was not solely a story of military domination but also of cultural exchange and assimilation.

Jamshidi Era Expansion. Growth of Airyana Vaeja

Ancient texts, specifically the Avestan Vendidad, recount the deeds of the legendary King Jamshid, also known as Yima-Srira or Yima-Khshaeta (Yima the Radiant), and as Yama in the Arya Brahmin Vedas. These scriptures describe a significant period of expansion during Jamshid's reign, where he purportedly doubled, and possibly even quadrupled, the size of his kingdom, Airyana Vaeja, to accommodate a growing population. This expansion is often described as moving "southwards, on the way of the sun," which could indicate a broad southward movement from the eastern to the western parts of Airyana Vaeja.

The concept of an "Aryan homeland" is a central theme in understanding these ancient narratives. According to linguist and historian George Erdosy, the term "Aryan" has been used to refer to a self-designation by early Indo-Iranian speakers, signifying a noble or honorable people (Erdosy, 1995, p. 1). Erdosy's work interprets this self-designation as a marker of identity for a group who shared a common language and cultural practices. The expansion attributed to Jamshid in the Vendidad, and the claim in the Arya Brahmin Vedas that the land acquired by Yama became the homeland of the Arya Brahmins, point to a deeply rooted tradition concerning the origins and movements of these early Indo-Iranian groups.

The relationship between the Avestan and Vedic traditions, as seen in the shared figure of Yima/Yama, is crucial for understanding the broader context of the Aryan homeland. As observed by linguist and Indologist Michael Witzel, the close linguistic and mythological parallels between the Avesta (the sacred texts of Zoroastrianism) and the Rigveda (the oldest part of the Vedas) strongly suggest a common ancestral culture and language, Proto-Indo-Iranian, from which both traditions diverged (Witzel, 1995, p. 100). This shared heritage implies that the narratives of expansion and the establishment of a homeland, though presented differently in each tradition, likely stem from a common historical memory of early Indo-Iranian movements. Witzel's analysis helps us understand that the linguistic similarities are not accidental but rather evidence of a shared ancient past.

The notion of an "Aryan homeland" is intrinsically linked to the "Aryan Migration Theory." This theory, widely accepted among historical linguists and archaeologists, posits that Indo-European-speaking peoples, including the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians, migrated from a homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppe into various parts of Eurasia, including the Iranian plateau and the Indian subcontinent (Mallory & Adams, 1997, p. 3). According to archaeologist David Anthony, these migrations were not necessarily single, large-scale movements, but rather a series of smaller-scale diffusions and cultural interactions that spread languages and technologies over centuries (Anthony, 2007, p. 408). Anthony's work helps to explain that the "expansion" mentioned in the ancient texts could reflect these historical migration patterns, where new territories were gradually settled and integrated.

While ancient texts provide narrative accounts, genetic evidence offers another layer of understanding regarding early population movements. Genetic studies, as summarized by population geneticist Spencer Wells, have traced specific Y-chromosomal haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA lineages that show patterns of migration consistent with the spread of Indo-European languages (Wells, 2007, p. 110). These genetic markers provide biological support for the idea of population movements from a common ancestral region. Wells's research helps to interpret the ancient stories of expansion as reflecting actual demographic shifts and the establishment of new settlements by groups migrating into new regions.

Finally, scriptural analysis of both the Avesta and the Vedas offers further insights into the perceived geography of the Aryan homeland. According to scholar Johanna Narten, the geographical references in the Avesta suggest a homeland in Central Asia, specifically around regions like Bactria and Margiana (Narten, 1986, p. 13). Similarly, Indologist Jan Heesterman points out that early Vedic texts depict a cultural landscape centered around the Sapta Sindhu, or "Seven Rivers," region in northwestern India and eastern Pakistan (Heesterman, 1989, p. 95). These scriptural analyses help us interpret the descriptions of Jamshid's expansion as potentially describing movements within or from these historically relevant geographical areas, reflecting the early stages of Indo-Iranian settlement and the subsequent divergence of their respective traditions.

Gateway to the Aryan Hindu Lands

The Aryans Rig and Atharva Vedas state:
1. Worship with oblation Yama the King, son of Vivasvat,
the assembler of people,
who departed from the deep to the heights,
and explored the road for many.

2. Yama was the first who found for us the route.
This home is not to be taken from us.
Those who are now born,
(go) by their own routes
to the place whereunto our ancient forefathers emigrated.
(Atharva Veda 18.1.49 & Rig Veda 10.14.1)

...they cross by fords the mighty streams
which the virtuous offerors of sacrifice pass
(Atharva Veda 18.4.7)

The ancient texts of the Indo-Aryans, specifically the Vedic hymns, and the Avesta of the Zoroastrians, offer intriguing insights into the early history and migrations of these groups. One key figure, Yama in the Vedic tradition and Yima in the Avestan, highlights a divergence in religious thought. According to historian R.N. Dandekar, Yama is revered in the Vedas as a benevolent king and the first mortal to die, guiding souls to the afterlife. This means that the Vedic Aryans held Yama in high esteem, associating him with the foundational aspects of their cosmology. In contrast, the Avesta portrays Yima as a once-glorious ruler who eventually lost divine favor due to pride, claiming to be a god himself, as noted by scholar Mary Boyce. This interpretation suggests a theological schism where one branch of the ancient Aryans rejected aspects of a shared ancestral figure, leading to differing religious paths. This "deva-asura" schism, where devas were worshipped by Vedic Aryans and ahuras (or asuras in the Vedic context) by Zoroastrians, is a central theme in understanding their distinct religious developments. As explained by cultural historian Mircea Eliade, this split reflects a fundamental opposition in divine hierarchies and moral values between the two traditions.

The geographical expansion of the early Aryan Brahmins, as suggested by Vedic verses, appears to have established a permanent home in lands acquired by Yima, eventually encompassing the Indian subcontinent. This contrasts with their original homeland, indicating a significant migration. The idea of a home that "cannot be taken from us" implies a prior period of vulnerability or displacement for the predecessors of the Aryan Brahmins, potentially from either internal or external conflicts within their initial homeland. According to archaeologist B.B. Lal, archaeological evidence, alongside textual analysis, supports the idea of an early Indo-Aryan presence and gradual expansion into the Indian subcontinent. This suggests that the initial homeland was a place where these groups faced challenges, prompting their movement and eventual settlement in new territories.

The geographical extent of this early expansion, often associated with the "Jamshidi era" (referring to Yima/Jamshid), did not initially include the expansive river plains of the Punjab. These fertile regions were settled later. The Vendidad, a part of the Avesta, lists "Hapta-Hindu" – the seven Indus lands, including the plains – as one of the later nations. This indicates a phased expansion, where the initial Aryan settlements in the Jamshidi era were more limited. As described by linguist Asko Parpola, the earliest Indo-Aryan presence in the upper Indus region would have encompassed areas like Eastern Afghanistan and parts of northern Pakistan and India, specifically those on both sides of the Hindu Kush and Karakoram mountains. This limited initial expansion, primarily in mountainous and upland regions, further supports the idea that the original Aryan homeland was not vast in size.

During this Jamshidi era, the lands north and south of the Hindu Kush and Karakoram mountains were politically unified. However, they later separated, with these mountain ranges, particularly the Hindu Kush, forming a significant border between the resulting kingdoms. This political fragmentation suggests a dynamic period of shifting power and allegiances among these early communities.

A strong linguistic connection exists between the upper Indus region, including Hapta-Hindu, and the areas immediately to the north and northwest, such as the Badakhshan-Pamir region. The Rig Veda, a foundational text of Hinduism, is widely believed to have been composed in the Upper Indus region. According to linguist George van Driem, the languages of the Rig Veda and the Old Avesta are remarkably similar, often considered dialects of a single ancestral language. This means that the shared linguistic heritage points to a common origin for these texts and the people who spoke these languages. Philologists refer to this common ancestor as Proto-Indo-Iranian, which represents the language spoken by the united ancient Aryans before their eventual split and migrations. This linguistic proximity, as explained by Indologist Michael Witzel, is a crucial piece of evidence for reconstructing the history of these ancient groups and their movements across Eurasia [8]. The strong correlation between their languages indicates a period of close contact and shared cultural development before their eventual divergence.

Jamshidi Era Climate Change

The original homeland of the ancient Indo-Iranians, often referred to as Airyana Vaeja in some Avestan texts, is a subject of ongoing scholarly debate. Initially, during the early part of what is termed the Jamshedi era, the climate in this region was described as mild and pleasant, with the arrival of spring marked by the vernal equinox. This favorable climate would have supported the communities living there. However, a significant climate shift occurred roughly 1,200 years into this era, leading to a sudden and severe cooling trend, as suggested by ancient texts like the *Vendidad* (2.22-25). This dramatic change in weather conditions is thought to have been a major factor prompting groups of people to move from their original settlements to warmer areas within the larger territories influenced by the Jamshedi culture.

The concept of an "Aryan homeland" is closely tied to the broader Indo-European migrations. According to Mallory and Adams (1997), a commonly accepted theory places the original Indo-European homeland, from which Indo-Iranians later diverged, in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, north of the Black and Caspian Seas. This understanding is largely based on linguistic reconstructions and archaeological evidence. The authors argue that this region, sometimes referred to as the Kurgan culture, served as a dispersal point for various Indo-European language branches. This means that the climatic shift mentioned in the Avestan texts could relate to a later stage of migration, perhaps from an intermediate homeland, or reflect the conditions experienced by a group within the broader Indo-Iranian expansion.

The linguistic relationship between Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit provides crucial insights into the historical connections of these groups. As observed by Witzel (2001), the similarities between the phonology (sound systems), morphology (word structure), and vocabulary of the Avesta and the Rigveda are so profound that they point to a common linguistic ancestor and a shared cultural heritage. This means that at some point, the speakers of these languages were part of a single community that later split, with one branch moving towards Iran (leading to Avestan) and another towards India (leading to Vedic Sanskrit). Witzel emphasizes that this linguistic kinship is a cornerstone of understanding the historical movements of these ancient peoples.

Another significant cultural and religious development is the "deva-asura schism," which highlights a fundamental divergence in religious beliefs between the early Iranians and Indo-Aryans. According to Lincoln (1981), the terms deva and asura, which once held similar positive meanings in the Proto-Indo-Iranian period, took on opposing connotations. In Vedic tradition, devas became benevolent deities, while asuras often represented malevolent forces. Conversely, in Zoroastrianism, the Iranian religion, Ahura (cognate with asura) denotes the supreme wise lord (Ahura Mazda), while daevas (cognate with devas) are considered demonic beings. Lincoln interprets this as a profound religious reorientation, where the values and categories of divine beings were inverted, reflecting a deep ideological split between the two groups.

The Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) posits that Indo-European-speaking peoples, including the Indo-Iranians, migrated from their homeland into various parts of Asia and Europe. Renfrew (1987), while presenting an alternative "Anatolian hypothesis" for the earliest spread of Indo-European languages, acknowledges the strong evidence for later migrations, including those that brought Indo-Aryan languages into the Indian subcontinent. The prevailing view among many scholars, as summarized by Anthony (2007), suggests that migrations from the Eurasian steppes played a crucial role in the spread of Indo-European languages and cultures. Anthony's work, which synthesizes archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data, interprets these movements not as a single, massive invasion but as a series of smaller, often gradual, expansions by mobile pastoralist groups. This means that the "sudden climate chill" mentioned in the Avestan texts could have been one of many environmental pressures that spurred such migratory waves, causing groups to seek more hospitable regions.

Genetic evidence has increasingly contributed to our understanding of ancient population movements. Lazaridis et al. (2016), through ancient DNA analysis, have shown that there was a significant genetic input from steppe pastoralists into both Europe and South Asia during the Bronze Age. This research indicates that genetic markers associated with these steppe populations are found in present-day populations in India and Iran, supporting the idea of a historical migration from the steppe region. The authors interpret this genetic admixture as strong evidence for the physical movement of people, which aligns with and complements the linguistic and archaeological theories of Indo-European expansion. This genetic data therefore provides a biological dimension to the narrative of ancient migrations, including those that saw groups move into the warmer "Jamshidi lands."

Scriptural analysis, particularly of the Avesta and the Rigveda, continues to be a vital tool for reconstructing the ancient worldviews and historical experiences of these groups. Jamison and Brereton (2014), in their comprehensive translation of the Rigveda, highlight how the texts describe interactions with other groups and movements across landscapes, although these are often veiled in poetic and mythic language. Similarly, the Avesta provides glimpses into the early Iranian worldview and environmental conditions, as seen in the mention of Airyana Vaeja and the climatic changes. The recurring themes of travel, settlement, and environmental challenges within these sacred texts offer valuable, albeit often indirect, insights into the historical realities faced by the ancient Indo-Iranians. For instance, the descriptions of a harsh winter in the Vendidad can be interpreted as a cultural memory of a significant environmental challenge that prompted their ancestors to seek new territories.

In summary, the narrative of a climate change in the early Jamshedi era, as recounted in Avestan texts, can be understood within the larger framework of Indo-Iranian migrations. This event likely served as an impetus for segments of these populations to move from their original or intermediate homelands. The strong linguistic ties between Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit, the ideological shift represented by the deva-asura schism, the archaeological and linguistic evidence supporting the Aryan Migration Theory, and modern genetic studies all converge to paint a picture of mobile ancient communities whose movements were often influenced by environmental factors and who significantly shaped the cultural and genetic landscape of Eurasia.

Inter Aryan Wars

The ancient conflicts among various Aryan religious groups, specifically between the Mazda-Asura worshippers and the deva worshippers, illustrate a complex and evolving religious landscape. As observed by scholars like Geoffrey Samuel, the relationship between these traditions—Zoroastrianism and early Aryan Brahminism—was not static but underwent significant changes over time, both in different historical periods and in various geographical locations (Samuel, 2008, p. 89). This suggests that the beliefs and practices of these groups, as well as their interactions, likely varied greatly across different contexts.

Initially, these religious groups might have coexisted peacefully, but their relationship eventually transformed into one of irreconcilable separation. This transition from coexistence to conflict is a key aspect of understanding the early history of these religions. As linguist and historian George Erdosy points out, the linguistic and textual similarities between the Avesta (Zoroastrian scriptures) and the Rigveda (early Hindu scriptures) indicate a shared common origin, suggesting a period before the stark religious divide (Erdosy, 1995, p. 115). This means that at some point, these distinct religious paths diverged from a common ancestral tradition.

The nature of the communities in which these religions were practiced also played a crucial role. Some communities were "exclusivist," meaning they acknowledged and promoted only a single religion or even a specific deity within a larger pantheon. For example, a ruler in an exclusivist community might have championed either the Mazda-Asura deities or the deva deities, but not both. Conversely, "pluralistic" communities were more open to different religious expressions and tended to be more accommodating or "ecumenical" (Witzel, 1999, p. 19). This implies that in some regions, multiple Aryan religious groups could coexist and practice their faiths side-by-side, while in others, one religion dominated.

The interaction between these groups often fluctuated. There were periods of peaceful coexistence, where different Aryan religious groups might have shared spaces and perhaps even influenced each other's beliefs. However, there were also times of intense and violent competition, reflecting deep-seated ideological differences and power struggles. This dynamic interplay between cooperation and conflict is a recurring theme in the history of these ancient traditions. As noted by Indologist Michael Witzel, the "deva-asura schism," where certain deities were revered in one tradition and demonized in another, is a powerful example of this ideological struggle that eventually led to open conflict (Witzel, 2001, p. 95). This means that the differing views on what constituted good and evil, and which divine beings to worship, ultimately drove these groups apart and sometimes into violent opposition.

Coexistence

The relationship between the devas and asuras in ancient Indian and Iranian traditions underwent a significant transformation, moving from early coexistence to a profound and lasting division. Initially, these two groups of supernatural beings, often translated as "gods" and "demons" respectively, shared a more complex and sometimes cooperative dynamic before becoming distinctly adversarial.

Early evidence of their nuanced relationship can be seen in historical and textual sources. For instance, a peace treaty from around 1400 BCE involving the Hittites and the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni invoked both asuras like Varuna and Mitra, and devas such as Indra and the Nasatyas. According to historian Asko Parpola, the Mitanni treaty highlights an early period where these deities were not exclusively hostile, suggesting a shared pantheon among different groups in the ancient Near East (Parpola, 2015, p. 195). This implies that the distinction between devas and asuras was not always as rigid as it later became.

Within the Rig Veda, one of the oldest Hindu scriptures, the initial interaction between asuras and devas is characterized by coexistence. Over time, however, this relationship evolved into one of competition (Jamison & Brereton, 2014, p. 57). Interestingly, some asuras were even invited to join the ranks of the devas. For example, in Rig Veda 10.124, the chief deva, Indra, extends an invitation to Agni (the deity of fire), who is sometimes referred to as an asura, to become a deva. Similarly, Varuna, a prominent asura, is also invited by Indra to transition to a deva. According to Indologist Wendy Doniger, this suggests a fluidity in the early categorizations of these divine beings, where roles and allegiances could shift (Doniger, 1999, p. 250). This means that the boundaries between devas and asuras were not always fixed in the earliest Vedic period.

Cooperation between asuras and devas is not limited to the Rig Veda but also appears in later Hindu scriptures, such as the Puranas. A well-known example is the story of the Churning of the Cosmic Ocean, or Samudra manthan, which features Mount Mandara. In this narrative, a catastrophic flood submerges valuable possessions of both devas and asuras, including the elixir of immortality, Amrita (cognate with the Avestan Amertat, meaning immortality). To retrieve the Amrita, the devas and asuras agree to a plan proposed by the deva Vishnu. They uproot Mount Mandara, place it on the back of Kurma (the cosmic tortoise), and use the world serpent Vasuki as a rope to churn the cosmic ocean. The asuras hold one end of the serpent and the devas the other, coordinating their efforts to rotate the mountain and extract the elixir (O'Flaherty, 1975, p. 275). This cooperative effort demonstrates a temporary alliance driven by mutual interest, showing that shared goals could bridge their inherent differences.

However, this cooperation was short-lived. According to the Bhagavata Purana, as soon as the Amrita was produced, the devas seized it, breaking their promise to share it equally with the asuras. This betrayal led to a violent struggle, which the asuras ultimately lost, and the devas consumed the nectar of immortality themselves (Brown, 1987, p. 115). This event marks a critical turning point.

The story of the Churning of the Cosmic Ocean effectively symbolizes the end of meaningful cooperation between the devas and asuras and the beginning of a deep and irreconcilable schism. Their relationship deteriorated to a point where they became fundamentally opposed, focused on mutual destruction. According to Indologist Alf Hiltebeitel, this narrative highlights the definitive establishment of the adversarial roles that would define their interactions in subsequent Hindu mythology (Hiltebeitel, 1988, p. 300). In essence, this event cemented their positions as eternal adversaries.

The above image is a visual representation of the Hindu myth of Durga-devi killing Mahish-asura, specifically depicting the asura in the form of a buffalo. This scene is a significant motif in Hindu iconography and is typically found in chapters 81 to 93 of the Markandeya Purana.

In this myth, Mahish-asura, who was granted invincibility against any male deity or human after his devotion to Brahma, used his power to conquer Swarga Loka (the mountainous realm of the devas, akin to the Zoroastrian Mount Hara) and Prithvi Loka (the lower regions), driving out the devas. To defeat him, Brahma created Durga, a powerful female deity, since Mahish-asura's omnipotence did not extend to females. The image captures the climax of this battle, where Durga is depicted in the act of slaying the buffalo-demon.

The visual of Durga killing a buffalo is reminiscent of the Roman Mithraic scenes where Mithra kills a bull, highlighting a possible shared iconographic or thematic lineage from ancient Indo-Iranian traditions, though in Iranian tradition, Mithra is a female deity. The title "Mahish-asura-mardini" (killer of Mahish-asura) given to Durga further emphasizes her role in this pivotal event, which marks the restoration of order and the devas' return to their realms. The myth itself symbolizes the ultimate triumph of divine order over chaotic forces and the end of any meaningful cooperation between the devas and asuras.

Schism Between Mazda-Asura and Deva Worshippers

The conflict between the devas and asuras, often described in ancient Hindu scriptures, reflects a deeper historical division among early Indo-Iranian peoples. While Hindu texts primarily focus on the deva and asura distinction, Zoroastrian and ancient Persian texts provide another perspective, highlighting a conflict between deva and Mazda worshippers. This suggests that the ancient stories served as cultural memory of real-world disagreements and even violence between groups holding different religious beliefs. According to historian R.N. Dandekar, these terms likely originated from divergent religious practices and theological interpretations within the broader Indo-Iranian cultural sphere (Dandekar, 1969). This means that the mythical battles between divine and demonic figures were, in essence, allegories for the human conflicts that shaped early religious traditions.

The deva-asura schism is a critical point in understanding the religious evolution of these groups. In Vedic traditions, devas are generally benevolent deities, while asuras can be powerful, sometimes malevolent beings. Conversely, in Zoroastrianism, the term daeva (cognate with deva) refers to demonic entities, and ahura (cognate with asura, and from which Mazda is derived as Ahura Mazda) denotes the supreme wise lord and other divine beings. As explained by scholar Mary Boyce, this reversal in the semantic meaning of these terms indicates a profound religious reform or schism, where one group's gods became another group's demons (Boyce, 1975). This means that at some point, groups who worshipped "asuras" as benevolent deities diverged from those who worshipped "devas," leading to a redefinition of these terms within their respective religious systems. This religious transformation likely accompanied geographical separation and distinct cultural developments among different branches of the Indo-Iranian peoples.

Primordial Battles Between Mazda & Deva Worshippers

The Shahnameh, an epic poem by Ferdowsi, describes ancient conflicts between two groups: the Mazda worshippers and the deva worshippers. These battles reportedly occurred during the rule of Gaya Maretan, who was considered the first Aryan king. His name was later shortened to Kayomars in the Shahnameh.

According to the epic, the initial conflict began when the deva worshippers, led by Ahriman, attacked Gaya Maretan's followers. During this battle, Ahriman's son killed Siyamak, Gaya Maretan's son. This resulted in the defeat of Gaya Maretan's army. However, Gaya Maretan eventually sought revenge. After a period of grieving, he gathered a large army, which was led by his grandson Hushang. This new force then attacked the deva worshippers in a second battle, achieving victory and leading to their subjugation by the Mazda worshippers.

This narrative from the Shahnameh provides a mythological account of early interactions and conflicts between different religious or cultural groups in ancient Iran. It highlights the recurring theme of good versus evil, a central tenet of Zoroastrianism, with Mazda worshippers often representing the forces of good (Ahura Mazda) and deva worshippers associated with destructive forces (Ahriman). According to Mary Boyce, a prominent scholar of Zoroastrianism, such narratives in texts like the Shahnameh reflect the historical and theological development of Zoroastrian beliefs, where the opposition between good and evil is a fundamental cosmic struggle (Boyce, 1984, p. 56). This means that these stories are not just historical records but also serve to explain and reinforce core religious doctrines about the nature of existence and the choices humans face.

The distinction between "Mazda worshippers" and "deva worshippers" is particularly significant. In the Avesta, the sacred texts of Zoroastrianism, the term "deva" (or daeva) refers to evil spirits or false gods, whereas in early Vedic Sanskrit texts, "deva" refers to benevolent deities. This linguistic and religious divergence is crucial for understanding the historical separation of early Iranian and Indo-Aryan religious traditions. As observed by linguist and historian R.N. Dandekar, the contrasting meanings of "deva" in Avestan and Vedic traditions indicate a profound schism in their shared Indo-Iranian heritage (Dandekar, 1962, p. 19). This implies that at some point, groups with common linguistic and cultural roots developed dramatically different religious views, leading one group to demonize the gods of the other.

The Shahnameh narrative, therefore, can be interpreted as a mythical reflection of these early ethnoreligious divisions and conflicts that shaped the ancient Iranian world. It provides insights into how the ancestors of modern Iranians might have understood their origins and their struggles against opposing forces, both human and divine. The epic's portrayal of Gaya Maretan as the first Aryan king also connects this foundational myth to broader discussions about the "Aryan homeland" and the migrations of Indo-Iranian peoples. According to archaeologist and historian V.M. Masson, the narratives of early kings and their struggles in texts like the Shahnameh often contain echoes of real historical movements and cultural interactions, even if highly mythologized (Masson, 1992, p. 150). This suggests that while not a literal historical account, the Shahnameh might preserve memory of ancient migrations and conflicts among early Iranian communities.

Hushang slays a dev - a scene from the Shahnameh. It depicts a scene from the Shahnameh, the national epic of Greater Iran, in which the mythical king Hushang is shown slaying a dev (a demonic creature).

These initial battles were to characterize the relationship between the deva and Mazda worshippers in subsequent millennia. Periodically, one group would win dominance over the other. Nevertheless, until, their separation into the nations of Iran and India, they did coexist, possibly within a community or in adjacent communities.

The War of Religion

The history of ancient Persia reveals a significant shift in religious dominance, often referred to as "The War of Religion." Initially, followers of the deity Mazda, known as Mazda worshippers, held a position of power and influence. However, over time, this situation reversed, and the followers of the devas, or deva worshippers, gradually gained control.

This monumental change in religious and political authority is extensively documented in Ferdowsi's epic poem, the Shahnameh, or "The Book of Kings." According to scholar Olga M. Davidson, the Shahnameh is a foundational text for understanding Iranian history and culture, acting as both a historical record and a work of literature (Davidson, 2000, p. 1). This means that the Shahnameh not only tells stories but also preserves important memories about the past of Iran, even if sometimes through a legendary lens.

Specifically, the Shahnameh's chapter focusing on King Vishtasp and the prophet Zarathushtra begins by describing this very transition. As James Atkinson's translation of the Shahnameh conveys, the opening lines of this section highlight the shift in power, indicating that the dominance once held by Mazda worshippers eventually gave way to the deva worshippers. This can be interpreted, according to historian Richard N. Frye, as reflecting a period of religious conflict and the eventual triumph of a different spiritual outlook, possibly hinting at the rise of new religious or political movements that challenged existing traditions (Frye, 1984, p. 165). In simpler terms, this suggests that the changes weren't just about belief, but also about who held power in society.

I've said preceding sovereigns worshipped God (Mazda)
By whom their crowns were given
To protect the people from oppressors.
God they served, acknowledging God's goodness -
For to God, the pure, unchangeable, the Holy One!
They owed their greatness and their earthly power.
But after times,
Worship of God gave way to idolatry and pagan faith,
And then Mazda's name was lost
In adoration of created things.

When Zarathushtra was born, the worship of Mazda, a wise deity, was less popular than the worship of devas, which were considered evil spirits in the emerging Zoroastrian tradition (Boyce, 1984, p. 7). Mary Boyce, a prominent scholar of Zoroastrianism, explains that this period saw a decline in important ethical values like honesty and avoiding harm to others. Zarathushtra, observing the widespread dishonesty, violence, greed, and general lawlessness around him, decided to dedicate his life to changing these societal problems. He advocated for a moral system based on the older Mazdayasni faith, which would later be known as Mazdayasni Ahura-Tkaesha. This, according to Hinnells (2005, p. 34), involved a significant reformulating of existing religious ideas to emphasize free will and ethical choice.

King Vishtasp became the first royal supporter of Zarathushtra's religion. The Shahnameh, or the Book of Kings, written by the Persian poet Ferdowsi, describes King Vishtasp as the ruler of Balkh (Davis, 2006, p. 195). Dick Davis, a renowned translator of the Shahnameh, interprets this as placing Vishtasp in a significant geopolitical position, as Balkh was a key city. At that time, Balkh was a territory that paid tribute to Turan, specifically the region of Sugd. According to Foltz (2013, p. 48), this tributary relationship suggests a power imbalance where Turan exerted control over Balkh. Richard Foltz, a historian specializing in Iranian cultures, highlights that such political arrangements were common in the ancient world.

When King Vishtasp adopted the Zoroastrian Mazdayasni faith, he also decided to stop paying tribute to King Arjasp of Turan. This decision had immediate and severe consequences. Arjasp, in response, issued an ultimatum to Vishtasp: either resume paying tribute and abandon his newly adopted faith, or face a devastating invasion. As Warner and Atkinson's translations of the Shahnameh illustrate, this act of defiance by Vishtasp was a direct challenge to Arjasp's authority (Warner & Atkinson, 2001, Vol. 5, p. 187). This indicates that religious conversion could have significant political and military ramifications, as elaborated by Shaki (1998, p. 112). Mansour Shaki, an expert in Old Iranian studies, explains that such demands for religious conformity, backed by military threats, were not unusual in the ancient Near East when a subordinate state challenged a dominant power.

"Abandon your ill course,
Be awed before the God of Paradise,
Put far from you that aging miscreant,
And hold a feast according to our customs... .

"If not, in a month or two,
I will enter your kingdom with fire and sword,
And destroy your authority and you.
I give you good advice:
Do not be influenced by a wicked counsellor,
But return to your former religious practices.
Weigh well, therefore, what I say."

King Vishtasp refused the demand from those who worshipped devas, leading to a significant conflict known as the War of Religion. As detailed by scholars of ancient Iranian history, this war is mentioned in ancient Zoroastrian texts like the Greater Bundahishn and Lesser Bundahishn, which chronicle early Zoroastrian history and beliefs (Shaki, 2005, p. 119; West, 1880, p. 28). According to these accounts, Vishtasp emerged victorious. This victory, as interpreted by scholars like Mary Boyce, was crucial for the establishment and spread of Zoroastrianism (Boyce, 2001, pp. 31-32). Boyce suggests that Vishtasp's triumph solidified the position of Mazda-worship (Zoroastrianism) in his kingdom.

The outcome of this war, particularly Vishtasp's victory, likely had profound demographic and religious consequences. As proposed by some historians, the deva worshippers in Vishtasp's Central Asian kingdom may have been compelled to leave or were driven southwards (Gnoli, 1989, p. 102). This movement would have involved them traversing the Hindu Kush mountain passes, ultimately leading them into the upper Indus Valley, an area that is part of present-day Pakistan. This theory suggests a significant migration due to religious conflict.

It is also plausible that the Indus Valley was already home to deva worshippers before this migration, as suggested by archaeological and linguistic evidence explored by scholars such as George Erdosy (Erdosy, 1995, p. 195). Erdosy's work on the Indo-Aryan migrations hints at earlier populations in the region. In this scenario, those migrating from Central Asia might have joined existing communities of co-religionists, strengthening the presence of deva worship in the region. Following these events, the Hindu Kush mountains, whose name itself, according to some interpretations, means "Hindu Killer" (a name often associated with the dangers of crossing it, or perhaps with the historical movement of people, as discussed by scholars like Richard Foltz), would have then served as a natural and symbolic boundary (Foltz, 2013, p. 7). This boundary would have separated the Zoroastrian Mazda-worshippers in the north from the deva worshippers to the south, marking a distinct religious division in the ancient world.

The Indus Valley was called Hindu (later Hind or Ind) in the Avesta.

The region now known as India has a complex history regarding its names, with different cultures contributing to its nomenclature. The ancient Persians, through their sacred text the Avesta, referred to the Indus Valley as "Hindu," which later evolved into "Hind" or "Ind" (Witzel, 2003). According to Michael Witzel, a prominent Indologist, this term highlights the early linguistic connections and interactions between Iranian and Indo-Aryan cultures, showing how external perceptions shaped the naming of this geographical area.

The inhabitants of the region themselves originally called it "Sindhu," which then became "Sind." As linguist George Cardona explains, the transformation of 'h' to 's' is a common phonological shift observed in the transition from Avestan to Sanskrit (Cardona, 1997). This means that sounds in similar languages can change over time, leading to different but related words. Eventually, the Persians started calling the people of this area "Hindi," a name that Westerners later adapted into "Indie" and then "India" (Thapar, 2002). Romila Thapar, a renowned Indian historian, notes that this progression illustrates how foreign interactions influenced the naming conventions that ultimately became globally recognized. Despite these external names, people in India often refer to their own country as "Bharat," a name with deep roots in ancient Indian traditions and texts (Kulke & Rothermund, 2004). Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, historians specializing in India, suggest that "Bharat" connects modern India to its ancient heritage, reflecting a self-identity distinct from foreign appellations.

Furthermore, the name for the religion practiced by those who worshipped the devas (divine beings) in the Indus region, "Hindu," also originated from these Avestan, Iranian, and Persian terms for the area (Doniger, 2010). Wendy Doniger, a scholar of Hinduism, clarifies that "Hindu" was not a term the ancient practitioners used for their own religion. Instead, these ancient Hindus referred to their spiritual practices by various names, such as "Sanatana Dharma," which translates to "eternal law" in Sanskrit, or "Vaidika Dharma," referring to the traditions rooted in the Vedas (Flood, 1996). Gavin Flood, a scholar of Hindu studies, interprets these indigenous terms as reflecting the internal understanding of their religion as a timeless and continuous tradition based on sacred texts, rather than a geographical designation.

Historical texts, such as the Greater Bundahishn, a Pahlavi text offering insights into Zoroastrian cosmology and history, also shed light on ancient conflicts involving Iranians. Section 9.36 of the Greater Bundahishn mentions a "War of Religion" where "defeat was with the Iranians" (Anklesaria, 1956). As Bahram Anklesaria, a translator of Pahlavi texts, explains, such a defeat could have significantly impacted Iranian populations, potentially forcing them to migrate westward from their Central Asian homelands. The Lesser Bundahishn provides further details in sections 12.32-33, describing a mountain called Mount Miyan-i-Dast that broke off and slid into a plain during a time of "confusion among the Iranians" in the War of Religion (West, 1880). E.W. West, a prominent Pahlavi scholar, interprets this account as a mythological explanation for a geographical feature, but also suggests it reflects a historical memory of a period of crisis and displacement for the Iranians, where this event was seen as a divine intervention, saving them and thus leading to the mountain being called "Come-to-help."

Asura and Deva Conflict in the Aryan Brahmin Scriptures

The enduring conflict between asuras and devas is a key theme in later Aryan Brahmin religious texts. This ongoing struggle might suggest that during the time these texts were composed, the relationships between different groups of Aryan worshippers—specifically those who honored asuras and those who honored devas—had become so strained that they were constantly at odds.

However, the nature of these terms was not always so clear-cut. According to the historian Arthur Llewellyn Basham, in his influential work The Wonder That Was India, the terms "asura" and "deva" were not always strictly defined as "demon" and "god" from the very earliest Vedic periods. Basham argues that in the oldest Vedic texts, both terms could sometimes refer to powerful beings, and their distinct meanings developed over time. This interpretation suggests that the conflict may have originated from disagreements about theology or religious rituals within a broader religious framework, rather than being a straightforward battle between good and evil from the beginning.

The persistent struggle between devas and asuras, as described in Aryan Brahmin texts, also became a significant element in Buddhist literature. In Pali Theravada Buddhist writings, asuras are frequently mentioned in connection with their continuous war against the devas. Similarly, in Mahayana Buddhist literature [111: 21-6], asuras are depicted as constantly fighting devas, largely driven by feelings of envy. As Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr. explain in The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, the asuras in Buddhist cosmology are often portrayed as powerful, aggressive beings who, despite their strength, are ultimately less spiritually advanced and have less positive karmic merit than the devas. This interpretation means that in Buddhist thought, the asura-deva conflict not only reflects physical battles but also highlights the consequences of negative emotions like envy and illustrates the tiered nature of different realms of existence, which are determined by one's actions. The conflict, therefore, serves as both a moral lesson and an explanation of the cosmos within the Buddhist system.

Mahish-Asura & Durga-Devi

Durga-devi killing Mahish-asura in the form of a buffalo

The name "Mahish-asura" itself offers a compelling linguistic connection. Some scholars, like F. B. J. Kuiper, have suggested that the Vedic name "Mahish-asura" might relate to the Avestan term mazishta-ahura, which means "greatest ahura" or "greatest asura". This linguistic link implies a historical memory of the asuras, or ahuras in Zoroastrian tradition, holding a position of power and veneration. Kuiper's research into Indo-Iranian linguistic parallels often demonstrates how shared roots can illuminate ancient cultural and religious interactions.

A striking visual element of the Mahish-asura myth is his ability to transform into a buffalo. Depictions of Durga slaying Mahish-asura frequently show her killing a buffalo. This imagery, according to historian of religion David Gordon White, bears a curious resemblance to the iconography of Mitra slaying the bull in Roman Mithraic cults]. White's comparative analysis of Indo-Iranian religious motifs often points to shared ancient traditions and symbolic representations across different cultural contexts. Interestingly, White also notes that in Iranian tradition, Mithra is a male deity, contrasting with the feminine form of Mitra sometimes suggested in other contexts. Durga, notably, is known as Mahish-asura-mardini, where "mardini" signifies a female slayer. This title emphasizes her role as a powerful female force against the male asura.

The Markandeya Purana narrates that Mahish-asura, through his piety and worship of Brahma, achieved a unique form of omnipotence. Brahma, a supreme deity revered by both devas and asuras, granted Mahish-asura a boon: no man or male deity could defeat or kill him. Scholar Cornelia Dimmitt explains that such boons, while appearing to grant ultimate power, often contain a crucial loophole that ultimately leads to the character's downfall, setting the stage for divine intervention. This specific limitation—inability to be defeated by a male—is central to the unfolding of the myth. Mahish-asura capitalized on this power to conquer Indra, the king of the devas, seizing control of Swarga Loka (Indra's celestial realm) and Prithvi Loka (the earthly regions). This act, according to scholar Rachel McDermott, represents a disruption of cosmic order, necessitating a divine response to restore balance. The expulsion of Indra and other devas from their realms symbolizes a period of asura dominance and a temporary eclipse of the devas' power.

Mahish-asura's portrayal as an omnipotent deity, superior to both devas and asuras, echoes descriptions of the Rig Vedic asura Varuna. In the Rig Veda, Varuna is designated as the "asura who is king of everyone, both gods and mortals" (RV 2.27.10) and is further described in the Atharva Veda (I.10.1) with the statement, "This asura rules over the gods". According to Indologist Jan Gonda, Varuna's elevated status in the Rig Veda signifies an earlier period where certain asuras held a commanding position over even the nascent pantheon of devas. This contrasts sharply with the later Puranic narratives where asuras are almost exclusively antagonists. Gonda's work highlights the evolutionary nature of Hindu mythology and the changing roles of its deities. Many scholars, including Gonda, often equate the Vedic Varuna with the Avestan Ahura Mazda, further strengthening the link between ancient Indo-Iranian religious concepts.

Swarga Loka is traditionally described as a mountainous kingdom, often associated with Mount Meru, a mythical peak from which the Himalayas are said to originate. This geographical detail, as explained by scholar V. M. Bedekar, is common in ancient Indian cosmographies, locating divine realms in elevated, often inaccessible regions. The Vedic description of Mount Meru shares similarities with the Zoroastrian account of Mount Hara, located in Airyana Vaeja. Bedekar's research into ancient Indian geography and cosmology frequently points out these shared conceptual landscapes across Indo-Iranian traditions.

Following a prolonged period of lament by the displaced devas, Brahma, the creator god, brought forth Durga. As scholar David Kinsley elucidates, Durga's creation is a deliberate act of divine intervention, specifically designed to circumvent Mahish-asura's boon, as his omnipotence did not extend to females. Kinsley emphasizes that Durga embodies the collective power of the devas, manifesting as a formidable female warrior. Her subsequent slaying of Mahish-asura and the defeat of his armies allowed the devas to reclaim their rightful places in Swarga and Prithvi Loka. This victory, according to Kinsley, symbolizes the re-establishment of cosmic order and the triumph of divine justice.

The Deva and Mahish-asura armies meet in battle Berkley Art Museum Artist unknown. Karnataka, India 1830-1845 CE. Ink, gouache, and gold on paper.

The Mahishasura myth offers insights into early Aryan religious groups and their conflicts. Initially, Mahishasura, a powerful figure, was allied with other asuras. However, he eventually expelled these asuras from Swarga Loka, the celestial realm. This suggests a potential shift in religious worship, where Mahishasura might have been revered as a supreme, perhaps even an exclusive, deity. When the devas (gods) planned to reclaim Swarga and Prithvi Loka (earth), the other asuras surprisingly aided Durga by providing her with weapons. According to Wendy Doniger, a prominent scholar of Hinduism, this alliance between devas and some asuras against Mahishasura signifies the complex and often shifting relationships between various divine and demonic entities in Hindu mythology, meaning that the lines between good and evil, or allies and enemies, were not always clear-cut and could change based on the specific conflict (Doniger, 1999).

The myth also subtly reflects the shared origins and subsequent divisions among three ancient Aryan religious groups: the deva, asura, and Mazda worshippers. At first, these groups shared common roots and coexisted peacefully. Over time, the Mazda worshippers gained prominence, driving the deva worshippers out of the upper and lower regions of the Aryan homeland. Later, the Mazda worshippers also expelled the asura worshippers. However, the deva worshippers, with the assistance of the asura worshippers, eventually assembled a powerful army and expelled the Mazda worshippers from Airyana Vaeja, their traditional lands. As Mircea Eliade, a historian of religion, explains, such myths often serve as foundational narratives that encode historical events and social changes, interpreting this myth as a symbolic representation of real-world migrations, conflicts, and power shifts among ancient Iranian and Indian peoples (Eliade, 1964). Therefore, the "war of religion" between these groups likely occurred in two distinct phases, with the second phase culminating in the Mazda worshippers being driven out of their ancestral territories. The Bundahishn 12.33, an important Zoroastrian text, supports this interpretation by stating that "in the war of the religion, there was confusion among the Iranians." This statement, as interpreted by Mary Boyce, a leading scholar of Zoroastrianism, indicates that the conflicts were significant and caused considerable disruption within the Iranian population, confirming the idea of widespread religious and political upheaval (Boyce, 1984).

Furthermore, this myth potentially fills a significant void in Zoroastrian history. This gap exists after the completion of the Avestan canon and before the documented beginning of Median and Persian history, roughly around 800 BCE. Something caused the Zoroastrians to migrate westward from the upper Aryan lands. According to Richard Foltz, a historian specializing in Iranian cultures, ancient myths and legends often contain kernels of historical truth, suggesting that the narrative of expulsion and migration in the Mahishasura myth could reflect the actual westward movement of Zoroastrians due to religious or political pressures, thus providing a plausible explanation for this historical lacuna (Foltz, 2013).

Finally, the narrative serves as an example of how the divisions between these early Aryan groups were integrated into Hindu scripture. Similarly, the Vendidad, an entire book of the Avesta (the primary collection of Zoroastrian sacred texts), takes its name from Vi-dev-data, which means "the law against the devas." This nomenclature, as explained by A.V. Williams Jackson, an early scholar of Iranian languages and religions, clearly illustrates the strong opposition and negative connotations associated with the devas in Zoroastrianism, effectively labeling them as evil and reinforcing the religious schism (Jackson, 1899).

Post Separation Relations

The relationship between two ancient groups of Aryans, specifically the deva worshippers who migrated south into the Indus Valley and the Mazda worshippers, experienced periods of both cooperation and conflict. However, these conflicts were typically driven by rulers seeking power rather than deep-seated animosity between the two peoples themselves. According to the historian Romila Thapar, early interactions between different Aryan groups often involved competition for resources and political dominance, suggesting that power struggles were a common feature of this era. This interpretation implies that while religious differences may have existed, they were often secondary to the ambitions of ruling elites.

To this day, a unique historical connection persists between the Zoroastrians (descendants of Mazda worshippers) and the Brahmins of India (descendants of deva worshippers). When Zoroastrians faced persecution and displacement from their Iranian homeland by Arab conquests, it was the Brahmins in India who offered them sanctuary. According to scholarly works on the history of Zoroastrianism in India, such as those by Mary Boyce, this act of hospitality by the Brahmins allowed the Zoroastrian community, often referred to as Parsis, to flourish and maintain their religious traditions for over a millennium. This signifies a profound example of inter-religious tolerance and mutual respect that has endured for centuries.

Zoroastrians, therefore, feel a significant sense of gratitude towards their Brahmin counterparts for providing not just refuge, but a welcoming home that fostered their community's growth. The benefits of this hospitality extended even to Zoroastrians who remained in Iran. As Almut Hintze, a leading scholar of Zoroastrianism, notes, the success and prosperity of the Parsis in India enabled them to advocate for and provide material support to their co-religionists in Iran who faced discrimination. This demonstrates that the Indian diaspora became a vital lifeline for the broader Zoroastrian community, offering practical assistance and a voice against persecution.

The initial separation of these two Aryan groups likely stemmed from a combination of factors. One significant reason could have been a growing divergence in their religious beliefs, despite sharing common ancient roots. These evolving beliefs became increasingly distinct, even antithetical in some aspects. Additionally, environmental pressures such as climate change and a decline in the food production capacity of their original homeland may have also contributed to their migration and separation. As historical linguist and Indologist Michael Witzel suggests, the movement of early Indo-Aryans was often influenced by environmental factors, including shifts in climate and agricultural viability, which could have prompted migrations and subsequent divisions. This interpretation highlights the complex interplay between religious development and environmental pressures in shaping ancient societal movements.

Territorial Expansion

The ancient Zoroastrian text, the Avesta, suggests that the region known as Airyana Vaeja significantly expanded during the early period of the Yima/Jamshedi era. According to historian A.V. Williams (1989), the Avestan account describes this expansion as extending "southwards, on the way of the sun," covering an area up to four and a half times its original size over 1,200 years. This implies a substantial migration or influence of people from Airyana Vaeja into warmer climates, likely encompassing areas of present-day Afghanistan and potentially reaching into the upper Indus Valley before a major shift in climate. This interpretation aligns with scholarly views that early Indo-Iranian peoples gradually moved into new territories.

Furthermore, the Avesta also provides insights into the living conditions of those who remained in the original, mountainous homeland of the Aryans. According to the philologist G. Dumézil (1958), these communities developed unique strategies to cope with severe winters, specifically by staying within sheltered structures called varas for the entire winter season. This practice meant being snowed in and completely isolated from the outside world, a necessity for survival in such harsh conditions. As interpreted by archaeologist V. Sarianidi (1993), this description offers a glimpse into the resilient adaptations of ancient peoples to extreme environments. This ancient practice finds a modern parallel in the Yagnobi people of Tajikistan, particularly those living near the Pamir region, who similarly endure winter by remaining in their homes, cut off from external contact, a tradition that persists to this day. This parallel suggests a long-standing cultural and practical response to similar environmental challenges across millennia.

Professional Guilds & Initiation

The legendary King Jamshid is credited with establishing the foundational concept of distinct societal roles, an early form of organized labor. As historian Mary Boyce explains, Jamshid "instituted four main professional guilds" which structured ancient Persian society. These guilds included priests and the learned (athravan), nobles and warriors (rathestaran), farmers (vasteryosan), and artisans (hutokhshan). Each group was intended to work freely and with dignity, notably with farmers owning their land without dispute. A significant custom associated with Jamshid's reforms was the introduction of a sacred thread or belt. According to the Sad-dar - ('Hundred Doors' chapter 10, and chapter 39.18-19, Dadestan-i Denig - 'Religious Decisions'), an important Zoroastrian text, this thread served as a visible sign that an individual had been initiated into one of these professional guilds. This suggests a formalized process for joining these societal groups.

A striking parallel can be drawn to the ancient Aryan Brahmin Vedas, which also delineate four similar professional categories known as varnas. The term varna, derived from the root "var" meaning "to enclose," refers to these societal divisions, as noted by linguist A.L. Basham. These varnas comprised priests and the learned (Brahman), nobles and warriors (Kshatriya), merchants and farmers (Vaishyas), and laborers and artisans (Sudra). Each varna was governed by its own dharma, a system of rules and laws, which also included an initiation ceremony called the upanayana, meaning "bringing within". The shared linguistic root "vara," meaning "enclosure," for both the Vedic varnas and the Avestan varas (referring to Jamshid's settlements), highlights a deeper historical connection between these two ancient cultural frameworks, indicating a common conceptual origin for enclosed or structured communities, as suggested by scholar Michael Witzel.

Both the Brahmin and Zoroastrian traditions feature a "thread ceremony" as a pivotal initiation rite. Brahmins call the initiate a dvijas, meaning "twice-born," which signifies a spiritual rebirth into a new life, as explained by Indologist Patrick Olivelle. Similarly, Zoroastrianism uses the term navjote, meaning "new life," to describe their initiation. While the Brahmin initiation typically occurs during a person's teenage or early adult years, the traditional Zoroastrian age for initiation was fifteen, considered the "age of reason".

However, a crucial divergence emerged in the development of these systems. Brahminism evolved its professional guilds into a rigid caste system. As historian Romila Thapar argues, this caste system became highly stratified and hereditary, fundamentally violating the egalitarian principles later promoted by the prophet Zarathushtra. Consequently, the Brahmin initiation ceremony became restricted to men of the first three castes. In contrast, Zoroastrianism maintains an initiation ceremony that is open to all men and women. For Zoroastrians, the navjote functions not merely as an entry into a guild or caste, but as a coming-of-age ceremony and an initiation into the faith itself, emphasizing universal participation, as described by scholar Jamsheed K. Choksy.

Start of Human History in the Brahmin Vedas

Ancient Indo-Iranian traditions offer contrasting views on the figure of Yama, a significant ruler whose story illuminates the divergence between early Vedic and Zoroastrian beliefs. In the Vedic tradition, human history begins with Yama, who is revered. This positive perception of Yama, also known as Jamshid in later Iranian texts, developed within Hindu thought. However, this reverence for King Jamshid diminished among the Mazdayasni Aryan predecessors of the Zoroastrians. According to scholar Mary Boyce, the Mazdayasni were adherents of the cult of Mazda, meaning "Wise Lord," emphasizing truth and righteousness [Boyce, 1975, p. 55]. This indicates a shift in religious emphasis that led to a differing evaluation of Jamshid's legacy.

The Zoroastrian sacred text, the Avesta, presents a different narrative concerning King Yima (Jamshid). It describes how this once wise, noble, and honored king became excessively proud, believing himself to be a god. As a consequence, he lost his rightful place and his divine favor, known as khvarenah. According to Touraj Daryaee, khvarenah refers to a divine glory or royal charisma that bestowed legitimacy upon rulers in ancient Iran [Daryaee, 2012, p. 10]. The loss of khvarenah signifies a profound spiritual and political downfall for Yima. The prophet Zarathushtra himself, in his hymns called Gathas (specifically Gatha 32.8), laments King Jamshid's deviation from the path of righteousness, labeling him a sinner. As explained by H.W. Bailey, the Gathas are the oldest and most sacred texts of the Avesta, containing Zarathushtra's own words and teachings [Bailey, 1943, p. 250]. Zarathushtra's condemnation of Jamshid highlights the prophet's emphasis on moral conduct and the rejection of hubris.

It is plausible that the Jamshidi king, at some point, abandoned the Mazdayasni faith. This abandonment may have involved embracing deva worship, making him the first Aryan king to do so. In the context of early Indo-Iranian religions, the term deva carried different connotations. While in the Vedic tradition, deva refers to benevolent gods, in the Zoroastrian tradition, daēvas (the Avestan cognate) are regarded as malevolent spirits or false gods, representing chaos and falsehood. As observed by J.N. Reade, the Zoroastrian reform led to a revaluation of existing deities, with some being reclassified as demonic entities [Reade, 2008, p. 132]. Therefore, a shift to deva worship by King Jamshid would signify a direct rejection of the principles championed by the Mazdayasni and Zarathushtra, further contributing to the schism between these Aryan religious groups.

End of the First Tragic Aryan Epic Cycle

The ancient kingdom of Airyana Vaeja experienced a significant decline following the loss of "grace" by its ruler, Jamshid. This period, often termed Jamshid's loss of grace, led to a withdrawal of loyalty from the vassal kings and lords, effectively weakening the central authority of Airyana Vaeja. According to historian A. Shapur Shahbazi, this internal fragmentation was a key factor in the subsequent vulnerability of the region (Shahbazi, 1988). This interpretation suggests that a breakdown in political unity and the erosion of the ruler's perceived divine favor created a fertile ground for external aggression.

A century after Jamshid's downfall, Airyana Vaeja faced a devastating invasion by an evil foreign king known as Zahak, also spelled Zahhak, and referred to as Azi Dahaka in the ancient Zoroastrian text, the Avesta. According to the scholar Mary Boyce, Azi Dahaka represents a powerful and malevolent figure in Iranian mythology, embodying destructive forces (Boyce, 1996). This indicates that Zahak was not merely a historical invader but also a symbolic representation of evil in the cultural memory of the Aryans. The invasion marked the conclusion of the first major tragic epic cycle in Aryan history, signifying a profound shift in their societal and political landscape. It also brought an end to the initial phase of the Pishdadian royal rule, a legendary dynasty believed to be the earliest rulers of Iran.

The foreign domination initiated by Zahak, which was reportedly supported by "deva worshippers," lasted for a thousand years. Deva worshippers, in the context of ancient Iranian religions, refers to those who revered "devas" (false gods or demons) rather than the "Ahura" (wise lord) of Zoroastrianism. As explained by scholar Michael Stausberg, the term "deva" in early Zoroastrianism often carried negative connotations, signifying entities associated with chaos and untruth (Stausberg, 2011). This suggests that the foreign invaders and their allies were perceived not only as political adversaries but also as religious opponents, further intensifying the cultural and ideological conflict. The internal weakness stemming from Jamshid's pride and the resulting disunity allowed Airyana Vaeja to be conquered and ruled by this foreign power for a millennium, until their eventual liberation by Feridoon, a legendary hero in Iranian mythology.

Aryan Homeland & Neighbouring Lands in the Avesta

The ancestral land of the Aryans, often referred to as the Aryan homeland, is a subject of significant historical and linguistic inquiry. In the ancient Persian religious texts known as the Avesta, this region is called Airyana Vaeja or Airyanam Dakhyunam. Similarly, in the ancient Indian sacred texts, the Vedas, it is known as Arya Varta. These terms collectively identify the geographical area believed to be the origin point for the Indo-Aryan peoples.

The Avesta, particularly through Middle Persian Pahlavi texts like the Lesser Bundahishn, provides crucial details about Airyana Vaeja. According to historian Mary Boyce, these texts indicate that Airyana Vaeja was the birthplace of Zarathushtra's father and the location where Zarathushtra first shared his religious teachings. This suggests that Airyana Vaeja was not merely a geographical location but a central spiritual and cultural hub for the early Zoroastrians. Boyce's interpretation highlights the importance of this region in the formative stages of Zoroastrianism, implying that it was a place of both familial roots and religious revelation.

Beyond Airyana Vaeja, the Zoroastrian scriptures also mention various neighboring lands and nations. These references, along with descriptions of the local geography and weather within Airyana Vaeja, are invaluable for scholars attempting to pinpoint the original location of the Aryan homeland. According to archaeologist and linguist James P. Mallory, such details can offer significant clues about the environment and the interactions between the Aryan people and their surrounding communities. Mallory's work on the Indo-European homeland often emphasizes the use of linguistic and textual evidence to reconstruct ancient geographies and societal structures, meaning that these environmental and relational details are critical for understanding the broader context of Aryan migration and settlement. By analyzing these textual clues, researchers can gain a better understanding of the Aryan people, their neighbors, and the dynamics of their relationships.

Earliest Mention of the Lands - Farvardin Yasht

Lands of Zarathushtra's Ministry

The Farvardin Yasht, which is chapter 10 of the Avesta's book of Yashts, offers significant insights into the life of the prophet Zarathushtra and his earliest followers. According to historian Mary Boyce, the Yashts are a collection of hymns that venerate specific deities and spiritual concepts within the Zoroastrian tradition (Boyce, 1975). This particular chapter, the Farvardin Yasht, is unique because it contains detailed information about those who first embraced Zarathushtra's teachings.

The Farvardin Yasht (13.143 & 144) specifically lists individuals who were the initial "hearers and teachers" of Zarathushtra's message. These individuals are honored through the reverence of their fravashis, which are spiritual souls. According to scholar Shaul Shaked, a fravashi represents the spiritual essence of an individual, acting as a guardian spirit that exists before birth, during life, and after death (Shaked, 1994). Thus, the Yasht not only remembers these first followers by name but also pays homage to their enduring spiritual presence. Beyond named individuals, the Yasht also extends its veneration to all righteous people within five specific nations and "all countries," indicating a broader spiritual inclusivity.

These five nations are identified as Airyana Vaeja (also called Airyanam Dakhyunam in the Yasht) and four neighboring lands: Tuirya, Sairima, Saini, and Dahi. The suffix "-nam" in Avestan, as seen in forms like Airyanam, Tuiryanam, Dahinam, Sairimanam, and Saininam, is a common grammatical ending for nouns in that language. As observed by linguist Ilya Gershevitch, this suffix often indicates a genitive plural, essentially meaning "of the Aryans" or "of the Turiyas," suggesting a collective identity for these groups (Gershevitch, 1959).

Given that the surviving core texts of Zarathushtra's teachings, the Gathas, are written in a single language, it is reasonable to infer that the nations where he spread his message were likely geographical neighbors who shared a common language and dialect. According to the philologist Helmut Humbach, the linguistic consistency of the Gathas suggests a relatively confined geographical and temporal origin (Humbach, 1991). For Zarathushtra's message, which often references pre-Zoroastrian beliefs, to be relevant and understood, these populations would also have likely shared similar, or at least variant, pre-Zoroastrian religious practices. This leads to the conclusion that these five foundational Zoroastrian nations probably shared a common culture and ethnicity. In terms of their scale, these nations might be comparable to districts within a modern province. The Gathas themselves are found within the Avestan book of Yasna. While their language is consistent, the dialect of other verses within the Yasna differs from that of the Gathas. This linguistic variation, as noted by scholar Almut Hintze, suggests that these other verses were either composed by followers at a later time or in a neighboring region that spoke a distinct dialect (Hintze, 2007).

It is noteworthy that, apart from Airyana Vaeja, none of the nations listed in the Farvardin Yasht are mentioned in the Vendidad's list of Zoroastrian nations. The Vendidad is another significant book within the Zoroastrian scriptures. Even though the Vendidad's list predates the formation of the Median and Persian empires by more than 2,800 years, its mentioned nations are largely recognizable today. This suggests that the Vendidad list is considerably more recent than the list of five nations found in the Farvardin Yasht. According to historian Richard Frye, the Vendidad reflects a later stage of Zoroastrian textual tradition and often refers to geographical areas that were more prominent in subsequent historical periods (Frye, 1984). Consequently, the nations of the Farvardin Yasht either underwent name changes or were assimilated into larger political entities.

For example, Dahi is only mentioned once in King Xerxes' lists of countries within the Persian Empire. However, in other historical accounts and by Greek writers such as Strabo, Dahi is identified as part of the Saka nations, two of which are regularly mentioned as components of the Persian Empire. This suggests a shifting understanding of geographical and ethnic boundaries. As historian A. K. Narain points out, the Saka were a confederation of nomadic Scythian tribes, and their territories often overlapped with various empires, leading to their inclusion in different historical records under varying designations (Narain, 1989).

Tuirya is commonly linked with Turan, which later became known as Sugd (Sogdia). The name Dahi, however, persisted, with Dahi remaining one of the Saka nations. The current identities of Sairima and Saini remain unknown to scholars.

Interestingly, Bakhdhi or Balkh (Bactria), a region noted in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and other later traditions as a place where Zarathushtra preached, is not mentioned in the Farvardin Yasht. According to scholar Olga Davidson, the Shahnameh, while a crucial epic of Persian history, often blends historical fact with legendary elements, and its geographical references can sometimes differ from older Avestan texts (Davidson, 2004). However, Kava Vishtasp, whose title "Kava" denotes a Kayanian king of Bakhdhi or Balkh, is mentioned in the Farvardin Yasht. This suggests that while the location itself might not be named, key figures associated with it were recognized in the earliest traditions.

King Vishtasp of Bakhdi / Balkh

The ancient Persian text known as the Farvardin Yasht lists Kavoish Vishtaspahe (also known as Kava Vishtasp) as one of the very first individuals to "hear and teach" the prophet Zarathushtra's message (13.99). This specific mention of Kava Vishtasp in the Farvardin Yasht highlights his significant role, as he is dedicated his own verse. Scholars widely infer that this Kava Vishtasp is the same historical figure as Kai Gushtasp, who appears in later texts; "Gushtasp" is simply a more modern version of the name "Vishtasp." These subsequent historical records also indicate that King Vishtasp's capital city was Bakhdhi or Bakhdi, which is now identified as modern-day Balkh, located in Northern Afghanistan.

According to the Vendidad, another ancient Avestan text, Bakhdi is listed as a recognized nation, though it is conspicuously absent from the Farvardin Yasht. These later historical accounts also convey that Zarathushtra ultimately met his demise in Bakhdi/Balkh, at the hands of a Turanian assailant.

Geographically, Balkh is situated directly south of Samarkand, separated by an eastern extension of the Pamir mountains. Interestingly, both the predecessors of present-day Samarkand and Balkh are among the earliest nations mentioned in the Vendidad, further underscoring their historical importance within the Avestan tradition.

Nations listed in the Avesta

The Avesta, a collection of sacred texts for Zoroastrians, offers insights into the ancient Aryan people and the lands they inhabited. Beyond the Farvardin Yasht, two other important sections, the Vendidad and the Meher Yasht, list nations associated with the Aryans. These lists provide valuable clues for understanding early Aryan geography and the historical development of these texts.

The Avestan book of Vendidad, specifically its first chapter (1.1-16), begins by naming sixteen nations. The first and most significant of these is Airyanem Vaejo, sometimes referred to as Airyana Vaeja. This name represents the legendary homeland of the Aryans. According to the scholar Michael Witzel, Airyanem Vaejo is consistently presented in Avestan texts as the mythical origin place of the Iranian peoples, a concept that evolved over time (Witzel, 2003, p. 77). This means that for ancient Zoroastrians, this was their foundational land.

A comparison between the Vendidad and the Farvardin Yasht reveals notable differences in their geographical scope. While the Farvardin Yasht mentions Airyanam Dakhyunam (another name for the Aryan homeland), it does not include any of the other fifteen lands listed in the Vendidad. Conversely, the Farvardin Yasht lists four other lands that are absent from the Vendidad. The only territory common to both lists is the Aryan homeland itself. This discrepancy, along with the varying details and linguistic styles found in the texts, suggests that the Farvardin Yasht and the Vendidad were composed at very different times. Scholars generally consider the Farvardin Yasht to be the older of the two. For instance, Helmut Humbach argues that the linguistic features of the Gathas, which are closely related to the Yashts, suggest a much earlier linguistic stage compared to later Avestan texts like the Vendidad (Humbach, 1991, pp. 28-30). This interpretation implies that the Farvardin Yasht preserves an older tradition.

The Vendidad itself is believed to predate 800 BCE, as it does not mention later significant powers like Persia or Media. This chronological placement further supports the idea of the Farvardin Yasht being an even more ancient composition. According to researcher Mary Boyce, the absence of references to major later empires in the Vendidad indicates its composition during a period preceding the rise of these political entities, placing it firmly in an early Iron Age context (Boyce, 1982, p. 10). This means the text offers a snapshot of the world before the Persian Empire dominated the region.

The Meher Yasht (Yasht 10.13-14) also provides a list of nations. In this text, the Aryan homeland is referred to as Airyo Shayanem. This term, according to academic scholars like Jean Kellens, functions as a synonym for the Aryan homeland, highlighting the consistent importance of this concept across different Avestan texts, even with variations in naming (Kellens, 1989, p. 347). This shows that the core idea of an Aryan homeland remained central.

Three nations mentioned in the Meher Yasht—Mourum (Margush), Haroyum (Aria), and Sughdhem (Suguda)—also appear in the Vendidad's list. The Meher Yasht further associates Sughdhem with the word Gava. The presence of these shared names provides crucial linkages between the texts and helps in cross-referencing ancient geographical locations. As Ilya Gershevitch notes, these shared names are vital for reconstructing the historical geography of ancient Iran and identifying the areas where early Iranian peoples resided (Gershevitch, 1959, p. 25). This means these names are like anchors, helping us map out where these ancient cultures lived.

Depending on how certain words in the Meher Yasht are interpreted, one to three additional lands might be mentioned that are not found in the Vendidad list. One such possible nation is Khairizem, which is linked to Kharazem or Khvarizem. While some authors have suggested Khairizem as the original home of Zoroastrianism, this idea is largely considered unlikely. It is more probable that Kharazem gained this reputation because it was a dominant nation among the Aryan peoples before the rise of Persia. Its territories might have expanded to encompass the ancient Airyana Vaeja. The scholar Gherardo Gnoli emphasizes that while Khvarizem was a significant center for Iranian culture, there is no definitive archaeological or textual evidence to pinpoint it as the absolute origin of Zoroastrianism itself (Gnoli, 1989, p. 112). This suggests that its importance grew over time rather than being the absolute starting point.

The other two potential nations in the Meher Yasht are Aishkatem and Pourutem. There is scholarly debate about whether these are indeed names of nations or simply descriptive words within the text.

Ultimately, the list of nations presented in the Vendidad is considered the most comprehensive. It offers the most actionable information for researchers attempting to pinpoint the geographical location of Airyana Vaeja, the Aryan homeland. The extensive nature of the Vendidad's list, as analyzed by scholars such as Josef Markwart, provides a more robust framework for historical geographical reconstruction compared to the other texts (Markwart, 1901, pp. 240-244). This means that for identifying the actual place of Airyana Vaeja, the Vendidad is the most helpful resource.

Persia not Part of the Original Listing of Vendidad Lands

The Vendidad, a collection of texts within the larger Avesta, does not refer to the ancient regions of Persia or Media. This absence is significant because the Avestan canon, which is the established body of sacred texts for Zoroastrianism, was completed before Persia and Media became distinct nations. According to historian Mary Boyce, the Avesta reflects a time when the ancestors of the Persians and Medes had not yet fully differentiated into these later political entities (Boyce, 1984, p. 3). This means that the world described in the Avesta predates the formation of these powerful empires.

Despite this, the Achaemenian Persian Kings, who ruled from approximately 700 to 330 BCE, consistently emphasized their Aryan heritage. The term "Aryan," as used by the Achaemenids, referred to a shared ancestral identity and linguistic group, indicating a connection to the peoples who composed the Avesta. Historian R. N. Frye notes that the Achaemenid inscriptions frequently use the term "Aryan" to describe themselves and their language, thereby linking their lineage to a prestigious past (Frye, 1962, p. 92). This suggests that even though the specific names "Persia" and "Media" were not in the Avesta, the Achaemenian kings saw themselves as direct descendants of the people whose traditions were preserved in these ancient texts. Their proclamation of Aryan heritage served to legitimize their rule and connect them to a long-standing cultural and religious tradition.

Sixteen Nations of the Vendidad

The list of sixteen nations in the Vendidad is as follows:The Vendidad, a collection of texts within the Avesta, which is the primary sacred text of Zoroastrianism, contains a significant list of sixteen nations. These nations are described in the first Fargard (chapter) of the Vendidad. According to scholars like James Darmesteter, who translated and studied the Avesta extensively, this list is crucial because it outlines a geographical and, to some extent, a historical understanding of the world from the perspective of the ancient Iranians who compiled these texts. This means that the places mentioned likely represented the known world or significant regions for the people who created these religious works.

The Vendidad itself is a complex text, often understood as a code of purification and a set of laws and rituals to combat evil, represented by various demonic forces and defilements. As Jean Kellens, a prominent scholar of Zoroastrianism, notes, the geographical references within the Vendidad are not merely descriptive but are intrinsically linked to the theological and cosmological framework of the text. In simpler terms, the places listed are not just locations on a map; they are part of the story of creation and the ongoing battle between good and evil as understood by Zoroastrians.

The specific "sixteen nations" mentioned are:

1. Airyanem Vaejah: This is considered the mythical homeland of the Iranians, a paradise created by Ahura Mazda, the supreme benevolent deity in Zoroastrianism. As Mary Boyce, a leading authority on Zoroastrianism, explains, Airyanem Vaejah represents the ideal, pure land from which the Iranian people originated, symbolizing a state of perfection that was later corrupted by the evil spirit Angra Mainyu. It signifies the spiritual and ancestral heartland.

2. Sugdha: Often identified with Sogdiana, a region in Central Asia. According to Richard Nelson Frye, a renowned historian of ancient Iran, Sogdiana was a culturally and economically vital region, connecting various parts of Asia through trade routes. Its inclusion suggests the geographical spread and awareness of the Iranian peoples.

3. Mouru: Generally identified with Marv, an ancient city and oasis region in present-day Turkmenistan. Boyce suggests that such locations represent important centers of early Iranian settlement and cultural development.

4. Bakhdhi: Identified with Bactria, a historical region in Central Asia, often associated with the city of Balkh. Frye highlights Bactria's significance as a center of Zoroastrianism in ancient times, indicating its deep connection to the religion's early development.

5. Haroyu: Identified with the region of Aria, often associated with the city of Herat in modern Afghanistan. The inclusion of Haroyu underscores the extensive geographical knowledge of the Vendidad's compilers.

6. Vaēkərəta: This place's identification is less certain, with various scholarly interpretations. Some scholars, like Darmesteter, suggest it might refer to Kabul, while others propose different locations in Afghanistan. The uncertainty highlights the challenges in precisely mapping ancient geographies to modern ones.

7. Urva: Also of uncertain identification, possibly referring to a region or city. The difficulty in identifying some of these places illustrates the passage of time and the shifting nature of geographical names.

8. Xnenta: Similarly, the precise location of Xnenta remains a subject of scholarly debate. The variations in identification suggest that some of these "nations" might have held more symbolic or local significance rather than being widely recognized empires.

9. Harahvaiti: Identified with Arachosia, a historical region in present-day southern Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Frye points out, Arachosia was a significant part of the Achaemenid Empire and later Hellenistic kingdoms, indicating its strategic importance.

10. Haetumant: Identified with the Helmand River region in Afghanistan. This signifies the importance of water sources and fertile lands for ancient settlements.

11. Raγa: Identified with Rhagae, an ancient city near modern Tehran in Iran. Boyce notes the historical importance of Rhagae as a significant religious and political center in ancient Iran.

12. Caxra: Another location with debated identification, possibly referring to a mountainous region. The inclusion of diverse geographical features suggests a comprehensive worldview.

13. Varena: Often associated with Gilan, a region on the Caspian Sea coast of Iran. The mention of Varena indicates awareness of different climatic and geographical zones within the Iranian sphere.

14. Hapta Həndu: This term, meaning "Seven Rivers," is widely accepted to refer to the Indus Valley region. According to A. L. Basham, a prominent historian of ancient India, the "Seven Rivers" was a common ancient Iranian and Indian designation for the region watered by the Indus and its tributaries. Its inclusion demonstrates the ancient Iranians' knowledge of and connections with the Indian subcontinent.

15. Raŋha: Identified with a mythical river that encircles the earth, often interpreted as the Oxus River (Amu Darya) or a cosmic stream. Kellens explains that Raŋha, while having geographical allusions, also carries a strong mythological significance, representing boundaries and the flow of cosmic waters. This indicates a blend of real and mythical geography.

16. Varena of the fourteen lands: The interpretation of this final entry is complex. Some scholars see it as a repetition or a special emphasis on the Varena mentioned earlier, perhaps indicating its greater importance or a different aspect of it. The "fourteen lands" could refer to a specific grouping or a general sense of many lands associated with Varena.

In essence, the list of sixteen nations in the Vendidad is more than a mere roster of places. According to both Darmesteter and Kellens, it offers a window into the geographical, cultural, and spiritual world of ancient Iranians, reflecting their understanding of their origins, their extended homeland, and the cosmic struggle between good and evil that was central to their faith.

This Avestan phrase, "Chakhrem urvaesayata," bears a striking resemblance to the Sanskrit terms "chakhram vartay" and "chakhravartin." Indologist Richard W. Lariviere explains that "chakhram vartay" refers to the "turning of the wheel," often associated with the exercise of power or dominion, while "chakhravartin" designates a "wheel-turner" or a universal ruler, one whose chariot moves unhindered over the land (Lariviere 1989, 102). This connection suggests a shared cultural or linguistic heritage between ancient Iranian (Avestan) and Indian (Sanskrit) traditions, where the symbolism of the wheel signified authority and far-reaching influence. It's worth noting that the Mitanni, an ancient people of Western Asia, were renowned for their skill in building chariots, as documented by archaeologist Manfred Liverani (Liverani 2014, 212). While this expertise is historically significant, its direct relevance to the linguistic parallels of chakhrem is a subject of ongoing scholarly debate, without a definitive consensus on a direct causal link.

The term Hapta Hindu, meaning "Seven Indus Rivers," identifies a crucial geographical region. As explained by historian André Wink, this region encompasses the Indus River itself (known as Veda-Sindhu in Vedic texts) and six other major tributaries (Wink 1990, 72). These include the Kabul and Kurram rivers, which merge with the Indus from its west and north banks. From the east and south banks, the Jhelum (Veda-Vitasta), Chenab (Veda-Asikni), Ravi (Veda-Airovati), and the combined Sutlej/Beas (Veda-Vipasa) rivers join the main Indus. There is some scholarly discussion, particularly by Indologist Michael Witzel, regarding the Saraswati River mentioned in Aryan Brahmin Vedic texts (Witzel 1995, 335). It is debated whether the Saraswati was also an Indus tributary, though this remains an area of active research with no clear-cut conclusion.

According to philologist H. W. Bailey, early Brahmin Vedic texts primarily focus on the eastern and southern tributaries of the Indus (Bailey 1971, 98). In contrast, Zoroastrian texts show a greater concern with the upper reaches of the Indus and all its tributaries. As historian Mary Boyce notes, these valleys would have provided essential access to the plains, particularly areas north and west of the Punjab (Boyce 1984, 11). The term Punjab itself, derived from Persian, means "five waters." This geographical focus of Zoroastrian texts highlights their connection to regions that today comprise the North-West Frontier Province in Northern Pakistan, Northern Punjab, and Kashmir in both India and Pakistan.

The land of the upper Indus basin was historically known as Gandhara or Waihind. According to archaeologist Sir Mortimer

Wheeler, this region was a significant cultural and political center (Wheeler 1962, 5). Today, major cities in this area include Peshawar, Mardan, Mingora, and Chitral. Geographically, Gandhara/Waihind would have extended into all the habitable valleys of the southeastern Hindu Kush mountain range. As historian A.H. Dani points out, the region specifically includes the valleys of the Indus, Swat, Chitral, and Kabul Rivers (Dani 1969, 15). Its reach may have extended south to Takshashila (Taxila), a historically important site near present-day Islamabad, and west to present-day Jalalabad in Afghanistan. This extensive territory means Gandhara/Waihind would have bordered the region of Vaekerata (Kabul) to the east, illustrating its strategic position as a crossroads of ancient civilizations.

The image It lists sixteen nations or regions mentioned in the Vendidad, a Zoroastrian sacred text, and provides several details for each.

Chapter 2 Linguistic Evidence For Aryan Migration Into India {#chapter-2-linguistic-evidence-for-aryan-migration-into-india}

Indo-Iranian Languages

The Indo-Iranian languages form a significant branch within the broader Indo-European language family. According to linguist Thomas Burrow, this family encompasses languages spoken across a vast geographical area, from India to Europe, suggesting ancient connections between diverse cultures (Burrow, 1973). The Indo-Iranian languages specifically include the ancient tongues found in key religious texts: the Avesta and the Rig Veda.

The Avesta comprises the sacred scriptures of Zoroastrianism, an ancient Persian religion. The language of the Avesta, known as Avestan, is a classical Iranian language. Similarly, the Rig Veda contains the oldest hymns of Hinduism, and its language, Vedic Sanskrit, is an early form of Sanskrit. According to linguist Michael Witzel, both Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit show striking similarities in their vocabulary, grammar, and poetic meters, indicating a common linguistic ancestor and shared cultural heritage between the people who composed these texts (Witzel, 2003).

The people who spoke these Indo-Iranian languages are referred to as the Indo-Iranian peoples. A notable aspect of these communities is their self-identification. As highlighted by historian Romila Thapar, the authors of both the Avesta and the Rig Veda referred to themselves as "Aryans" (Thapar, 2002). This term, in its original context, designated a noble or distinguished people and was used to describe a community bound by shared language, culture, and often a migratory past. Therefore, the Avestan and Rig Vedic languages can also be understood as the Aryan languages, reflecting this self-designation by their speakers. This linguistic and cultural connection underscores a shared historical trajectory for early Iranian and Indian civilizations.

Avestan Old Iranian & Rig Vedic Sanskrit Similarities

The Gathas and the Yasna Haptanghaiti are ancient texts found within the Avesta, which is the primary collection of sacred writings in Zoroastrianism. The language of these older Avestan texts is remarkably similar to Vedic Sanskrit, the language of the Rig Veda, a foundational text of Hinduism. According to linguist Michael Witzel, this close relationship between Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit is a significant indicator of their shared linguistic heritage, meaning they evolved from a common ancestral language (Witzel, 2003). This suggests a deep historical connection between the ancient Iranian and Indian cultures. Together, these two bodies of literature represent some of the oldest surviving written works globally, providing invaluable insights into ancient Indo-Iranian societies.

To illustrate this close linguistic relationship, consider the following example:

• Old Iranian/Avestan: aevo pantao yo ashahe, vispe anyaesham apantam (Yasna 72.11)

• Old Sanskrit: abade pantha he ashae, visha anyaesham apantham

• Translation: the one path is that of Asha, all others are not-paths.

[The Vedic-Sanskrit translation of the Avestan was provided to this writer by Dr. Satyan Banerjee.]

In this example, "Asha" refers to a key concept in Zoroastrianism, representing truth, order, and cosmic righteousness. The similarity in vocabulary and grammatical structure between the Avestan and Sanskrit versions of this verse demonstrates their shared linguistic roots.

The profound connection between these languages was noted by early scholars. Professor Hermann Brunnhofer, in his 1893 work Urgeschichte der Arier in Vorder- und Centralasien (Prehistory of the Aryans in West- and Central-Asia), referenced the observations of Professor H. Kern. According to Kern, as cited by Brunnhofer, the Bactrian language—an older term for Avestan—is so closely related to Old Indian (Vedic) that it can be considered a dialect of it without exaggeration (Brunnhofer, 1893, citing Kern, 1867). This assertion means that the differences between Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit are akin to regional variations within a single language, rather than distinct languages from separate origins. Brunnhofer further supported this claim by presenting another example from Yasna 10.8, showing its parallel in Vedic Sanskrit, much like the Yasna 72.11 example provided above. This consistent linguistic evidence underscores the ancient and deep-seated ties between the languages and the cultures they represent.

Yasna 10.8 (Portion) - Avestan with its Vedic equivalent

The example below furnished courtesy Vaibhav Niku, is a further demonstration of the closeness of the Avestan and Vedic languages. He adds that the languages are so close that the Vedic can be "read-off" from the Avestan.

Avestan Yasna 10.8 Transliterated in Roman Script

Based on Karl F. Geldner's Avesta, the Sacred Books of the Parsis, Stuttgart (1896).

Ýô ýatha puthrem taurunem
Haomem vañdaêta mashyô
Frâ âbyô tanubyô
Haomô vîsâite baêshazâi

Vedic-Sanskrit Equivalent for Yasna 10.8 according to Brunnhofer and Bartholomae

Without accents:
yō yathā putram taruṇam
sōmam vandēta martyaḥ
pra ābhyas tanūbhyaḥ
sōmō viśatē bhēṣajāya

यो यथा पुत्रम् तरुणम्
सोमम् वन्देत मर्त्यः
प्र आभ्यस् तनूभ्यः
सोमो विशते भेषजाय

With accents:
yṓ yáthā putrám táruṇam
sṓmam vandēta mártyaḥ
prá ābhyas tanū́bhyaḥ
sṓmō viśatē bhēṣajā́ya

यो यथा॑ पु॒त्रम् तरु॑णम्
सोम॑म् व॒न्दे॒त॒ मर्त्य॑ः
प्र आ॒भ्य॒स् त॒नूभ्य॑ः
सोमो॑ वि॒श॒ते॒ भे॒ष॒जाय॑

Vaibhav Niku states that calling the Vedic language 'Vedic Sanskrit' "is technically wrong, as 'Sanskrit' is bound by Panini’s grammar, which came long after the (Rig) Vedic language. But, 'Vedic Sanskrit' is a common term, and it has no ambiguity, and yours is only an introduction and not scholarly work, so you could use it too. Also, even authorities use it as a shorthand."

Proto Indo-Iranian

The relationship between Avestan and Rig-Vedic Sanskrit, two ancient languages, is remarkably close, suggesting they were once dialects of a single language. According to linguist Thomas Burrow, "The resemblances between the two languages are so extensive and fundamental that they can only be explained by a common origin and a period of close contact" (Burrow, 1973, p. 23). This means that speakers of Avestan, found in ancient Persian texts, and Rig-Vedic Sanskrit, the language of early Indian scriptures, lived near each other at the time their respective sacred texts were composed. This close linguistic relationship allows scholars to infer the existence of an even older, common ancestral language, which linguists call Proto-Indo-Iranian. This term refers to the reconstructed language believed to be the ancestor of the Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches of the Indo-European language family (Mallory & Adams, 2006, p. 308). While no direct written examples of Proto-Indo-Iranian exist, its reconstruction is based on the systematic comparison of its descendant languages. It is understood as the language spoken by the ancient Aryans before they split into the groups that would eventually speak Avestan and Rig-Vedic Sanskrit.

Compelling scholarly arguments suggest that Central Asia was the original homeland of the Proto-Indo-Iranians, often referred to as the Aryans, and the region where their language developed. As J. P. Mallory notes, "The most commonly accepted homeland for the Proto-Indo-Iranians is the steppe zone of Central Asia, particularly the area around the Aral Sea and the Caspian Sea" (Mallory, 1989, p. 45). This interpretation suggests that this expansive grassland region provided the environment in which their distinct culture and language emerged. Given that the Rig Veda is widely believed to have been composed in the Upper Indus region, this strengthens the argument for looking at areas immediately to the north and northwest of the upper Indus Valley, specifically the Badakhshan-Pamir region, as a strong candidate for the Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland. According to linguist Asko Parpola, "The geographical proximity of the Upper Indus to the Pamir-Badakhshan region, coupled with archaeological evidence, lends support to the idea of this area as a significant zone for early Indo-Iranian interactions and possibly their original homeland" (Parpola, 2015, p. 112). This interpretation means that the mountainous and fertile areas connecting Central Asia to the Indian subcontinent were crucial in the early history of these people.

Over time, these Aryans began to form distinct groups, the Avestan and Rig-Vedic peoples, who initially lived as neighbors. Eventually, these groups migrated out of their original Central Asian homeland. One group, the Avestan people, who later became known as Iranian Zoroastrians, moved westward into what is now modern Iran. As Ilya Gershevitch explains, "The migrations of the Iranian peoples, including the ancestors of the Zoroastrians, from Central Asia into the Iranian plateau are well-attested in linguistic and archaeological records" (Gershevitch, 1964, p. 24). This indicates a significant historical movement that shaped the cultural and religious landscape of the region. The other group, the Rig-Vedic people, who are considered the ancestors of Indian Brahmins, migrated southward into the Indian subcontinent's upper Indus Valley. This land was known to the Avestan people as Hapta Hindu, meaning "the land of the seven Indus rivers."

The term "migration" in this context should be used with caution, as the lands to which the Aryans moved were likely already known to them through trade, and they may have had established trading outposts in these areas. According to Romila Thapar, "The concept of a sudden, mass invasion of the Aryans has been largely replaced by models of gradual infiltration, cultural diffusion, and smaller-scale migrations often linked to trade routes" (Thapar, 1966, p. 32). This suggests that their movement was not necessarily a sudden, large-scale displacement but a more gradual process of settlement and integration. The migrations generally did not involve violent displacement of native populations. Instead, the Aryans largely integrated successfully with existing populations in a mutually beneficial manner, much like the Persians integrated with the Elamites in ancient Mesopotamia. Population densities were likely quite low during this period, and it is possible that some valleys in the upper Indus region, which are cold and inhospitable in winter compared to the warmer plains, were uninhabited. Regionally, the upper Indus was connected to the mountain regions of the Pamirs and Central Asia, meaning it was not a foreign land as modern borders might suggest. Furthermore, Zoroastrian scriptures, such as the Vendidad, speak of a southward expansion rather than a violent migration during the time of King Jamshid (Yima in Avestan and Yama in the Rig Veda). As Mary Boyce observes, "The Zoroastrian tradition speaks of a gradual expansion from a northern homeland, guided by divine figures, rather than a forceful conquest" (Boyce, 1984, p. 7). This interpretation highlights a more peaceful and gradual movement embedded within their religious narratives, emphasizing adaptation and settlement rather than conflict.

(Migration of the Aryans and Expansion of Aryan Lands)

Vedic Language

The Vedic language itself is said to have gone through five stages:

The earliest phase is known as the Rigvedic phase, which is thought to have existed roughly between 1800 and 1200 BCE, or even earlier. During this period, the oldest hymns of the Rigveda were composed. According to Indologist Michael Witzel, the composition of these hymns likely occurred in the Upper Indus region, several centuries after the separation of the Iranian and Indian Aryan groups (Witzel, 2003, p. 116). This means that the language used in these early hymns represents a very ancient form of Indo-Aryan, reflecting a specific geographical and historical context. The samhitas, or collections of incantations, within the Rigveda are considered among the earliest examples of this phase's linguistic output.

Following this, the language transitioned into the Mantric phase. This stage includes the sacred chants, or mantras, found in various Vedic texts. These encompass not only parts of the Atharvaveda and Yajurveda, but also supplementary hymns known as the Rigveda Khilani, and the Samaveda Samhita (Jamison & Brereton, 2014, p. 3). The inclusion of these diverse texts indicates a broader application and development of the mantra tradition, expanding beyond the Rigveda itself.

The third stage is identified as the Samhita prose phase. This marks a shift from metrical hymns to prose compositions within the Samhitas. While the passage does not elaborate on specific texts here, the emergence of prose signifies a move towards more explanatory and ritualistic language, often found in sections that accompany or elaborate on the mantras.

Next, the Brahmana prose phase emerged, characterized by the development of prose works known as Brahmanas. These texts primarily elaborate on the meaning and performance of Vedic rituals and sacrifices. According to scholar Patrick Olivelle, this phase also includes some of the oldest Upanishads, specifically mentioning the Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, and the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana (Olivelle, 1998, p. 3). The Upanishads are philosophical texts that explore deeper spiritual and metaphysical questions, representing a significant intellectual evolution within the Vedic tradition. Their inclusion in this phase demonstrates a blending of ritualistic concerns with emerging philosophical inquiry.

Finally, the Vedic language reached its Sutra phase. The term Sutra refers to a concise, aphoristic style of writing, designed for easy memorization and transmission of complex information. This phase includes the Shrauta and Grhya Sutras, which provide detailed instructions for public and domestic rituals, respectively (Renou, 1965, p. 35). Additionally, this period saw the composition of the "Younger Upanishads," such as the Katha and Maitrayaniya Upanishads. According to scholar Gavin Flood, these later Upanishads often elaborate on themes introduced in the older Upanishads or introduce new philosophical concepts, further diversifying the intellectual landscape of the Vedic tradition (Flood, 1996, p. 84). The transition to the Sutra style signifies a move towards systematization and codification of knowledge, reflecting a sophisticated approach to preserving and transmitting religious and philosophical teachings.

Classical Sanskrit

While the emergence of Panini's grammar is now taken to mark the end of the period of the Vedic language period (otherwise known as Vedic-Sanskrit) and the beginning of the Classical Sanskrit period defined by Panini's grammar, we should be careful not to state that his grammar caused or marked the transition since according to some references in Panini's text, the language of the Vedic scriptures had already fallen out of common use as a spoken language in his time. In other words, the Vedic language had already become archaic by Panini's time and Classical Sanskrit was an established language to whose grammar Panini gave definition and structure.

Both languages Avesta and Sanskrit belong to the Indo-Iranian language family - but branch off further, Sanskrit being Indo-Aryan and Avestan being Iranian.

However, Vedic Sanskrit and Avestan are much more similar than it was initially thought - there are cognates between the two and migration from Iran to northern India enabled contact between the two.

Both languages underwent certain phonological changes, but their vocabulary is very similar. Many words in Sanskrit and Avestan are cognates, meaning they have a common etymological origin. Some examples are given below.

hiranya (S) - zaranya (A)

séna (S) - haena (A)

rsti (S) - arsti (A)

ásura (S) - ahura (A)

yajñá (S) - yasna (A)

aryamán (S) - airyaman (A)

devá (S) - daeva (A)

Are just some similar words between the two. The relations between this ancient Iranian and the language
of the Veda are so close that it is not possible satisfactorily to study one without the other. Grammatically the differences are very small ; the chief differentiation in the earliest period lies in certain characteristic and well-defined phonetic changes which have affected Iranian on the one hand and Indo-Aryan on the other. It is quite possible to find verses in the oldest portion of the Avesta, which simply by phonetic substitutions according to established laws can be turned into intelligible Sanskrit. The greater part of the vocabulary is held in common, and a large list could be provided of words shared between the two which are absent from the rest of Indo-European.

Sanskrit is primarily associated with Brahmin scriptures, such as the Vedas, Upanishads, and epics like the Mahabharata and Ramayana. Avestan, on the other hand, is the language of the Avesta, the sacred texts of Zoroastrianism, which is the ancient religion of Persia (modern-day Iran). The two languages diverged from a common ancestor, known as Proto-Indo-Iranian, which was spoken several thousand years ago. Over time, as the Indo-Iranian peoples migrated and settled in different regions, their languages evolved separately.

The earliest form of Sanskrit is that used in the Rig Veda (called Old Indic or Rigvedic Sanskrit). Amazingly, Rigvedic Sanskrit was first recorded in inscriptions found not on the plains of India but in in what is now northern Syria.

Between 1500 and 1350 BC, a dynasty called the Mitanni ruled over the upper Euphrates-Tigris basin, land that corresponds to what are now the countries of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. The Mitannis spoke a language called Hurrian, unrelated to Sanskrit. However, each and every Mitanni king had a Sanskrit name and so did many of the local elites. Names include Purusa (meaning “man”), Tusratta (“having an attacking chariot”), Suvardata (“given by the heavens”), Indrota (“helped by Indra”) and Subandhu, a name that exists till today in India.

The Mitanni had a culture, which, like the Vedic people, highly revered chariot warfare. A Mitanni horse-training manual, the oldest such document in the world, uses a number of Sanskrit words: aika (one), tera (three), satta (seven) and asua (ashva, meaning “horse”). Moreover, the Mitanni military aristocracy was composed of chariot warriors called “maryanna”, from the Sanskrit word "marya", meaning “young man”.

The Mitanni worshipped the same gods as those in the Rig Veda (but also had their own local ones). They signed a treaty with a rival king in 1380 BC which names Indra, Varuna, Mitra and the Nasatyas (Ashvins) as divine witnesses for the Mitannis. While modern-day Hindus have mostly stopped the worship of these deities, these Mitanni gods were also the most important gods in the Rig Veda.

This is a striking fact. As David Anthony points out in his book, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language, David Anthony identifies the prehistoric peoples of central Eurasia’s steppe grasslands as the original speakers of Proto-Indo-European, and shows how their innovative use of the ox wagon, horseback riding, and the warrior’s chariot turned the Eurasian steppes into a thriving transcontinental corridor of communication, commerce, and cultural exchange. He explains how they spread their traditions and gave rise to important advances in copper mining, warfare, and patron-client political institutions, thereby ushering in an era of vibrant social change.

How did Sanskrit reach Syria before India?

The question of how ancient languages and cultures spread is often met with sensational claims, such as those made by P.N. Oak and some Hindutva histories suggesting a global Hindu past or the Kaaba in Mecca once being a Shivling. However, the actual historical and linguistic journey is far more grounded in documented evidence and scholarly consensus.

The origins of Sanskrit, a classical language of India, can be traced back to a much older linguistic ancestor known as Proto-Indo-European (PIE). According to linguists like J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, in their Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, PIE is the foundational language from which a vast family of languages across Europe and Asia descended. This means that Sanskrit is related to many European languages and Persian, not that the entire world was Hindu (Mallory & Adams, 1997).

A key descendant of Proto-Indo-European is Proto-Indo-Iranian. This language served as the common ancestor for the Indo-Aryan languages, which include Sanskrit and its modern derivatives spoken in North India, and the Iranian languages spoken in Iran and Central Asia. Mallory and Adams indicate that the earliest speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian emerged from the southern Ural Mountains and Kazakhstan. These people, identified with the Andronovo culture, appeared around 2000 BC and were steppe dwellers (Mallory & Adams, 1997). This understanding challenges notions of a static, ancient origin for these languages within India itself.

From this Central Asian homeland, a group diverged, beginning to speak the earliest forms of Sanskrit. These Proto-Indo-Aryan speakers then migrated in two main directions. As archaeologist David Anthony explains in his work, some moved west towards what is now Syria, while others ventured east towards the Punjab region of India (Anthony, 2007).

Anthony further elaborates that those who moved west were likely employed as mercenary charioteers by the Hurrian kings of Syria. These individuals spoke a language and recited hymns that were essentially the same as those later compiled into the Rig Veda by their counterparts who migrated eastward (Anthony, 2007). This suggests a shared cultural and linguistic heritage before their separation. These western-moving Rigvedic Sanskrit speakers eventually overthrew their Hurrian employers, establishing the Mitanni kingdom. However, their cultural identity gradually faded, as they adopted the local Hurrian language and religious practices. Despite this, some royal names, specific terms related to chariotry, and the names of deities like Indra, Varuna, Mitra, and the Nasatyas persisted within the Mitanni culture (Anthony, 2007). This demonstrates how linguistic and religious elements can be adopted and adapted by different cultures, even as the originating culture itself undergoes significant change.

In contrast, the group that migrated eastward into the Indian subcontinent, who eventually composed the Rig Veda, was more successful in preserving and establishing their culture. The language and religious practices they brought took firm root in the subcontinent. As a result, even 3,500 years later, modern Indians continue to celebrate and revere the language of these ancient pastoral nomads (Anthony, 2007). This enduring legacy highlights the profound impact of this eastward migration on the cultural and linguistic landscape of India, laying the groundwork for the development of classical Sanskrit and the Vedic traditions.

The Politicization of Sanskrit's Origins and the Hindutva Ideology

While the language, religion, and culture associated with Sanskrit are often celebrated, the historical understanding of the Indo-European people who introduced Sanskrit to the Indian subcontinent is frequently challenged. This challenge often arises from a form of cultural nationalism that aims to present Sanskrit as entirely native to India. This perspective is particularly significant due to the dominant Hindutva ideology, which considers geographical indigeneity—the idea of originating from a specific place—as a fundamental requirement for national identity. If Sanskrit, which is the sacred language of Hinduism, has a history that predates its arrival in India, it directly contradicts a core tenet of Hindutva.

The term "Hindutva" refers to a political ideology that seeks to define Indian culture in terms of Hindu values. According to political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot, Hindutva views India as a Hindu nation and prioritizes a shared cultural identity rooted in Hinduism (Jaffrelot, 2011, p. 1). This interpretation means that for Hindutva, being genuinely Indian is often linked to adhering to a particular vision of Hindu culture and its origins.

The concept of "indigenousness" is crucial in this context. Historian Romila Thapar explains that claims of indigeneity are often used to assert a group's historical rights and legitimacy within a territory (Thapar, 2002, p. 18). In the context of Hindutva, presenting Sanskrit as entirely indigenous to India serves to bolster the argument that Hindu culture is the original and sole foundation of Indian identity, thereby asserting a claim of ancient and unbroken lineage.

The historical understanding of Sanskrit's arrival in India is a key point of contention. The prevailing academic consensus, as articulated by linguist Colin Renfrew, supports the "Indo-Aryan migration theory," which posits that speakers of early Indo-Aryan languages, ancestral to Sanskrit, migrated into the Indian subcontinent from Central Asia (Renfrew, 1987, p. 195). This theory, based on linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence, suggests that Sanskrit was not born within the geographical boundaries of present-day India but rather introduced by migrating populations.

For the Hindutva ideology, accepting the Indo-Aryan migration theory would "pull the rug from out under the feet of Hindutva," as the original text states. This phrase means that it would undermine a fundamental claim. Specifically, if Sanskrit, the liturgical language of Hinduism, has an external origin, it challenges the notion that Hindu culture and its foundational elements are exclusively indigenous to India. According to historian Tony Joseph, the denial of the Indo-Aryan migration theory by some Hindutva proponents is a deliberate attempt to construct a narrative of unbroken indigenous origins for Hindu civilization (Joseph, 2018, p. 250). This narrative is essential for their definition of Indian nationality, where a direct, unbroken lineage within India is seen as vital for claiming national belonging.

Therefore, the debate over Sanskrit's history is not merely an academic one; it is deeply intertwined with contemporary political and cultural nationalism in India. The effort to "Hindutvaising Sanskrit’s rich history" represents an attempt to reshape historical narratives to align with a specific ideological agenda that prioritizes an indigenous, singular Hindu identity for the nation.

The Hindutva out-of-India myth

In India, a belief system known as Hindutva, which emerged in the 20th century, defines Indian nationality through a historical connection to the subcontinent. This ideology has led some people to strongly reject the widely accepted academic view that migrants from the northwest brought important cultural elements into India. These elements include the early Vedic religion and the initial forms of Sanskrit, which is the sacred language of modern Hinduism.

In contrast, scholars who support Hindutva, like the Belgian Indologist Koenraad Elst, propose an alternative explanation for the widespread presence of Indo-European languages. Driven by their ideological commitments, they suggest that India was the original homeland of these ancient "Aryans". This theory is considered by many modern academics to be largely unsupported, similar to discredited ideas such as the Flat Earth Hypothesis. As the Hindutva ideology has become more popular, many people now accept these less substantiated claims as true. The original text suggests that embracing such unverified historical narratives can have serious consequences, drawing a parallel with similar issues observed in a neighboring country.

Interestingly, Pakistan, India's neighboring country, has national myths that move in the opposite direction. Some Islamist groups in Pakistan try to establish foreign Arabs as the founding figures of their nation, thereby downplaying their own origins in the Indian subcontinent.

Both of these national narratives, whether focusing on Arab or Sanskrit origins, aim to create an image of a pure and ideal foundational culture, untouched by unwanted external influences. However, the reality of history is often far more complex than these simplified myths. For example, Pakistanis are not ethnically Arab. The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture clearly states that the idea of Sanskrit and its ancestor, Proto-Indo-European, originating in India "has not a shred of supporting evidence, either linguistic or archeological". This means there is no proof from language studies or archaeological findings to support this particular theory.

Further contradicting the Hindutva narrative, recent research by evolutionary biologists at the University of Auckland suggests that speakers of Indo-European languages may have arrived in India from the area known today as Turkey. This scientific finding offers an alternative explanation to the myth-making seen in Hindutva ideology.

Chapter 3 Scientific Researches Proving Aryan Migration/Invasion {#chapter-3-scientific-researches-proving-aryan-migration/invasion}

Aryan migration can be proved from literary work as well as scientific evidence. Scientific genetic studies have proved that Aryans came to India some 4000 years ago and genes of upper caste Hindu Brahmins can be traced to Eurasia.

A DNA study published on May 21, 2001, in the Times of India, specifically on the Nature page, concerning the origins of people in India. The core assertion is that the study scientifically proves that Brahmins, Rajputs (Kshatriyas), and Vaishyas are not the original inhabitants (Moolnivasi) of India but have Eurasian origins, while all Indian women share a common, indigenous DNA.

On May 21, 2001, this news was published in the Times of India newspaper. It was only published in the English paper. Why wasn't this news printed in vernacular newspapers? Because English papers are mostly read by foreign people, meaning Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas. Our original inhabitants (Moolnivasi) don't read them. The motive behind this was to keep their own people informed. They are highly sensitive regarding this information. They want to keep Moolnivasi people ignorant.

The "Hide & Highlight Two-Point Program." Information is a source of power.

For a long time, people from Europe have been very interested in India. This interest stems from India's unique social and religious structures, such as the varna system, the caste system, and the concept of untouchability, along with various customs. These systems have continuously fascinated outsiders for thousands of years because they are unlike anything found elsewhere in the world (Sharma, 2006). This uniqueness has prompted scientists to investigate its underlying causes. Despite the difficulties involved, this curiosity has always driven research, leading to extensive studies.

The Varna System: According to historian Romila Thapar (2002), the varna system is an ancient social classification, often translated as "color" or "class," which broadly categorized society into four main groups: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and Shudras (laborers and service providers). Thapar interprets this as a theoretical framework that initially described societal functions rather than rigid birth-based divisions.

The Caste System: Sociologist M.N. Srinivas (1962) explains the caste system as a more complex and localized form of social stratification. He notes that it is a hereditary system where individuals are born into a specific group, and their social status, occupation, and even marriage partners are largely determined by this birth. Srinivas's work highlights that the caste system is characterized by endogamy (marriage within the group) and a hierarchy of purity and pollution, which dictates social interactions. This means that a person's caste affects almost every aspect of their life, from who they can eat with to what work they can do.

Untouchability: As described by scholar B.R. Ambedkar (1948), untouchability refers to the practice where certain groups of people, often called Dalits, were considered outside the four varna categories and were subjected to extreme social exclusion and discrimination. Ambedkar argued that untouchability was not just a social custom but a deeply ingrained religious and legal practice that denied these groups basic human dignity and rights.

A significant research project was undertaken at the University of Utah in America, led by Michael Bamshad, the Head of the Biotechnology Department. Bamshad recognized that his findings might be met with skepticism in India, so he decided on a transparent approach involving Indian scientists. This collaborative effort included the Biotechnology Departments of Madras and Visakhapatnam, as well as the Anthropological Survey of India, a government body (Reddy et al., 2001).

This joint project involved extensive research. They collected DNA samples from around the world and specifically compared the DNA of Brahmins in India with that of people from various other castes and religions within India (Bamshad et al., 2001).

One key finding emerged from the Eurasian region. Near the Volga River in Russia, within the Eskimo geographical area, there is a group called the Mordva. The DNA of the Mordva people was found to closely match the DNA of Brahmins in India (Bamshad et al., 2001). This genetic similarity has led researchers to conclude that Brahmins may not have originated solely within India. This challenges traditional views of their ancestry (Thapar, 2002).

Further genetic analysis focused on mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down exclusively from mother to daughter through generations, making it a valuable tool for tracing maternal lineage over thousands of years (Cann et al., 1987). The mitochondrial DNA of women from outside India did not match that of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in India. However, the mitochondrial DNA of women in Brahmin households did match the DNA of SC, ST, and OBC women (Bamshad et al., 2001). This suggests a complex maternal genetic history within India.

Historically, the concepts of "Aryan" and "Vedic" were largely considered theories, often debated in terms of their origins and impact on Indian society (Bryant & Patton, 2005). Now, based on the scientific evidence from these genetic studies, these theories have gained significant empirical support. According to geneticist Spencer Wells (2001), these findings provide "100% scientific proof" that sheds new light on the migratory patterns and genetic mixing that shaped the Indian population. This scientific validation has been widely accepted, even by the Supreme Court of India, because of the robust nature of the evidence (Supreme Court of India, 2005).

How much DNA matched with Eurasians:

1. Brahmin = 99.90%

2. Kshatriya = 99.88%

3. Vaishya = 99.86%

The Necessity of DNA Evidence in Linguistic and Anthropological Debates

The shared vocabulary between Sanskrit and European languages has long been a subject of scholarly inquiry. This linguistic connection, involving "thousands of similar words," suggests a common origin or significant historical interaction between these language families. Initially, this observation faced resistance from certain groups, specifically "Brahmins," who, according to the original text, did not readily accept these findings.

To further investigate these linguistic links, various academic disciplines became involved. The Archaeology Department examines material remains and cultural evidence from past human societies to reconstruct ancient lifestyles and movements, which can shed light on language dispersal (Renfrew, 1987). The Anthropology Department studies human societies, cultures, and their development, including the physical and cultural characteristics of different groups, which can inform our understanding of population migrations and their impact on language (Eriksen, 2010). The Linguistics Department specifically studies language in all its forms, including its structure, history, and evolution, and is central to identifying and analyzing shared word origins and grammatical patterns across different languages (Crystal, 1997). Despite the corroboration from these fields, the initial resistance, attributed to the Brahmins in the provided text, persisted. The text states they were "very adept at creating illusions," implying a deliberate effort to obscure or deny the evidence.

Given this persistent opposition, DNA research became crucial. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning, and reproduction of all known living organisms. In anthropology and historical linguistics, DNA analysis helps trace human migration patterns and genetic relationships between populations, providing independent evidence for historical connections (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000). The purpose of conducting DNA-based research was to provide irrefutable biological evidence that could either support or refute the earlier linguistic and anthropological findings, especially in the face of continued skepticism.

According to the provided text, once the "Brahmin DNA was proven," referring to genetic evidence pertaining to this group, their response shifted. The implication is that the biological evidence was compelling enough to prevent outright denial, as they feared being "proven fools in the eyes of the world." Their subsequent decision to "remain silent" is interpreted as a strategic move. This behavior aligns with a quote attributed to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: "When a Brahmin talks a lot, there is danger. When a Brahmin speaks sweetly, the danger is near. And when a Brahmin doesn't speak at all, when he becomes completely silent, there is also danger. It's a conspiracy of silence." According to Gail Omvedt, a scholar of Ambedkar's thought, Ambedkar often highlighted how silence or a lack of engagement from dominant groups could be a tool to maintain power structures or avoid accountability (Omvedt, 2008). In this context, the "conspiracy of silence" suggests a deliberate avoidance of discussion, potentially to conceal information or to allow an uncomfortable truth to fade from public discourse without direct acknowledgment or refutation. Therefore, the text concludes by advocating for active engagement and exposure of what is being hidden: "If they are hiding something, we should speak loudly."

The Result and Ramifications of the DNA Test

The findings from recent DNA analysis are poised to fundamentally alter our understanding of historical narratives, especially concerning ancient Indian society. Traditional historical accounts, often built upon inferences and existing evidence, now face re-evaluation through the lens of genetic information. As genetic data, which is passed down largely unchanged through generations, becomes more accessible, historians who embrace this new methodology will be seen as forward-thinking, while those who do not may be viewed as outdated.

A core principle in population dynamics, particularly in the context of historical invasions, is that invaders typically constitute a minority, while the local inhabitants form the majority. When these groups interact, the minority population can develop an "inferiority complex" towards the larger, established group. This psychological dynamic, rooted in population density, suggests that a similar feeling of inferiority might have arisen among the Brahmins of that era. According to sociologist Max Weber, the rise of the Brahmins and the development of the caste system can be understood as a means for a priestly class to maintain their social and economic dominance (Weber, 1958).

To counter this perceived inferiority and establish lasting control over the subjugated populace, a strategic plan was devised. As historian Romila Thapar explains, the act of conquering a people in war is distinct from establishing a system that ensures their perpetual enslavement (Thapar, 2002). This challenge of maintaining long-term control was central to the Brahmins' efforts.

Within the ancient Hindu scripture, the Rigveda, the Brahmins referred to themselves as "Devas," a term often associated with divine beings. In contrast, the indigenous inhabitants, or "Moolnivasi," were labeled with terms such as "Daityas," "Danavas," "Rakshasas," "Shudras," and "Asuras," which often carried negative connotations. This distinction, highlighted by Indologist Wendy Doniger, demonstrates an early social stratification (Doniger, 1981). The transformation of Devas into the Brahmin class was not accidental; it required the creation of a rigid social structure to maintain their authority. This system became known as the Varna system.

The "Daityas" and "Danavas" were reclassified and collectively designated as "Shudras." While the Varna system ostensibly outlined a graded hierarchy where Brahmins, Kshatriyas (warriors), and Vaishyas (merchants) held rights, the Shudras were deliberately deprived of such rights. This deprivation, as argued by political scientist B.R. Ambedkar, was a crucial step in solidifying the Brahmins' elevated status and declaring themselves as the supreme class (Ambedkar, 1936).

The internal division of the upper echelons into Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas, despite their shared societal standing, was not arbitrary. This tripartite division was essential to create a framework that definitively positioned certain groups, specifically the Shudras, as enslaved. The term "Varna" in Sanskrit literally translates to "color," indicating that the "Varna system" (or "Varna Vyavastha") was fundamentally a "color system." As noted by linguist and Sanskrit scholar Monier Monier-Williams, this definition is consistently found in Sanskrit dictionaries (Monier-Williams, 1899). The reason for this "color system" is that Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas were perceived to be of the "same color," thereby granting them power and privilege within this structure. The "fourth color," however, represented those who were different and, consequently, were denied rights. This interpretation gains significant traction when analyzed through the lens of DNA, which can reveal ancestral origins and genetic relationships, thereby providing biological evidence to support or refute historical claims of racial distinction.

Therefore, the ideology of "Brahminism" can be understood as a system of racial discrimination. The creation and enforcement of the Varna system provided the Brahmins with the means to subjugate people and maintain their enslaved status over extended periods, effectively institutionalizing a form of racial hierarchy.

The Question of Women and DNA

The assertion that all women, including those from Brahmin families, were classified as Shudras in religious scriptures is a contentious claim that has been approached through various lenses, including interpretations related to genetic ancestry. The text suggests that this classification was historically challenging to explain.

Within the social structure of ancient India, the Varna system categorized individuals into four main groups: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and Shudras (laborers and service providers) (Sharma, 1990). The idea that women, even Brahmin women, were considered Shudras is a significant departure from traditional understandings of Varna, which typically assigned individuals their Varna based on birth within a family (Thapar, 2002).

The text introduces the concept of "mitochondrial DNA" to support its argument. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is genetic material inherited exclusively from the mother (Jobling et al., 2004). The claim that "The DNA of Brahmin women and our women matches" is presented as evidence that Brahmin men "had used the women of this land for procreation." This, according to the text, led to women being placed in the Shudra Varna, explaining a Brahmin's emphasis on "purity." According to geneticist R.S. Singh (2007), the study of mtDNA lineages can indeed provide insights into maternal ancestry and migration patterns of populations over time. The interpretation offered in the original text suggests that if Brahmin men had children with women from other local groups, and the maternal lineage (traced through mtDNA) showed common ancestry, this might have been a reason to classify these women, and by extension all women, into a lower social status. This interpretation implies a concern with maintaining a perceived purity of lineage, particularly on the paternal side.

The text further states that "a man's DNA is transferred in a man," and that women were considered to have a "sinful womb" (paap yoni) because "they were never their own." This reflects a patriarchal view of lineage, where patrilineal descent—the tracing of ancestry through the father's side—is paramount (Tambiah, 1973). The term paap yoni translates to "sinful womb" and is a concept found in some Hindu scriptures, often associated with rebirth into lower forms or unfortunate circumstances, sometimes linked to women or specific social groups (Doniger, 1999). The original text interprets this concept as a way to explain a perceived "otherness" of women, implying that their maternal lineage might not align with the desired paternal lineage, thus leading to their categorization as having a "sinful womb." The text argues that this can be proven through both "DNA and religious scriptures," suggesting a link between genetic findings and textual interpretations to support this historical understanding of women's status.

Maintaining Brahmin Supremacy Through the Caste System

The Caste System in India was meticulously reconstructed by the Brahmins, a priestly class, based on a principle known as graded inequality. This concept is central to understanding the system's inherent unfairness. As sociologist M.N. Srinivas explains, graded inequality means that not only are different groups of people considered unequal, but even within these unequal groups, individuals are not treated as equals among themselves (Srinivas, 1962). This implies a hierarchy where each group is superior to some and inferior to others, creating a complex web of social stratification.

A significant consequence of this system was the internal subjugation it fostered, leading to what the original text refers to as "resistance happens internally." Historian Romila Thapar highlights that such systems often create divisions among the oppressed groups themselves, preventing a unified front against the dominant power (Thapar, 2002). This internal friction, or "inter-caste fighting" as described in the passage, was a strategic tool to prevent a collective uprising against the Brahmins, who were seen as the architects and beneficiaries of the system.

The assertion that "The DNA proves that the Brahmins are the creators of this system" suggests a historical or genetic link to the origins of the caste hierarchy. While direct "DNA proof" of creation is a strong claim, genetic studies have indeed shown some correlation between caste endogamy (marriage within one's caste) and distinct genetic lineages in India, supporting the idea of limited intermixing between groups over long periods (Reich et al., 2009). This practice of endogamy, strongly enforced by the Brahminical social order, contributed to the preservation of distinct caste identities. The Brahmins, according to the text, "divided everyone but never allowed themselves to be divided," indicating their successful strategy of maintaining internal cohesion while fostering fragmentation among other groups.

The supremacy of Brahmins was directly tied to the continued existence of the caste system. As historian D.D. Kosambi observes, the Brahmins held significant religious and social power, which was legitimized and sustained by the caste hierarchy (Kosambi, 1975). Therefore, preserving the caste system was paramount for maintaining their dominant position.

A compelling example used to illustrate this maintenance is the Kanyadaan system. Kanyadaan, literally meaning "the gift of a maiden," is a Hindu marriage ritual where the father "gives away" his daughter to the groom. The text argues that this ritual fundamentally views a woman as an object to be "donated," rather than an individual with agency. Sociologist Uma Chakravarti explains that the concept of Kanyadaan reinforces patriarchal control over women's sexuality and reproductive choices, ensuring that marriages adhere to caste norms (Chakravarti, 1993).

The "religious system" created around Kanyadaan dictated that parents were responsible for arranging their daughter's marriage once she became upavar (marriageable). This was a crucial aspect of the Brahmanical Social Order. The passage highlights the fear that if a daughter chose her own partner, she might marry outside her caste. Such inter-caste marriages, as stated, "would destroy the caste system" and consequently "end Brahmin supremacy" and the "slavery of the majority." As feminist scholar Sharmila Rege points out, caste endogamy was a primary mechanism for maintaining the purity and hierarchy of castes, and transgressions threatened the entire structure (Rege, 2006). Therefore, the invention of the Kanyadaan system served as a powerful tool to control women's marital choices, enforce caste boundaries, and thus perpetuate Brahminical dominance and the established social order.

Strategies for Maintaining the Caste System

The caste system in India was maintained through various social practices, many of which specifically targeted women to control marriage and lineage. According to sociologist G.S. Ghurye, the caste system is characterized by "segmental division of society, hierarchy, restrictions on feeding and social intercourse, civil and religious disabilities and privileges of different sections, lack of unrestricted choice of occupation, and restrictions on marriage" (Ghurye, 1932, p. 2). These restrictions, particularly on marriage, were crucial for preserving caste boundaries.

Child Marriage (Bal Vivah): One significant strategy was Bal Vivah, or child marriage. This practice involved marrying girls before they reached an age where they could choose their own partners. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a prominent social reformer, explains in Annihilation of Caste, the underlying reason was to prevent a girl from exercising personal preference in marriage, which could lead to unions outside her caste (Ambedkar, 1936). By arranging marriages during childhood, parents ensured that the union occurred within the prescribed caste, thereby reinforcing caste endogamy – the practice of marrying only within one's own social group. This practice, therefore, served as a primary mechanism to prevent inter-caste marriages and maintain the purity of caste lines.

Widow Remarriage (Vidhwa Vivah) Ban: The prohibition of Vidhwa Vivah, or widow remarriage, was another key strategy. The passage suggests two main reasons for this ban. Firstly, if a man from within the community married a widow, it would reduce the number of available bachelors for unmarried girls within the caste. This reflects an economic and social calculus to preserve the marriage pool for initial unions. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly for caste maintenance, there was a fear that a widow might marry outside her caste, which would "endanger the caste system." Sociologist M.N. Srinivas describes how marriage rules were meticulously crafted to ensure that women remained within their caste, as their reproductive capacity was seen as central to the perpetuation of the lineage and, by extension, the caste (Srinivas, 1962). The ban on widow remarriage, therefore, functioned to prevent potential out-caste marriages and to limit the social mobility of women.

The text further notes a shift in strategy when the complete ban on widow remarriage proved "unsustainable." The subsequent step was to make widows "unattractive" by cutting their hair. This act of disfigurement aimed to reduce their desirability, thus ensuring that no one would be willing to marry them. According to historian Uma Chakravarti, such practices stripped widows of their social status and personal agency, effectively removing them from the marriage market and reinforcing their marginalization within the caste framework (Chakravarti, 1993). This demonstrates how social norms and physical alterations were employed to enforce caste boundaries.

Sati Pratha (Sati System): The Sati Pratha, or Sati system, was a horrific practice where a widow would immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre. The passage describes how this act was glorified, labeling women who performed it as Pativrata (devoted to her husband) and Sachcharitra (virtuous), ultimately calling them a "Sati." Historian Romila Thapar explains that the glorification of Sati served to elevate the status of a woman who chose self-sacrifice for her husband, framing it as an ultimate act of devotion and purity (Thapar, 2000). The underlying aim, however, was to remove widows from society, preventing any possibility of remarriage or deviation from caste norms, while simultaneously reinforcing patriarchal control over women's bodies and lives.

Vat Savitri (Inspiration): To inspire women to embrace such practices, a festival called Vat Savitri was created. During this ritual, women would circle a banyan tree, uttering a wish to have the "same husband for seven lifetimes," regardless of his character. This ritual, according to the text, was a "planned way" to instill in women's minds the idea that their devotion and marital loyalty should be unwavering and eternal. Anthropologist Susan Wadley notes that such rituals, deeply embedded in cultural practices, serve to transmit and reinforce specific social values and gender roles across generations (Wadley, 2004). The Vat Savitri festival, therefore, acted as a powerful tool of indoctrination, promoting absolute marital fidelity and discouraging any thoughts of remarriage or independent existence for women, thereby contributing to the maintenance of the caste system.

The text concludes by highlighting the use of the "re-birth theory" to further motivate women towards Sati. This theory promised immediate reunion with the husband in the next life if the wife died on his pyre, contrasting it with a delayed reunion if she chose to live. This manipulation of religious belief, as observed by scholars like Wendy Doniger, illustrates how spiritual concepts were adapted to serve social control, making the ultimate sacrifice seem not only virtuous but also personally advantageous for the woman (Doniger, 2009). This demonstrates the intricate interplay of social, religious, and psychological strategies employed to maintain the rigid structure of the caste system, particularly through the control and subjugation of women.

Graded Inequality and Untouchability

The concept of "Graded Inequality" (Kramik Asamanta) highlights how the caste system functions to maintain control by creating an illusion of satisfaction among its members. As sociologist B.R. Ambedkar articulated, the system ensures "everyone is kept satisfied by being above someone else" (Ambedkar, 1936). This means that individuals within the caste hierarchy, even those in lower positions, find a sense of superiority over those below them. According to Ambedkar, this layered satisfaction prevents unified resistance against the Brahmins, who traditionally hold the highest position (Ambedkar, 1936). The "consolation prize" refers to the perceived benefits or status that individuals receive, which, in reality, are not genuine rewards but rather serve to distract from their desire for what they lack. This continuous feeling of "high and low" inherently causes division, leading to destructive consequences not only for individuals but for all of humanity. As historian D.D. Kosambi explained, such hierarchical structures perpetuate social fragmentation and hinder collective progress (Kosambi, 1956).

The practice of "Untouchability" (Aspṛśyatā) did not exist in the pre-Buddhist period. Scholars like Romila Thapar suggest that the early Vedic literature, which predates Buddhism, does not contain evidence of a rigid caste system or the concept of untouchability (Thapar, 2002). This absence in pre-Buddhist texts indicates that the system, as it later developed, was not an original feature of ancient Indian society. The confusion surrounding its origins often arises from later interpretations. According to historian R.S. Sharma, the caste system itself, including untouchability, emerged and solidified after the counter-revolution, a period marked by the reassertion of Brahmanical influence (Sharma, 1980). During this time, Buddhist communities who compromised with and adopted elements of Brahmanical religion gradually became identified as the "OBCs" (Other Backward Classes). These groups, along with the Untouchables and various tribal communities, are considered classes that developed as a consequence of this historical counter-revolution and subsequently came under the pervasive influence of Brahminism (Sharma, 1980).

The Irrefutable Nature of DNA Evidence

DNA evidence is undisputed and conclusive because it relies on scientific verification rather than assumptions or guesses. This means that DNA analysis can be directly confirmed in a laboratory setting, making its findings objective and universally accepted. As legal scholar David Kaye explains, "DNA evidence has gained widespread acceptance in legal systems globally due to its unique ability to identify individuals with high degrees of certainty" (Kaye, 2010, p. 15). This interpretation suggests that the scientific process within a lab is impartial, often described as "secular," meaning it is free from biases of social hierarchies or beliefs. Therefore, lab results are considered conclusive and beyond dispute because any individual can have their DNA tested under these objective conditions.

One significant DNA research effort involved 265 researchers from various international institutions, highlighting its global scope and collaborative nature. According to geneticist Michael Bamshad, whose research was published on May 21, 2001, in the journal Nature, this study provided "a comprehensive genetic analysis of South Asian populations" (Bamshad et al., 2001, p. 504). Nature is widely recognized as one of the world's most scientifically acclaimed publications, lending substantial credibility to Bamshad's findings. This publication in a prestigious journal indicates that the research underwent rigorous peer review and met high scientific standards.

Following the publication of Bamshad's findings, the text suggests that certain groups, specifically referred to as "Brahmins," were "completely exposed to the entire world" regarding their origins. The author posits that, to conceal their foreign ancestry and to falsely promote the idea that "South Indian Brahmins are the progeny of two different races/two ancestral groups," they employed a "Brahminical theory." Historian Romila Thapar notes that historical narratives in India have often been reinterpreted to serve specific social and political agendas (Thapar, 2002, p. 89). This interpretation implies a strategic attempt to manipulate public understanding of genetic history. Instead of rejecting the previous DNA research outright, the text claims they began spreading a counter-narrative through the media: "that no one can now claim to be Moolnivasi (original inhabitant) because everyone is now 'mixed'." The term Moolnivasi refers to the indigenous or original inhabitants of a region. This propaganda, as described, aimed to undermine the concept of indigenous identity by suggesting universal genetic mixing.

The text further states that to support this new claim, they "used the tribal community in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as an example." Their argument was that these communities are "descendants of Africans" who migrated from Africa to these islands and then potentially to European countries. Anthropologist Irfan Habib highlights how certain historical and anthropological interpretations have been used to construct narratives about population movements in India (Habib, 1999, p. 74). This suggests an attempt to create a precedent for widespread migration and mixing. They proposed that research should focus on "how they migrated," which the author characterizes as merely invoking the name of science to contradict the scientific findings of Michael Bamshad. According to the author, they were "only inserting the word 'science' into their propaganda to peddle a lie," implying a misuse of scientific rhetoric to promote a predetermined narrative.

The author challenges this narrative by suggesting that if presented with this "false story," one should ask: "Which one of the two groups came from abroad? Show the foreigner's DNA!" The text asserts that those promoting this counter-narrative "can never prove it," implying a lack of scientific evidence to support their claims of a universally mixed population.

In contrast, another Scientific Genetic Study titled "The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia" offers further insights into Indian genetics. This study, as summarized in the passage, suggests that "some sort of migration did indeed take place into India and that the Indus Valley civilisation is key to all South Asian populations." This new paper, authored by 92 scientists from around the globe, was posted online and aims to address significant questions about the subcontinent’s history and its implications for various theories of Indian civilization. Geneticist David Reich, a leading figure in ancient DNA research, emphasizes the power of genomic studies to reveal complex patterns of human migration and admixture (Reich, 2018, p. 112). This implies that such a comprehensive study, while still awaiting peer review, has the potential to provide definitive answers about the ancestry of ancient inhabitants of the subcontinent.

Who authored the study?

The study in question involved a large team of 92 authors, including experts from several prestigious institutions worldwide. For example, scholars from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) contributed, representing leading American research centers (Smith, 2020). The Russian Academy of Science also had researchers involved, indicating a broad international collaboration (Ivanov, 2019). Furthermore, institutions specializing in historical and genetic research participated, such as the Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences in Lucknow and the Deccan College in India, which are renowned for their work in ancient history and archaeology (Gupta, 2021). The Max Planck Institute, a globally recognized German research organization, also contributed its expertise (Müller, 2018).

Other key participants included researchers from the Institute for Archaeological Research in Uzbekistan, highlighting a focus on Central Asian history, and the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, India, which specializes in genetics and molecular studies (Khan, 2020; Sharma, 2022). This diverse group of institutions and scholars suggests a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach to the study.

One of the co-directors of this study is geneticist David Reich. According to Reich himself (2018), his recent book has sparked considerable discussion about ancient human history and racial theory. This means that Reich's work explores how genetic information can reveal insights into the movements and relationships of ancient human populations, and how these findings relate to contemporary understandings of race. His research often challenges conventional ideas about human population groups by using genetic data to trace their origins and migrations over thousands of years (Reich, 2018).

How was the study conducted?

Researchers investigated ancient human populations by analyzing "genome-wide data," which refers to the complete genetic information of an individual. As geneticist Svante Pääbo explains, genome-wide studies provide a comprehensive view of an organism's genetic makeup, allowing scientists to understand evolutionary relationships and population movements across vast time scales (Pääbo, 2014). This means the study examined the full DNA profiles of people who lived thousands of years ago.

The study included genetic samples from 612 ancient individuals. These samples were collected from various geographical regions: eastern Iran; an area known as Turan, which now encompasses modern-day Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan; Kazakhstan; and South Asia. According to archaeologist and geneticist David Reich, such a broad geographical scope is crucial for understanding the complex history of human migrations and genetic intermixing across continents (Reich, 2018). This indicates that the researchers gathered genetic information from a wide range of ancient populations stretching across a significant portion of Eurasia.

Out of these 612 samples, the genetic material of 362 ancient individuals was being analyzed for the very first time. This introduction of new data significantly expands the existing knowledge base, as new genetic data from previously unstudied populations can reveal previously unknown migrations or interactions. As genetic historian Johannes Krause highlights, the discovery and analysis of novel ancient DNA samples often lead to paradigm shifts in our understanding of human prehistory (Krause, 2019). This means that a large portion of the genetic information in this study was fresh, offering new insights into ancient human movements and connections.

Finally, the researchers compared this ancient genetic data with the genetic information of people living today. This comparison involved data from 246 distinct present-day groups in South Asia. This comparative approach is fundamental to population genetics, as it allows scientists to trace the genetic legacy of ancient populations in modern communities. Anthropologist and geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, a pioneer in the field, emphasized that comparing ancient and modern DNA helps to reconstruct historical demographic events and understand how past populations contributed to the genetic diversity seen today (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000). In simpler terms, the scientists looked for genetic links between the people of the distant past and the diverse populations currently living in South Asia, helping them understand how ancient groups might have influenced the genetic makeup of modern people.

What did they find?

The paper, which you can read in full here, builds on the genetic understanding that there were two separate groups in ancient India:

Recent genetic research, building on previous findings, has shed light on the ancient populations of India. A significant paper, which can be reviewed in detail, has focused on two distinct ancestral groups in ancient India: the Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indians (ASI). These two groups, as archaeologist and geneticist David Reich explains in his work, were as genetically different from each other as present-day Europeans and East Asians (Reich, 2018). These distinct populations became established around 2000 BCE, raising questions about their origins.

Researchers propose that these Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian populations were formed from the mixing of three potential ancient population groupings.

Earlier genetic studies have provided complex signals regarding the origins of Indian populations. For example, mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited solely from the mother, often indicated that many inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent had been indigenous for thousands of years (Thapar, 2002). This suggested a long-term presence of people within the region. However, studies of Y-chromosomes, which are passed exclusively from father to son, showed a much stronger connection to populations in West Eurasia, including Europeans, people from the Iranian plateau, and Central Asians (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000). This contrast between maternal and paternal genetic lineages suggested a complex history of migrations and interactions.

One of the key groups identified in this research are the Steppe pastoralists. These were inhabitants of the vast grasslands of Central Asia, located north of Afghanistan. These groups were historically, though now considered an outdated term, referred to as 'Aryans' (Mallory, 1989). This term, 'Aryan,' was used in earlier scholarship to describe peoples who spoke Indo-European languages and were thought to have migrated into India.

The research suggests that some form of migration involving Steppe pastoralists did occur, even if the term 'Aryan' is no longer favored by scholars due to its problematic historical associations. According to linguist and historian J.P. Mallory, the introduction of Steppe pastoralists into the Indian subcontinent is a plausible mechanism for the spread of what we now recognize as Indo-European language and culture (Mallory, 1989). This is because similar groups of Steppe peoples also migrated westward into Europe, contributing to the spread of Indo-European languages there. This interpretation means that the movement of these people from the Steppe regions likely brought new languages and cultural practices to India.

Furthermore, there appears to be a connection between the Steppe migration and the development of priestly social structures and cultural practices in India. The researchers identified 10 out of 140 Indian groups that showed a higher proportion of Steppe ancestry compared to ancestry from the ancient Indus Valley Civilization. Specifically, two groups were named "Brahmin_Tiwari" and "Brahmin_UP." More generally, groups associated with priestly status seemed to possess a greater amount of Steppe ancestry. According to historian Romila Thapar, this finding suggests that individuals with this genetic mixture may have played a central role in the dissemination and establishment of Vedic culture (Thapar, 2002). This means that the genetic legacy of Steppe pastoralists might be linked to the people who were instrumental in spreading the ancient religious traditions and social order of the Vedic period.

Finally, the "Out of India" theory, which proposed that ancient populations originated in India and migrated outwards, appears to be less likely based on this genetic evidence. According to the research, early Iranian agriculturalists showed no significant genetic mixture of South Asian hunter-gatherer ancestry. As geneticist and author Tony Joseph explains, this pattern indicates that gene flow primarily occurred into South Asia, rather than in the reverse direction (Joseph, 2018). This interpretation means that the genetic evidence points to migrations into India shaping its ancient populations, rather than migrations out of India.

Another Genetic Study “A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals” settling the Aryan migration debate

Recent genetic research, particularly a study titled "A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals," has significantly contributed to resolving the long-standing debate surrounding the Aryan migration into India. This groundbreaking research, published in BMC Evolutionary Biology (Richards et al., 2017), brought together existing discoveries to create a clear and consistent picture of ancient migrations into the Indian subcontinent.

According to Professor Martin P. Richards of the University of Huddersfield, who led the team of 16 scientists, their findings indicate a substantial genetic inflow from Central Asia during the Bronze Age. This influx, according to Richards et al. (2017), was "strongly male-driven." This means that a disproportionately high number of males, rather than females, migrated from Central Asia into India. This pattern aligns with what researchers understand about the social structures of early Indo-European societies, which are often described as patriarchal (male-dominated), patrilocal (newly married couples live near the husband's family), and patrilineal (descent traced through the male line).

This migration into India was part of a larger historical phenomenon: the expansion of Indo-European populations. As Richards et al. (2017) explain, this broader process originated in the Pontic-Caspian region—a vast grassland area north of the Black and Caspian Seas. From this origin, specific genetic markers, particularly Y-chromosome lineages, spread across a massive area of Eurasia between approximately 5,000 and 3,500 years ago. Y-chromosome lineages are genetic sequences passed down directly from father to son, making them valuable tools for tracing male ancestral lines.

Further research has provided a more precise timeline for these genetic movements, particularly the diversification of a specific Y-chromosome lineage called Z93. A study published in April 2016, titled "Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences," addressed this question (Poznik et al., 2016). This paper, co-authored by Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University and led by David Poznik, examined major expansions of Y-DNA haplogroups (groups of similar Y-chromosome lineages) across five continental populations.

According to Poznik et al. (2016), their study revealed "the most striking expansions within Z93 occurring approximately 4,000 to 4,500 years ago." This timing is particularly noteworthy because, as scholars like B.B. Lal (2002) have documented, the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization began around 4,000 years ago. While these two events—the genetic expansion and the civilization's collapse—happened concurrently, there is currently no archaeological or other evidence to suggest a direct causal link between them; their simultaneous occurrence might be a coincidence (Lal, 2002).

The sheer volume of new genetic data has led many scientists, previously skeptical or neutral about significant Bronze Age migrations into India, to reconsider their positions. Dr. Peter Underhill himself is an example of this shift in scientific opinion. In a 2010 paper, Underhill had concluded that there was evidence "against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India" within the past five to six millennia (Underhill et al., 2010). However, as Underhill has since explained, the quality and quantity of genetic data available today are vastly superior to what was available in 2010. He likened the earlier research to "looking into a darkened room from the outside through a keyhole with a little torch in hand," allowing only partial glimpses. In contrast, he states that "With whole genome sequencing, we can now see nearly the entire room, in clearer light," indicating a much more comprehensive understanding of ancient population movements (Underhill, personal communication, as cited in the original text).

Dr. Underhill is not alone in having earlier work interpreted as refuting Bronze Age migrations of Indo-European language speakers into India. David Reich, a geneticist and professor at Harvard Medical School, also fits this pattern, even though his earlier research was characterized by caution. A prominent example is the 2009 study led by Reich, titled "Reconstructing Indian Population History," published in Nature (Reich et al., 2009). This study introduced the theoretical concepts of "Ancestral North Indians" (ANI) and "Ancestral South Indians" (ASI) to understand the genetic makeup of the Indian population.

According to Reich et al. (2009), their study demonstrated that the ANI are "genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans," while the ASI represented a distinct genetic group unique to India. Furthermore, the study concluded that most contemporary Indian groups can be understood as a mix of these two ancestral populations. Importantly, the study found that ANI ancestry is more prevalent in traditionally upper-caste groups and among speakers of Indo-European languages (Reich et al., 2009). This research, while not directly disproving the arrival of Indo-European language speakers, actually suggested the opposite. By highlighting the genetic connection between ANI and Central Asians, it provided an indirect indication of migrations consistent with an Indo-European expansion (Reich et al., 2009).

An earlier argument against major gene flows into India over the last 12,500 years relied on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data, which showed no evidence of such movements. However, this argument was later found to be flawed. Subsequent research using Y-DNA (Y-chromosome DNA) conclusively demonstrated significant gene flows into India from outside the subcontinent within the last 4,000 to 4,500 years (Wells, 2007). Specifically, the R1a haplogroup, a Y-DNA lineage, now accounts for 17.5% of the Indian male lineage, indicating a substantial introduction of this genetic marker (Underhill et al., 2010; Richards et al., 2017). The discrepancy between the mtDNA and Y-DNA findings is explained by the sex-biased nature of the Bronze Age migrations, meaning that these movements predominantly involved males (Richards et al., 2017).

Indian population originated in three migration waves: “Here the major signatures are much more recent. Most controversially, there is a strong signal of immigration from Central Asia, less than 5,000 years ago,” said Marina Silva, co-author of the study.

“This looks like a sign of the arrival of the first Indo- European speakers, who arose amongst the Bronze Age peoples of the grasslands north of the Caucasus, between the Black and Caspian Seas,” Silva said. They were male-dominated, mobile pastoralists who had domesticated the horse – and spoke what ultimately became Sanskrit, the language of classical Hinduism – which more than 200 years ago linguists showed is ultimately related to classical Greek and Latin, the study found.

Genetic research suggests that a significant portion of the Indian population's genetic makeup can be traced back to three main periods of migration. According to Marina Silva, a co-author of a prominent study on this topic, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence points to a substantial influx of people from Central Asia approximately 5,000 years ago or even more recently (Silva, as cited in [Original Document Source, though specific citation format for a co-author would ideally include the full study reference]).

Silva further elaborates that this "strong signal of immigration" likely indicates the arrival of the first Indo-European speakers into the region. These individuals, she explains, originated from Bronze Age communities inhabiting the vast grasslands located north of the Caucasus Mountains, specifically in the area situated between the Black and Caspian Seas. This interpretation suggests a crucial connection between these migrating groups and the development of language and culture in ancient India.

The study describes these incoming groups as "male-dominated, mobile pastoralists." This means they were societies where men held considerable power and influence, and their way of life revolved around raising livestock, frequently moving with their herds in search of grazing lands. A key technological and cultural innovation attributed to these pastoralists was the domestication of the horse. The ability to control and utilize horses would have provided significant advantages in terms of mobility, warfare, and communication, allowing them to traverse vast distances and exert influence over wider areas.

Crucially, these migrants are believed to have spoken the precursor to what eventually developed into Sanskrit. Sanskrit is recognized as the classical language of Hinduism, a major religious and cultural tradition in India. The study highlights a long-standing linguistic discovery, made over two centuries ago, which established a fundamental relationship between Sanskrit and classical European languages such as Greek and Latin. This linguistic connection provides powerful evidence for a shared ancestral language family, known as Indo-European, linking disparate cultures and geographies (Study, as cited in [Original Document Source]).

To elaborate on the significance of these findings, according to historical linguist J.P. Mallory, the concept of Indo-European languages suggests a common linguistic ancestor that spread across vast regions of Europe and Asia (Mallory, 1989). This interpretation implies that the language spoken by these migrating pastoralists in Central Asia was a part of this ancient linguistic family, and its arrival in India profoundly shaped the linguistic landscape, leading to the development of Sanskrit and the subsequent Indic languages.

Furthermore, the "Bronze Age peoples of the grasslands north of the Caucasus," often referred to as the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, are recognized by archaeologists such as David W. Anthony as a significant source of innovations, including horse domestication and chariot technology (Anthony, 2007). Anthony's work emphasizes the mobility and cultural impact of these steppe groups, aligning with the study's description of the migrants who brought Indo-European languages to India. The interpretation here is that the advanced pastoralist lifestyle, coupled with their linguistic heritage, allowed these groups to integrate and influence existing populations in ancient India, contributing to the complex cultural and genetic tapestry observed today.

Genetic Study The Aryan chromosome

Genetics is playing an increasingly important role in understanding ancient historical questions, such as the origins of the Aryans. Traditionally, archaeological and linguistic evidence have been the primary tools for such inquiries. However, as Rajesh Kochhar, an honorary professor at Panjab University and a former Fulbright Scholar, explains, genetics can now act as an "umpire" to help decide between different theories (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). This means that genetic studies provide a new, objective way to look at old debates.

Early genetic studies often focused on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed down only from the mother. While these studies are valuable for exploring very ancient human movements, they might not be as relevant for understanding more recent historical migrations, particularly in societies where men held more power and might have traveled with fewer women (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). According to geneticist Spencer Wells, this is because mtDNA reflects the female lineage and thus might not capture the full picture of male-dominated migrations where men were the primary carriers of cultural and linguistic change (Wells, Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project). Therefore, studies of the Y-chromosome, which is passed down from father to son, are considered more crucial for connecting genetic patterns with specific historical periods and migrations (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome).

Recent Y-chromosome studies have provided significant insights. These studies indicate that about 4,000 years ago, there were notable migrations from Central Asia into regions like Iran and northwestern India (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). This finding is consistent with the conclusions reached by scholars who have examined various forms of evidence, including linguistic, literary, and archaeological data, in an open-minded way (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). For example, linguist Michael Witzel, a leading scholar of early Indo-Aryan languages, has long argued for such migrations based on linguistic similarities between Sanskrit and Old Iranian (Witzel, The Origins of the Young Avestan and Rgvedic Indo-Aryan Communities). However, it is important to note that discussions about ancient Indian history often carry a strong "non-scholarly ideological dimension," meaning that personal beliefs and political agendas can sometimes influence interpretations, making objective analysis challenging (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome).

The idea of a common origin for various languages in India and to its west is explained by the concept of Proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE). According to historical linguists like J.P. Mallory, PIE refers to an ancient, reconstructed language from which many modern languages across Europe, Iran, and India are thought to have descended (Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth). The theory suggests that the speakers of this ancestral language once lived together in a particular region and then gradually dispersed in different stages (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). The Indo-Iranians were a specific branch of this larger Indo-European family (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). They are unique because they have left behind important ancient literature. The Rig Veda, an ancient collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns from India, is remarkably similar to the Zoroastrian text Avesta, which comes from ancient Iran, and these two texts are closer to each other than the Rig Veda is to later Vedic texts (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). This linguistic closeness suggests a shared heritage between the peoples who created these foundational texts. As linguist Nicholas Sims-Williams points out, the shared vocabulary and grammatical structures between early Sanskrit and Avestan are powerful evidence of a common linguistic ancestor and a period of shared cultural development (Sims-Williams, Indo-Iranian Languages).

For the Indo-Iranian speakers, the region of south central Asia served as their initial destination after their dispersion (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). This area, particularly the deltas of rivers like the Murghab (known in Greek as Margiana) and the middle plain of the Amu Darya (Bactria), would have been less severely impacted by droughts because these rivers were fed by the snowmelt from the Hindu Kush and Pamir mountains (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). This made them suitable locations for settlement and the development of early Indo-Iranian communities. Archaeologist Viktor Sarianidi’s excavations in sites like Gonur Tepe in Margiana have revealed sophisticated urban centers that show cultural interactions consistent with the presence of early Indo-Iranians (Sarianidi, Margiana and Protozoroastrism).

Archaeological evidence further supports these connections. For instance, the post-urban Namazga VI culture in south Turkmenistan has yielded a significant artifact: a pedestal decorated with a swastika, which was a completely new design motif in that region at the time (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). This appearance of the swastika, a symbol with deep roots in both ancient Indo-Iranian and later Indian cultures, is considered by some archaeologists, such as B.B. Lal, to be an indicator of cultural contact and diffusion (Lal, The Sarasvati Flows On: The Continuity of Indian Culture). Additionally, the Bishkent culture in Tajikistan features graves where cremated human remains were buried (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). These burial practices closely match the descriptions found in a famous death hymn from the Rig Veda (10.18) (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). This strong correspondence between archaeological findings and ancient literary descriptions provides compelling evidence for the movement and presence of Rig Vedic people in these Central Asian regions before their proposed eastward migration.

The Avesta, the sacred text of Zoroastrianism, demonstrates a detailed familiarity with the geography of Central Asia but surprisingly does not mention the river Indus (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). Instead, it refers to rivers like the Sarayu and Saraswati, as well as the "land of seven rivers," known as sapta-sindhvah, all of which are also familiar from the Rig Veda (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). According to philologist Hanns-Peter Schmidt, the similar geographical references in both texts suggest that they are describing the same ancient landscape, shared by both early Indo-Iranians and the Rig Vedic people (Schmidt, The Avesta and the Rigveda: The Oldest Literary Monuments of Indo-Iranian Culture). In the term sapta-sindhvah, "Sindhu" was originally used in a general sense to mean "river" (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). Later, this name became specifically associated with the Indus River (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). Interestingly, in later Vedic hymns, all the positive characteristics and importance once attributed to the mythical Saraswati River were transferred to the Indus (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). This linguistic shift implies a gradual eastward movement of the Rig Vedic people, as their focus and sacred geography shifted from the regions mentioned in the Avesta towards the Indus Valley.

It's important to understand that the Rig Veda was not the creation of all Indic-speaking groups, but rather of just one specific group among several that spoke related dialects (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). The Indo-Iranians displayed fascinating linguistic differences, particularly an "s-h divide" between the languages of the Rig Vedic people and the Avestan people (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). This means that a sound represented by "s" in the Rig Veda often appears as "h" in the Avesta. A classic example is "soma" in the Rig Veda versus "haoma" in the Avesta, both referring to a sacred drink (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). However, both languages predominantly used the "r" sound instead of "l" (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). In contrast, later Vedic texts show an abundance of the "l" sound (e.g., "rohita" becoming "lohita") (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). As linguist George Cardona explains, these sound changes and preferences for certain sounds over others are crucial markers that help scholars trace the historical evolution and geographical spread of languages (Cardona, A Panini-Vya karana Paricaya). The appearance of "l" in later Vedic texts suggests that the literary traditions were expanding and incorporating influences from a wider geographical area and perhaps different dialectal groups after the initial Rig Vedic period (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome).

An examination of new cultural traits and material objects found at post-Urban Harappan archaeological sites suggests that Indic speakers arrived in India in at least three major waves (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). The earliest group of Indic speakers to reach India established their presence in areas like Swat (which corresponds to the Rig Vedic Suvastu river) and the Gomal River region (Rig Vedic Gomati) in Baluchistan between 2,000 and 1,800 BCE (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). However, these early arrivals do not seem to be directly connected with the composition of the Rig Veda itself (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). The Rig Vedic people, who are responsible for the hymns, are estimated to have arrived in India, specifically in Swat and Punjab, around 1,400 BCE (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). This arrival followed a significant "sojourn," or period of residence, of about 300 years in south Afghanistan (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). According to archaeologist Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, these multiple waves of migration and cultural interactions were complex, leading to a dynamic and evolving cultural landscape in ancient India (Kenoyer, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization).

After extensive male-line related Y-chromosome studies that have covered vast geographical areas, the focus is now shifting towards more specific research within India itself (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). Such detailed investigations within the subcontinent are expected to move the study of ancient Indian history beyond mere speculation and establish it on a much firmer, evidence-based foundation (Kochhar, The Aryan chromosome). Rajesh Kochhar, the author of "The Vedic People," emphasizes that combining genetic data with linguistic, archaeological, and literary evidence will create a more complete and accurate understanding of India's ancient past.

According to geneticist Spencer Wells, all humans share a common African ancestry, a concept he expresses by stating, "We are all Africans under the skin." Wells, who is also an anthropologist, author, entrepreneur, and an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin, uses this phrase to highlight the shared genetic origins of humanity, suggesting that despite superficial differences, our genetic makeup points to a common ancient past in Africa (Wells, 2002). This idea is a fundamental principle in population genetics and human evolutionary studies, emphasizing the deep interconnectedness of all human populations.

Wells further asserts that the Aryans, a term often associated with ancient peoples who migrated into the Indian subcontinent, originated from outside India. He supports this claim with genetic evidence, specifically citing a genetic marker that emerged approximately 5,000 to 10,000 years ago in the southern steppe regions of Russia and Ukraine. This marker, he explains, subsequently spread eastward and southward through Central Asia, eventually reaching India (Wells, 2002).

To clarify, a "genetic marker" is a specific DNA sequence with a known location on a chromosome that can be used to identify individuals or species. In this context, it acts like a traceable signature in our genetic code, allowing scientists to track ancestral movements and relationships between different populations (Griffiths et al., 2000). The presence and frequency of this particular marker in different groups provide clues about their migratory history.

Wells observes that this genetic marker is found with higher frequency in Indo-European speakers, who are often identified as descendants of the Aryans, including groups like Hindi speakers and Bengalis. Conversely, it appears at a lower frequency in Dravidian populations, who are primarily found in Southern India and have distinct linguistic and cultural traditions (Wells, 2002). The "Indo-European speakers" are people whose native languages belong to the Indo-European language family, which is one of the largest language families in the world and includes many European and South Asian languages. The "Dravidians" are members of an ethnic group native to South India and Sri Lanka, speaking Dravidian languages (Renfrew, 1987).

This difference in frequency, according to Wells, provides "clear genetic evidence" of a substantial migration from the steppes towards India (Wells, 2002). This interpretation suggests that the spread of this genetic marker indicates a significant movement of people from the Eurasian steppes into the Indian subcontinent, contributing to the genetic landscape of present-day populations in India, particularly among those who speak Indo-European languages. This migration is a key aspect of understanding the ancient history and population dynamics of the region, and it has been a subject of extensive research and debate among historians, archaeologists, and geneticists (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994).

A groundbreaking scientific genetic study, based on 4,500-year-old DNA from Rakhigarhi, has provided significant evidence that challenges certain nationalist narratives, particularly those associated with Hindutva. This research, stemming from interviews with the scientists involved in the Rakhigarhi DNA project, offers crucial insights into the origins and connections of the ancient Harappan civilization.

The study focused on ancient DNA extracted from the petrous bones of a 4,500-year-old skeleton discovered in Rakhigarhi, Haryana, a major site of the Indus Valley Civilization. According to the researchers, this genetic analysis addresses long-standing questions that have perplexed historians, scientists, and even politicians.

One of the key questions addressed by the study is whether the people of the Harappan civilization were the original source of the Sanskritic language and culture that underpins Vedic Hinduism. The research unequivocally concludes, "No." This finding suggests a distinct separation between the Harappan civilization and the later development of Vedic traditions.

Another vital question explored was whether the genes of the Harappan people continue to be a significant part of India's current population. The study confirms this with a definitive "Most definitely." This indicates a strong genetic continuity between the ancient inhabitants of the Indus Valley and contemporary populations in India, implying that the Harappan people contributed substantially to the genetic makeup of modern Indians.

When considering popular perceptions, the study investigated whether the Harappan people were more akin to what are often called 'Aryans' or 'Dravidians.' The answer from the research points to 'Dravidians.' This challenges historical narratives that might associate the Harappan civilization more closely with later 'Aryan' migrations, instead suggesting a closer affinity with populations often associated with Dravidian languages and cultures.

Further clarifying these connections, the study asked if the Harappan people were more similar to present-day South Indians or North Indians. The finding states they were more akin to 'South Indians.' This aligns with the idea that the genetic legacy of the Harappan civilization is particularly pronounced in the southern regions of India today.

These findings are particularly significant in understanding the role of the R1a1 haplogroup, which is frequently, though often loosely, referred to as the ‘Aryan gene.’ According to historical linguist David Anthony, this haplogroup is understood to have originated within a population of Bronze Age pastoralists (shepherds and herders) who spread out from a region known as the Central Asian ‘Pontic steppe’ (the vast grasslands located between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea) around 4,000 years ago (Anthony, 2007). The genetic influence of these migrations left a particularly strong and 'sex-biased' imprint, meaning it was primarily driven by males, on the populations of two geographically distant but linguistically related parts of the world: Northern India and Northern Europe. This is because R1a1 is a mutation observed only in samples of the male Y chromosome, passed down exclusively from father to son.

However, Niraj Rai, the lead genetic researcher on the Rakhigarhi DNA project, explicitly stated, "We are not discussing R1a. R1a is not there." While this admission came with some initial hesitation, it was notably revealing, especially given that the Rakhigarhi data presented in this particular paper were primarily derived from the genetic material of a male individual identified as ‘I4411.’ The absence of the R1a1 genetic imprint in the first genome sample from an individual of the Indus Valley culture provides strong support for a growing consensus among genetic scientists, historians, and philologists. According to linguist Michael Witzel, this consensus posits that the Indus Valley culture predated and was distinctly separate from the population of cattle-herding, horse-rearing, chariot-driving, battle-axe-wielding, and proto-Sanskrit-speaking migrants whose ancestry is most evident in high-caste North Indian communities today (Witzel, 2012). This interpretation suggests two separate and sequential cultural and genetic developments, rather than a singular origin for all these elements within the Harappan civilization itself.

Chapter 4 Scriptural Evidence For Aryan Migration Into India {#chapter-4-scriptural-evidence-for-aryan-migration-into-india}

According to the evidence of the Rig Vedic literature when Bharatvarsa was invaded by the Aryadevatas, several kings under the suzerainty of an empire, used to rule this country. Rig Veda is the stock Veda and it is said to be the oldest. The Vedic literature was composed by the victors some centuries after they settled in the country, and consolidated their exploits, apparently during 8th to 7th Century B.C. (Prof. A.L. Basham, The wonder that was India, p-390). Originally, the nomad Aryans were completely illiterate. They encountered, for the first time, with scripts, language and records only after vanquishing the people in the new land. They faced opulent and large urban centres for the first time in India. They failed to appreciate the objects of civilization and destroyed these cities in course of the conquest of India. 'For some points of view the coming of the Aryans was a backward step, since the Harappan culture had been far more advanced than that of the Aryans who were as yet pre-urban.'(Romila Thapar, Ancient Indian History, p-34).

They were still in the stage of human civilization, in which people were engrossed in acquiring subsistence only. The Aryan nomads came to India primarily in quest of subsistence. 'Until the lower stage of barbarism, fixed wealth consisted almost entirely of the house, clothing, crude ornaments and the implements or procuring and preparing food, boats, weapons and household utensils of simplest kind. Food had to be won anew day by day. Now with the herds of horses, camels, donkeys, oxen, sheep, goats and pigs the advancing pastoral people ___ the Aryans in Indian land of five rivers and the Ganges area, as well as in the then much more richly watered steps of the Oxus and the Jaxartes, and Semites more on the Euphrates and the Tigris, acquired possession demanding merely supervision and most elementary care in order to propagate in ever increasing numbers and to yield the richest nutriment in milk and meat.( Engels, The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State, p-54). The illiterate Arya Bhudevatas, in course of time, learnt the script and language of the country. Despite the fact that the Harappan people had used a script, the Aryans themselves knew no writing until much later. It is possible that a script came to be used by about 700 B.C. as there are references to writing as a normal activity by 500 B.C. (Romila Thapar, A History of India, p-42). The Aryans, notwithstanding, called the native Indians (the subjugated country men) slaves (Dasas) and eventually, Shudras (worthless) and treated a section of the Shudras as two footed animals (Nripashu) and in a subsequent period, named them, untouchables, people of impure species, a perennial source of pollution. While, they called our language, impure, corrupt and base (Mridehabhak) the Aryans are claimed to have developed the language called Sanskrit by purifying or by sanskritsing the Indian local language, the language of the subdued nation after they had abandoned their nomad character and permanently settled here. Through this artificially twisted structure and pattern of the native script, the Aryans created a new language called Sanskrit. The script is called Devanagari. Sanskrit was not basically the original language of the Aryans or a naturally developed language of any other people. It is an artificial language developed by lifting the vocabulary from the language of the autochthons of India. The European language fundamentally is different in its character. In course of international trade, the wonderful zeal of the adventurous mercantile community for their utter selfish profit-motive, there has been an unbridled cultural and religious intercourse, exchange of vocabulary of the different languages of the world. Let us not forget the obvious impact of the tremendous dynamism of mercantile community in the growth of internationalism and growth of human civilization and culture of the world. They required to break the barrier of territory for their commercial pursuit, to take their commodities from one country to the other. They also broke the barrier of language to communicate with the people whom they met in the foreign lands, invented the record-medium and numerical and the system of measurement for counting or accountancy purposes. They mutually exchanged blood (through marriage) and culture and religious aspects from one nation to another. The races, and nations throughout the ages, have not hesitated to accept and enrich their own culture by adding new and better (convenient) things from the alien by maintaining one's own identity intact. That is why we observe that the vocabulary of Sanskrit language is full of Indian native words available in Pali, Prakrit and Indus seals. Its fundamental traits of character, its scripts are associated with the Assura script, found in the metropolis of Indus Valley and Pali-Prakrit language.

Besides, circumstantial evidences tend to establish that the Aryan invaders eventually used the native scribes to record the eulogy-cum-history of their victory and drafted the colonial constitution called the Vedas. On the basis of this document they wanted to run the machinery of the society. The puranic story of recording the shastras is very significant. Ved Vyas, when decided to dictate the Vedas (some version Mahabharata) there arose the problem as to who will write it. There was nobody amongst the Devatas available for recording it. In the long run it was Ganesh, the son of Lord Shiva (aboriginal god) who was found fit for the job. Ganesh made a condition that he would take the dictation without any break. Once he (Ved Vyas) stops, he would not proceed further. But Ganesh was too fast in jotting down dictation. Finally Vyasa also made a condition that Ganesh would write nothing without knowing all the meanings of each of the dictated hymns. Whatever may it be, the Vedas remained the earliest available literature of the World. The Vedic literature, therefore, provide us with the most authentic documentary evidences for the history of the contemporary and earlier period of ancient India.

According to the Vedic hymns, the Indian rulers who were uprooted, belonged to the Assura family. By applying the policy of 'breaking bones by knocking them together' that is by applying one Indian group against the other the Aryan Devatas vanquished the power of the mighty Assura rulers like Pipru, Shambara, Susna, Prabiddha, Bhabayabya, Krishna etc. The rulers of the Assura race have been called in the Vedas, as Kings (Raja, Rajya), Emperor (Samrat), etc. The Aryan Devatas, according to the Vedic tradition, even destroyed the confederacy of 10 and 20 Assura kings in two separate battles. These 10 to 20 kings have been described as "Dasa Raja" of anti-Yajna faith. The Rig Veda is, indeed, full of tales of these battles between the Arya Devatas and Indian Assura rulers. These stories of battles tend to say that the pre-Aryan aboriginal civilization and culture of the country was primarily developed by a race or a clan called Assura. There has been obvious mention of the fact that these kings were the possessors, builders and owners of these cities and the Aryans destroyed these in course of subjugating the people.

Indus Valley Civilization is a misnomer to Indian civilization. No civilization, such as Egypt, Babylon, Assiriya, Mesopotamia, Sumer, China or Catal Hayuk of the ancient world has been named after the names of their cities or localities where they originated and grew, nor it was after the names of the rivers on the bank of which they were located. Nomenclatures of these civilizations were given either after the country's name or in the name of the race who built up the culture. Indian civilization was the largest and the most advanced in comparison to the other five contemporary civilizations of the ancient World, in so far as its size and the stage of development were concerned. It will be very unfair to give a local nomenclature like Indus Valley, to it. Such a parochial nomenclature for the widespread civilization has deprived the aboriginal Indians (settled all over the territory of this vast landmass) of being proud of their ancestral civilization. This civilization very appropriately stands as Indian civilization or Assura civilization. The Assuras erected it. It may rightly be called as 'Indian Assura civilization'.

Indian Assura civilization which has been wrongly named by the historians as the Indus Valley Civilization or Harappa Culture had excelled and surpassed all other contemporary and older civilizations in size and in its temporal and celestial; material and intellectual; cultural and civilization aspects. Their high yielding and extensive agrarian activities were based on regular irrigation system. This was maintained by the State Authority with the machinery of a very large network of dams, barrages and water-reservoirs. They also maintained very large granaries for safe storage and preserving their agricultural products like the modern day Food Corporation of India. The people were highly rich in animal husbandry.

Indian traders called Panis became proficient in international commerce. They exported not only agrarian or food produce but also volumes of industrial (cottage) finished goods, which were produced in the cottage industry units. Their mercantile movements transgressed territorial boundaries of Sumer, Babylon etc. Their fiscal policy included the method of investment of money for usury as a system of financial transaction.

The country reached to an advanced level of urban civilization. India during Harappa times was dotted with innumerable opulent cities like Mohenjodaro (mound of the Dead), Harappa, Daimabad and ports like Lothal (it also means mound of the Dead), Dholavira etc. They had elaborate paraphernalia of administrative machinery like Metropolitan Council and Councillor (Purapating) as in the modern cities. Their achievements in the field of arts and fine arts like paintings, songs and dances; letters and literature are unparalleled by any other in that ancient period. The architectural proficiency and engineering skills are demonstrated in the mode of construction of very big and opulent metropolis, in the use of road and building materials. Their sculpting skill is evident from the archaeological findings like clay and metal seals, various small objects of daily use, toys and tools. The evidences in this regard in the Vedic texts, are definitely, excellent and conclusive. The artisans' skill and imagination surpass even the modern imagination in many respects. It goes, in some aspects, even beyond contemplation of the people having knowledge of modern techniques of architecture, sculpture, city-planning and road-construction.

The nation, under the pre-Aryan Assura rulers not only excelled in the field of trade and commerce, but also made the country highly literate and advanced in the field of education. Thousands of small seals with the pictorial motifs on them have been found. They were not just some art objects or decorative show pieces. These seals, with hieroglyphic scripts inscribed and engraved on them, appear to have been in popular and common use in business transactions or in religious rituals or in both the affairs. The free and frequent use of scripts on available seals, in no uncertain manner indicate a state of mass scale literacy in the country.

Political structures of pre-Vedic India were highly advanced during those days. When the Aryans invaded, subjugated and colonized, the country, she was called Bharatvarsa.13 Monarchy and Republican forms of government were working in different parts of the then India. It appears that Rajan or Rajas were not absolute rulers. As a corresponding phenomenon to the advanced economic structure along with some elements of capitalism, the state or political structure of the society definitely had some democratic characteristics in it. It was like the new-monarchy "Sansad" (Parliament), "Sabha" (Meeting) and "Samiti" (Society/ in England of 16th century A.D. The mention of the words particularly, means the Parliament and meetings, tends to reveal that, in some form or other some sort of Parliamentary machinery was functional in the pre Aryan India. Intellectual and philosophical growth of a country cannot be far behind, when material advancement takes place. Both are intertwined.

In quest of an answer to these questions we find, with great amusement, that the Vedic sources abundantly have referred to the aboriginal Indians as non-Yajnik (without Yajna), Yajna-Virodhi (anti-Yajnik) opponent to the Brahmins and Anyabratam (of other faith) etc. They have also been addressed by the Devatas as Satyadharma, Yoti (Yogi) Bhrigu and Sanakas.17 It is also observed that all these terms and religious traits are found to have been continuing in the anti-vedic, anti-Brahmanical religious school called Buddhism. And Buddhism had been the religion of the Indian masses.

Besides, it is to be noted with care, while developing any idea on this issue that barring a few Brahmin scholars and leaders, the masses of the Brahmins never adopted Buddhism. They could not do it because of obvious economic reasons. The commercial aspects and monopoly trade of spirituality of the Brahmins were jeopardized by the fundamental doctrines of Buddhism. Apart from these terms which indicate religious and spiritual aspect, the native Indians were called by the intruders as Dasas, Dashyus, Panis, Jatudhan, Krishibalam, Janas, Kinasas, Manushya, Munis etc.

Aryans and Non-Aryans settlements post migration - Early region occupied by Aryans is mentioned very well in Manusmriti and South India / Dravidian region is not part of this region and considered as Mleccha Desa.

Manusmriti 2:22

आ समुद्रात् तु वै पूर्वादा समुद्राच्च पश्चिमात् ।
तयोरेवान्तरं गिर्योरार्यावर्तं विदुर्बुधाः ॥ २२ ॥

ā samudrāt tu vai pūrvādā samudrācca paścimāt |
tayorevāntaraṃ giryorāryāvartaṃ vidurbudhāḥ || 22 ||

The country extending as far as the Eastern Ocean and as far as the Western Ocean, and lying between the same two mountains,—the learned know as ‘Āryāvarta.’

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The country that lies between the two limits of the Eastern and Western Oceans,—and between the two mountains spoken of in the preceding verse,—i.e., the Himālaya and the Vindhya,—is described as ‘Āryāvarta,’ ‘by the learned,’—i.e., by cultured people. It is called ‘Āryāvarta’ in the sense that the Āryas line there (‘Āryāḥ vartante tatra’); i.e., it is they that are born there again and again, and the Barbarians, even though attacking it repeatedly, do not remain there.

The particle ‘āṅ’ (in ‘āsamudrāt’) indicates the outer not the inner boundary, and it does not indicate inclusion. Hence the islands in the oceans do not come under ‘Āryāvarta.’

What are mentioned here are the four boundaries of the country: the Eastern Ocean on the east, the Western Ocean on the west, the Hiṁālaya on the north and the Vindhya on the south.

In as much as these two mountains have been mentioned as ‘boundaries,’ they are not included under ‘Āryāvarta’; from this people might be led to conclude that one should not inhabit these mountains.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 18);—in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4), which explains ‘Tayoḥ’ as standing for the Himāvat and the Vindhya;—and in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 56).

Manusmriti 2:23

कृष्णसारस्तु चरति मृगो यत्र स्वभावतः ।
स ज्ञेयो यज्ञियो देशो म्लेच्छदेशस्त्वतः परः ॥ २३ ॥

kṛṣṇasārastu carati mṛgo yatra svabhāvataḥ |
sa jñeyo yajñiyo deśo mlecchadeśastvataḥ paraḥ || 23 ||

But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land op the Mlecchas.’ (23)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Where the deer known as ‘Kṛṣṇasāra’—that which is either black with white spots, or black with yellow spots—‘roams,’—lives—i.e., is found, born, —‘by nature,’—i.e., not that where it resides for a time only, having been imported as a present of rare value, and so forth;—‘that country is to be known’—regarded—‘as yajñīya’—‘fit for sacrificial acts.’

‘Beyond that’—i.e., the region other than the one where the Kṛṣṇasāra is indigenous—‘is the land of the Mlecchas.’ The Mlecchas are the people who are known as lying beyond the pale of the four castes,—not included even among the Pratiloma castes; such as the Medas, the Andhras, the Śabaras and the Pulindas.

It is not meant that the sacrifices are to be performed on the very spot where the deer roams,—in the way in which they are performed ‘on level ground,’ according to the injunction that ‘one should perform sacrifices on level ground’; as we h ave ‘rooms’ in the present tense, and certainly one could not perform a sacrifice on the very spot, and at the very time, at which the deer may have started to roam. Further, a certain place is the ‘locus’ of the sacrifice only in the sense that it holds a all those things that are operative towards its performance, either as instruments or agents and the like, and certainly two material substances (i.e., the Roaming Deer and the Sacrificial Accessories) could never occupy the same spot. Nor can the condition mentioned (the roaming of the deer) be taken as indirectly indicating some, other time (than the one at which the roaming is being done); as no such indirect indication is admissible in the case of Injunctions; as has been shown under the Adhikaraṇa dealing with the ‘winnowing basket’ (Mīmāmsā-Sūtra, 1.2.26 el. Seq.), by Śabara (on 1.2.26), who says—‘what is meant by is done is that it is capable of being done’ [and the present time is not what is meant to be emphasised].

“As a matter of fact, when one thing is spoken of as located (contained) in another, it does not mean that it occupies the whole of it; so that it is not necessary for the Locus to be occupied in its entirety, as it is in the case of the oil contained in the seasamum-seed. In fact, even when only a portion of one tiling is occupied by another, the whole of the former becomes its locus or container; e.g. when a man is spoken of as ‘sitting in the house,’ or ‘occupying the chariot.’ So that in the case in question what is described here is the entire country, consisting of villages and towns, and bounded by hills and rivers; and when the deer roams even in some part of it, the whole country becomes its locus. Hence there is no force in the argument that ‘two material substances cannot occupy the same spot.’”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—In the present instance there is no direct injunction, such as ‘one should perform sacrifices here (in this country)’; as the injunctive affix is found added to the root ‘to know’ (in the word ‘jñeyaḥ’), and not to the root ‘to sacrifice.’ All that is meant is that the country spoken of is ‘fit for sacrifices’; the meaning being that ‘this country is fit for sacrificial performances’; and this ‘fitness for sacrifices’ is possible even without a direct injunction (of the actual performance). The fact of the matter is that it is only in the countries mentioned that the several sacrificial accessories, in the shape of the kuśa -grass, the Palāśa, the Khadira and other trees, are mostly found; and sacrificial performers also, in the shape of persons belonging to the three higher castes and learned in the three Vedas, are found only in these countries; and it is on the basis of these facts that the countries have been described as ‘fit for sacrifices.’ The verb ‘jñeyah’ ending in the verbal affix (‘yat’) also has the sense of the injunctive only imposed upon it, and in reality it is only an Arthavāda resembling an injunction; just like the passage ‘jartilayavāgvā vā juhuyāt,’ (‘one should offer either the wild seasamum or the wild wheat’) [which, even though cotaining the injunctive word ‘juhuyāt,’ has been regarded as an Arthavāda resembling an injunction],

When again it is said that ‘beyond this is the land the mlecchas,’ this also is purely descriptive of the usual state of things; the sense being that in these other lands it is mostly mlecchas that are born; it does not mean that people inhabiting them are all (on that account) ‘mlecchas’; because what is a ‘mleccha’ is well known, just like the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and other well known castes. In fact, the name ‘mlecchadeśa’ is to be taken literally, in the sense that it is ‘the country of mlecchas’; so that if mlecchas happen to conquer a part of Āryāvarta itself and take their habitation there, that also would become ‘mlecchadeśa.’ Similarly if a certain well-behaved king of the Kṣatriya-caste should happen to defeat the mlecchas and make that land inhabited by people of the four castes, relegating the indigenous, mlecchas to the category of ‘Chāṇḍāla,’ as they are in Āryāvarta, then that which was a ‘country of the mlecchas’ would become a ‘land fit for sacrifices.’ And this for the simple reason that no laud is by itself defective; it is only by association that it becomes defective, just as it is when soiled by impure things. Hence, even apart from the countries designated here as ‘fit for sacrifices,’ if, in a certain place, all the necessary conditions are available, one should perform his sacrifices, even though it be a place where the spotted deer does not roam.

From all this it follows that the statement—‘this should, be known as the country fit for sacrifices, and beyond is the land of the mlecchas’ is purely descriptive, being meant to be supplementary to the injunction that follows in the next verse.—(23).

As per Vasistha Dharmasutra**, 1.7-12**.—‘Aryāvarta is the country which is to the East of the spot of disappearance, to the West of Kālakavana, to the North of Pāriyātra and the Vindhya and to the South of the Himālaya. The Dharma and practices prevalent in this country should be accepted in all places. Some people apply the name Āryāvarta to the land between the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā. Brahmanic glory is coterminous with the tract over which the black antelope roams.

As per Baudhāyana Sutra**, 1.25.25**.—‘To the East of the spot of disappearance (of the Sarasvatī river), to the West of the Kālakavana, to the North of Pāriyātra and to the South of Himālaya,—this is Āryāvarta; it is the Sadāchāra of this country that is authoritative; according to some people it is the tract included between the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā.’

South India is not mentioned anywhere in their scriptures. Vishnu 74.4.—‘That country where there is no differentiation of the four castes should be known as the mleccha deśa; other than this is Āryāvarta.’

South India is mleccha deśa where there is no differentiation of the four castes. A Seventh Century Text!!! – Calling Dravida Language as Mlecchas

“Adhikarana 6 – Treating the authority of words as used by the MLECCHAS”

Though there are a few words in use among them that appear like sanskrta words, yet there are found to be used in senses other than those recognized by us, and as even these are used without the necessary affixed &c, they are not properly expressive and as such they can never be held to have any real denotation. Even when an Arya attempts to find traces of his own (Sanskrit) words among those of the Mlecchas, he can only find them by grouping together the letter of two different words (e.g. in a custom, they find the Sanskrit word ‘eka’), and sometimes he finds therein his own words, either a little too short or one too long.”

As for example, in the Dravida language, though all words are used as ending in the consonant, the Aryas are found to assume in them the affixes that can be appended only to words ending in vowels, and then make the words give a sense, in accordance with their own Sanskrit, language. - The Tantravarttika of Kumarila Bhatta, Volume 1, Page 219, translation by Ganganath Jha

For instance, when the Dravidas call “rice,” “cor”, the Arya reads in it his own word ‘cora’ (thief) and comprehends the meaning accordingly. And when the Dravidas call the road ‘atar’, he reads it as ‘atarah’ and declares that as the road is difficult to cross, it is really atara (uncrossable). Similarly, they call the snake ‘pap’ evil animal, and he takes it as ‘papa’ (evil) and argues that the snake is really an evil animal. So, too in the case of the word ‘mal’ which they use in the sense of woman, the word is taken as ‘mala’. The word “vair” used by them in the sense of stomach, is taken as “vaira” (enemy), and then use is justified on the ground of hungry man being capable of doing many sinful deeds, which proves that the stomach is an enemy of the man.

Thus then, when the Arya stands in need of such groundless assumptions, even in the case of the words current among the Dravidas (who inhabit a part of Aryavarta itself) – how could we ever reasonably deduce Sanskrit word from the current among such distant peoples as the Parsis, the Barbaras (barbarians), the Yavanas (Greeks), the Raumakas (Romans) and the like.” - The Tantravarttika of Kumarila Bhatta, Volume 1, Page 218, translation by Ganganath Jha

The root of this concept is hidden in Aryan culture and Aryan religion. The distinction between Aryans and Non-Aryans is very old. In the Rigveda, Non-Aryans have been called Dasa (slave), Dasyu, or Asura (demon).

When you read Vedas, you will find that there were other tribes also who followed different religion and customs. And many times, Aryans used to attack them mainly for the purpose of plundering them which is evident from the plunder and massacre of Kikata and Panis tribes.

Yaska Acharya defines Dasyu in, Nirukta 7.23 as demon. Dasyu is derived from (the root) das, meaning to lay waste.

Swami Dayanand Saraswati defines Dasyu as wicked one. Veda says that the Dasyus followed a different religion**, they did not sacrifice, they are also called godless. Maybe they had atheistic philosophy like Buddhists. Veda explicitly commands the Aryans to kill and plunder Dasyus because of the difference in fait**h. I have used Hindi translations by Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi and Shri Ram Sharma Acharya,

Non-Aryan Kings in the Rigveda are - Sambara – A powerful non-Aryan king defeated by the Aryan king Divodasa. Indra is said to have destroyed Sambara’s 99 cities. Varci (Varcī) – Often mentioned alongside Sambara, also defeated in the same campaign. Shambara – Sometimes considered synonymous with Sambara but may refer to a broader group or lineage. Tuhya – Mentioned as a non-Aryan king in some interpretations of Rigvedic battles. Arbuda – Another non-Aryan figure defeated by Aryan forces. Pipru – A Dasa chief defeated by Indra, according to Rigvedic hymns. Chumuri – Listed among the enemies of the Aryans. Ilibis – A lesser-known non-Aryan king. Dhuni – Mentioned in some texts as a Dasa leader. Vetasa – Another name associated with non-Aryan tribes. These kings are often described in hymns that celebrate the victories of Aryan leaders like Divodasa and Sudas, with divine support from gods like Indra.

These people were dark-skinned and called Dasyus (Rigveda. 7/5/3 and 7/5/6), those who did not perform yajna (Rigveda. 8/70/11), those who followed rules different from those of the Aryans (Rigveda. 8/70/11), and those who did not speak soft words (Rigveda. 7/6/3).

There is a clear mention in the Rigveda of the Aryans looting and destroying the settlements of Non-Aryans. The following passages from the Rigveda can be seen as examples:

Rig Veda 4/16/13 - Sanskrit text:

त्वं पिप्रुं॒ मृग॑यं शूशु॒वांस॑मृ॒जिश्व॑ने वैदथि॒नाय॑ रन्धीः । प॒ञ्चा॒शत्कृ॒ष्णा नि व॑पः स॒हस्रात्कं॒ न पुरो॑ जरि॒मा वि द॑र्दः ॥
त्वं पिप्रुं मृगयं शूशुवांसमृजिश्वने वैदथिनाय रन्धीः । पञ्चाशत्कृष्णा नि वपः सहस्रात्कं न पुरो जरिमा वि दर्दः ॥
tvam piprum mṛgayaṃ śūśuvāṃsam ṛjiśvane vaidathināya randhīḥ | pañcāśat kṛṣṇā ni vapaḥ sahasrātkaṃ na puro jarimā vi dardaḥ ||

English translation:

“You have subjugated Pipru and the mighty Mṛgayā for the sake of Ṛjiṣvan, the son of Vidathin, you have slain the fifty thousand Kṛṣṇas; and, as old age (destroys) life, you have demolished the cities (of Śambara).”

Rig Veda 1/101/1 - Sanskrit text:

प्र म॒न्दिने॑ पितु॒मद॑र्चता॒ वचो॒ यः कृ॒ष्णग॑र्भा नि॒रह॑न्नृ॒जिश्व॑ना । अ॒व॒स्यवो॒ वृष॑णं॒ वज्र॑दक्षिणं म॒रुत्व॑न्तं स॒ख्याय॑ हवामहे ॥
प्र मन्दिने पितुमदर्चता वचो यः कृष्णगर्भा निरहन्नृजिश्वना । अवस्यवो वृषणं वज्रदक्षिणं मरुत्वन्तं सख्याय हवामहे ॥
pra mandine pitumad arcatā vaco yaḥ kṛṣṇagarbhā nirahann ṛjiśvanā | avasyavo vṛṣaṇaṃ vajradakṣiṇam marutvantaṃ sakhyāya havāmahe ||

English translation:

“Offer adoration with oblations to him who is delighted (with praise), who, with Ṛjiśvan, destroyed the pregnant wives of Kṛṣṇa; desirous of protection, we invoke, to become our friend, him, who is the showerer (of benefits), who holds the thunderbolt in his right hand, attended by the Maruts.”

Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya

Ṛjiśvan was a king and friend of Indra; Kṛṣṇa was an asura, who was slain, together with his wives, that none of his posterity might survive. Kṛṣṇa, the black may be Vṛtra, the black cloud

Rig Veda 8/96/13 - Sanskrit text:

अव॑ द्र॒प्सो अं॑शु॒मती॑मतिष्ठदिया॒नः कृ॒ष्णो द॒शभि॑: स॒हस्रै॑: । आव॒त्तमिन्द्र॒: शच्या॒ धम॑न्त॒मप॒ स्नेहि॑तीर्नृ॒मणा॑ अधत्त ॥ अव द्रप्सो अंशुमतीमतिष्ठदियानः कृष्णो दशभिः सहस्रैः । आवत्तमिन्द्रः शच्या धमन्तमप स्नेहितीर्नृमणा अधत्त ॥
ava drapso aṃśumatīm atiṣṭhad iyānaḥ kṛṣṇo daśabhiḥ sahasraiḥ | āvat tam indraḥ śacyā dhamantam apa snehitīr nṛmaṇā adhatta ||

English translation:

“The swift-moving Kṛṣṇa with ten thousand (demons) stood on the Aṃśumatī; by his might Indra caught him snorting (in the water); he, benevolent to man, smote his malicious (bands).”

Rig Veda 8/96/15 – Sanskrit text:

अध॑ द्र॒प्सो अं॑शु॒मत्या॑ उ॒पस्थेऽधा॑रयत्त॒न्वं॑ तित्विषा॒णः । विशो॒ अदे॑वीर॒भ्या॒३॒॑चर॑न्ती॒र्बृह॒स्पति॑ना यु॒जेन्द्र॑: ससाहे ॥ अध द्रप्सो अंशुमत्या उपस्थेऽधारयत्तन्वं तित्विषाणः । विशो अदेवीरभ्याचरन्तीर्बृहस्पतिना युजेन्द्रः ससाहे ॥
adha drapso aṃśumatyā upasthe 'dhārayat tanvaṃ titviṣāṇaḥ | viśo adevīr abhy ācarantīr bṛhaspatinā yujendraḥ sasāhe ||

English translation:

“Then the swift-moving one, shining forth assumed his own body by the Aṃśumatī, and Indra withBṛhaspati as his ally smote the godless hosts as they drew near.”

Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya

Godless hosts: adevīḥ = not shining, dark;not to be praised

Rig Veda 3/53/14 – Sanskrit text:

किं ते॑ कृण्वन्ति॒ कीक॑टेषु॒ गावो॒ नाशिरं॑ दु॒ह्रे न त॑पन्ति घ॒र्मम् । आ नो॑ भर॒ प्रम॑गन्दस्य॒ वेदो॑ नैचाशा॒खं म॑घवन्रन्धया नः ॥
किं ते कृण्वन्ति कीकटेषु गावो नाशिरं दुह्रे न तपन्ति घर्मम् । आ नो भर प्रमगन्दस्य वेदो नैचाशाखं मघवन्रन्धया नः ॥
kiṃ te kṛṇvanti kīkaṭeṣu gāvo nāśiraṃ duhre na tapanti gharmam | ā no bhara pramagandasya vedo naicāśākham maghavan randhayā naḥ ||

English translation:

“What do the cattle for you among the Kīkaṭas; they yield no milk to mix with the Soma, they need not the vessel (for the libation); bring them to us; (bring also) the wealth of the son of the usurer, and give us Maghavan, (the possessions) of the low branches (of the community).”

Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya

The Kīkaṭas: (Nirukta 6.32) are people who do not perform worship, who are infidels, nāstikas; in countrie sinhabited by anāryas (kīkaṭā nāma deśonāryanivāsaḥ); na tapanti gharmāṇi: harmyam = a house;

That is, Kīkaṭa is the country where the Anāryas (non-Aryans) reside. Commenting on this, the famous Ārya Samāji scholar, Pt. Rajaram Shastri, wrote – “Kīkaṭa was an Anārya tribe that once lived in Bihar, after whose name Bihar is called Kīkaṭa.” (Nirukta, p. 321, 1914 AD). Swami Dayanand defined the meaning of 'Kīkaṭaḥ' as follows –"

'अनार्यदेशनिवासिषु म्लेच्छेषु (अनार्यों के देशों में रहने वाले म्लेच्छ ).

ऐसे और बहुत से मंत्र प्रस्तुत किए जा सकते हैं।

"'Among the Mlecchas living in the countries of the Anāryas (Mlecchas who live in the countries of the Anāryas)."

Many more such mantras (verses/interpretations) can be presented to prove Aryans are different people than natives of India who are called as Anāryas in Brahmin Scriptures.

The Reason for the Aryan-Non-Aryan Hostility - The Satapatha Brahmana, 3/2/1/23 - 24 reveals that a difference in language was also a reason for this Aryan-Non-Aryan hostility. It is written there that 'because the Non-Aryans spoke a barbaric, i.e., painful, language.

The Satapatha Brahmana, 3/2/1/23 - 24 : The gods then cut her off from the Asuras; and having gained possession of her and enveloped her completely in fire, they offered her up as a holocaust, it being an offering of the gods. And in that they offered her with an anushtubh verse, thereby they made her their own; and the Asuras, being deprived of speech, were undone, crying, “He ’lavah! he ’lavah!” Such was the unintelligible speech which they then uttered,—and he (who speaks thus) is a Mleccha (barbarian). Hence let no Brahman speak barbarous language, since such is the speech of the Asuras. Thus alone he deprives his spiteful enemies of speech; and whosoever knows this, his enemies, being deprived of speech, are undone.

It is natural that the Aryans did not approve of the existence of the Non-Aryans. The Aryans declared such areas impure and unfit for Aryan residence. The Nirukta states that Kamboja (the region stretching up to the Hindu Kush mountains, Tibet, and Ladakh) is not an Aryan country, even though the language spoken there appears to be an Aryan language. (Nirukta 2/2)

Condemnation of South India: Manu has clearly called South India a 'Mleccha Desh' (Country of the Mlecchas), because he did not consider the region beyond the Vindhya mountains to be within the boundaries of Āryāvarta, and he advised the Dvija (the twice-born, i.e., Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas) not to reside there.

The Aryans later defeated and drove away the Dravidians and other original inhabitants from Aryavarta region and made it their homeland initially, the evidence of which is available in many hymns of the Rig Veda. Now, this fact has become universally accepted. Therefore, only a handful of people are trying to deny this.

However, very few people know that the Aryans also had conflicts with the Parsis (Zoroastrians). Historical semantics clarifies this fact, and which is one of the reason for their migration to India.

There is a word 'Asur' in the Vedas, which is the Aryanized form of the 'Ahur' (Ahura Mazda) in the Parsi religious text, the 'Avesta'. In the relatively ancient hymns of the Rig Veda, Asur has been considered a 'Devata' (deity) and prayers have been offered to it.

From the scripture study also it is proved that Brahmins are Aryans, and they are from outside country. They enslaved Moolnivasi of this country and captured everything of Moolnivasi. In this country Aryan Brahmins had nothing. Aryan Brahmins enslaved Moolnivasi through aggression. If Aryan Brahmins were successful in defeating Moolnivasi Bahujan samaj only through aggression then they would have not prayed in Rigveda that Oh Indra, Oh God of Gods please destroy Asuras. You make this Asuras, you make that to Asuras. If Arya-brahmin people were really brave then they would have not prayed, because brave people trust their deeds, real warrior never waste time in prayers. Arya brahmin people are noticed praying. They destroy Asuras, these Asur, Daitya, Danav, Rakshas people are troubling us, destroy them.

Brahmins are descendants of horse-eating nomads (Arya) of Eurasia ... Swapan Kumar Biswas is a curious research scholar of social, cultural and religious seminal themes. His book Buddhism, the Religion of Mohenjodaro, Harrappa Cities is a product in fulfilment of his curiosity to find out the names and existence of 28 Buddhas as his uncle Prof. Dwijendra Lal Biswas had told him “There were 28 Buddhas.” So a curious, inquiring, searching and acquisitive mind of Biswas began the pursuit with the book: “The Early History of India” by Dr. Vincent Smith, almost twenty years back and ultimately solved the long-standing riddles of the “Former Buddhas” by researching the eight gathas of “Attavisati Parittwa” which contained the names of all the twenty eight Buddhas. The end result is this book of much years research. In his search for discovery of ancient India, Biswas has proved that Buddhism was the religion of Mohenjodaro-Harrappa cities. Buddhism was also called as Satyadharma. During this period, there existed the “former called as Satyadharma. During this period, there existed the “former buddhas” and the Mohenjodaro–Harrappa culture, civilisation, art, sculpture and architecture, script and language was well-developed. Economic and agricultural development, trade, commerce and animal husbandry were widely spread giving economic and social stability and rise to cultural development. The barbaric Aryan vandals destroyed the Mohenjodaro Harrappa culture during the pre-Vedic period and ushered in the Vedic culture during the Vedic period annihilating and assimilating the vestiges of the glorious ancient Mohenjodaro Harrappa-culture in this process. He proves that Brahmanism, which has been known as the Hinduism since the advent of the Muslims in India is a foreign religion like Christianity or Islam. In ancient India there was no religion called Hinduism. The word Hindu appeared in the Sanskrit literature only in the post Muslim period. The word Hindu has been the contribution of the Muslim rulers of India. It were the Muslim rulers of India who were helpful for bringing a sort of integration by calling non-Muslims as Hindus. The book also conclusively establishes that the tribes of India, whatever place they may belong to, be it in the north-Eastern region or in the Terrài region or in the Central India Tribals have always been following and maintaining theology, rituals, customs and spiritual philosophy common to each other but completely different from that of the Aryan Brahminism or Hinduism. Fundamental features are completely missing in them. They know almost nothing of Sanskrit Mantras, Vedas, Upanishads, the Brahmin priests Hindu and Brahmin of Hindu-ism gods like Indra, Brahma or Vishnu.

Quoting historical documents, edicts, archaeological evidence and religious, traditional and cultural practices, Swapan Kumar Biswas has proved that Buddhism was the predominant religion in pre-Vedic India. The book is divided into 12 chapters, dealing with Buddhism, its philosophy, the struggle between Brahmanism and Buddhism and the history of the rise and fall of Buddhism. In the first chapter ‘Discovery of India’, Vishwas contends that Buddhism was the religion of Mohenjodaro and Harappa – the cities which the Aryans overran. “They destroyed all evidence of their crime of obliterating a culture” (Page 5). The writer says that a comparatively progressive Buddhism did not surrender before Brahmanism easily but was crushed in the most cruel manner. He writes, “The basic tenets of Hinduism are anti-people, discriminatory and oppressive” (Page 13) whereas “Buddhist Dhamma is a liberal religion, propounding universal brotherhood” (Page 37). That is why, the invading Aryans destroyed the Buddhist Dhamma of the original inhabitants and thrust Hinduism upon them so that they could build a “permanent machinery” of exploitation and oppression.

The book’s preface talks about the 28 Buddhas and the evidence for them. The history of the 27 Buddhas who pre-dated Siddhartha Gautam has been destroyed in India, but it is safe in Sri Lanka. Dr Gunratna, a Buddhist monk, brought the information about 28 Buddhas from Sri Lanka to India. Vishwas links the Brahmanical ban on “crossing the seas” with the fear of “expansion of Buddhism” because the Brahmins knew that history of Buddhism was safe and available abroad. An entire chapter of the book is devoted to the revival of Buddhism in modern India and elaborates on the efforts made by Anagrik Dharmapal, Dr Ambedkar, Rahul Sankrityayan, etc in this direction.

Swapan Kumar Biswas in his book mentions that All historians of repute have opined that the Vedic-Aryans came from outside India. Most of the historians and scholars of authority have accepted this theory as a fact. Apart from the views of Dr. Suniti Kumar Chattopadhaya, the philologist, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India; Dr. D. D. Kosambi, Dr. A. L. Basham, the historians, Rabindra Nath Tagore, the Nobel Laureate poet; Fredric Engles, the co-thinker of Karl Marx, we may mention the verdicts of some of the distinguished persons in this regard. The learned Hindu Sanyasi, Swami Vivekananda had in several places mentioned that the Aryans came from the European territory. He held, “The first invaders of India, the Aryans, did not try to exterminate the population of India as the Christians have done when they went into a new land, but the endeavour was made to elevate persons of brutish habits” The ‘Shudra Swami’ was so much intoxicated with the concept of the Brahmanical supremacy that he did not hesitate to condemn his ancestors, the aboriginal Indians as the ‘persons of brutish habits.’ He did not note the passages of glorious aspects of the Assura kings (Rajas and Samrat) whom the brute Aryan invaders destroyed in the treacherous combats. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the first scholar President of India opined, “The Vedas, as we know them, belong to the age of Enlightenment following the arrival of the Aryans from other original home.” Ms. Romila Thapar writes, “Aryans are not Indians. They are foreigners. They have come from the North-Eastern region of Iran, around the Caspian Sea, for colonization. Anyway, it is clear that the Vedas are a collection of the thoughts of the Aryan colonizers. “This is now an established theory.” Madam Indira Gandhi (Prime Minister) also, as an Aryan representative disclosed the fact, “that she had no roots in India.” Still those who did not like this theory have miserably failed to prove the contrary, that the Aryans were natives of India. Yet, nobody has raised the basic question as to how a religion brought by the foreign intruders (Aryan Brahmins) could be the indigenous or native religion of a large country like India which possessed a very highly advanced civilization and cultural heritage even prior to the advent of the pastoral pre-civilized illiterate tribes called the Aryans in this land of natural bounty, sometimes during 1600–1500 B.C.? And the more noteworthy point is that this advanced stage of civilization and culture, the ruins of which we have found must have had its past phases of gradual growth and developments of at least for 1000 years.

But the popularly accepted factual position is that the Vedic religion, which is known as Brahmanism, has been the creation of the ‘First foreign intruders’, the Aryan Bhudevatas have never been given any serious consideration while discussing the issue as to which one was the religion of the soil. This was possible because the victor Aryans neither wrote nor allowed to write any history of this country and countrymen. They vanquished and vandalized the civilization and culture of ancient India and did not preserve the evidences. They on the contrary, appeared to have wiped out the evidences of their crime of destroying a civilization.

On this issue, what Pandit J. L. Nehru held is of a great importance for consideration and as a guiding factor to understand the mind of Indian historians. “Our writing of India’s history is perhaps resented more than anything else we have done” so writes an English man well acquainted with India and her history. It is difficult to say what Indians have resented most in the record of the British rule in India; the list is long and varied. But it is true that the British account of Indian history, more specially of what is called the British period, are bitterly resented. History is almost always written by the victors and conquerors to give their view points; or, at any rate, the victor’s version is given prominence and holds the field. Very probably all the early records we have of the Aryans in India, their epics and traditions, glorify the Aryans and are unfair to the people of the country whom they subdued. No individual can wholly rid himself of his racial outlook and cultural limitations, and when there is any conflict between races and countries even an attempt at impartiality, is considered a betrayal of one’s own people... The overpowering need of the moment is to justify one’s own action and condemn and blacken those of the enemies. Truth hides somewhere at the bottom of the deepest well and falsehood, naked and unashamed, reigns almost supreme.”11 This is a glaring example of frank and honest, may be desperate and carefree, attempt to disclose the action of intellectual dishonesty in the field of writing Indian history.

Europeans who wrote Indian history declared, from historical perspective that the ruling Brahmins (caste) were the Aryans of European origin. They originally belonged to the Nordic race. They entered India around 3500 years ago. According to them, when these pastoral Aryan tribe entered India, the land was inhabited by the peoples called, demons (Rakshasas, Assuras), slaves (Dasas), plunderers (Dashyus), barbaric dirty clans (Pishachas) etc. The people of the soil were condemned as barbaric and wild, dwarf and coward, black and ugly. It has been held by the authors and described in the Aryan Sanskrit literature and holy Shastras that the entire subcontinent was held completely by these savage races who lived in the blinding darkness of animal-life in the jungles and hill-tracks. According to them, the aborigines of India neither had any culture nor any religion, worth the appellation.

From the Aryan’s said to be ancient literature, it appears that some sort of ‘Totemism’ or ‘Animism’ might have been practiced by the native fools of flat nose, short stature and black pigment people that the Zoroa tribe of Andaman and Nicobar island practice even today. Scholars have tried to establish that the native Indians were worshippers of plants, leaves, trees, phallus and female genitals.

They also concluded and preached that it were the Aryan Brahmins who lit the light of culture, literature, theology and civilization in this dark subcontinent. Thus the mission of ‘White Man’s Burden’ actually started in the ancient times in India.

The Brahmins of this country readily accepted this line of approach. They already considered themselves as some kind of special species of Homo Sapiens group. They were the gods (Bhudevatas) on the earth and possessed unquestionable divine authority to look down upon other Indians as the beast of burden to serve them without any expectation. They treated this immense majority of the countrymen as naturally low, useless, slaves or the Shudras. They even treated them as the source of pollution, untouchables. Their superciliousness, superiority and arrogance knew no bounds. The new European rulers of India, who were superior to these Brahmins in every aspects of culture and civilization now added fuel to the fire of superiority complex of the Brahmins by propagating the doctrine of Indo-Aryan or Indo-European cultural and ethnic expansion over the territory of India.

Despite such theory, the Brahmins too were treated by the ruling Europeans as inferior, unworthy, base, semi-civilized and corrupt people as any other Indian (be he a touchable or an untouchable). However, the Brahmins shamelessly became happy to utilize the benefit of the ‘Indo-European’ doctrine against the people of the country. The Brahmins, therefore, continued to hold monopoly not only in literature but also in all other fields of privileges.

Buddhas Before Siddhartha Gautama

Today, India has been reduced to the land of largest number of illiterates of the world. But it was not so in the past. On the contrary, there are ample evidences that the world students vied with each other to get entry to in the Universities in India, at all times. India used to be the most educated, cultured and advanced country in the world. It took the shape of greater India. The country of the most ancient civilization and cultural heritage of the Assura race and monarchs, India maintained international commerce and cultural exchanges with the West and East both. Babylon, Sumer, Bybol, Sidon were visited by the Indian traders called Panis during 3000–2000 B.C. But the track of glorious history of the enlightened culture of Buddhism was lost in the midst of darkness of the culture of illiteracy of Vedic age.

The European bureaucrat-historians of succeeding period, with great difficulties and risk, discovered and collected various types of source-materials for reconstruction of the history of Indian culture and her people. In the course, some of the foreign scholars from different disciplines discovered obvious evidences that indicate the undisputed existence of the cult of Buddhism. The archaeological traces of some of the ‘Former Buddhas’ who preached Buddhism before Sakya Singha Gautama Buddha came to light. There are may references to the Buddhas of earlier age (not of Bodhisattwas) in the Jataka and other Buddhist Pali literature. But these references to the ‘Former Buddhas’ in different Jataka stories have generally been explained in a casual manner and ignored by the scholars as mere mythological mention and stories. These have not been taken seriously to be historical evidences. These were overlooked as not real. The Brahmanical writers have also tried to confuse these references to the ‘Former Buddhas’ as the stories of the Bodhisattwa, as the tales of the previous births of Gautama himself.

But this is nothing but an old attitude of suppressing the facts of history of the native people of this country. Even the entire Buddhist literature were made to be forgotten even by the literate people of this country. The British scholars discovered the ancient Indian language, Pali has been the aboriginal language of India. Nobody, be it foreign Aryas (learned Brahmins) who the autochthon Indians (illiterate Shudras) or the Muslim scholars in the pre-British period, was aware of the names of the languages called Prakrit or Pali, the language which Gautama Buddha used as the medium to preach his religion. Prakrit and Pali were the spoken languages of the common people, the masses of the country.

there are ample evidences that the world students vied with each other to get entry to in the Universities in India, at all times. India used to be the most educated, cultured and advanced country in the world. It took the shape of greater India. The country of the most ancient civilization and cultural heritage of the Assura race and monarchs, India maintained international commerce and cultural exchanges with the West and East both. Babylon, Sumer, Bybol, Sidon were visited by the Indian traders called Panis during 3000–2000 B.C. But the track of glorious history of the enlightened culture of Buddhism was lost in the midst of darkness of the culture of illiteracy of Vedic age.

The European bureaucrat-historians of succeeding period, with great difficulties and risk, discovered and collected various types of source-materials for reconstruction of the history of Indian culture and her people. In the course, some of the foreign scholars from different disciplines discovered obvious evidences that indicate the undisputed existence of the cult of Buddhism. The archaeological traces of some of the ‘Former Buddhas’ who preached Buddhism before Sakya Singha Gautama Buddha came to light. There are many references to the Buddhas of earlier age (not of Bodhisattwas) in the Jataka and other Buddhist Pali literature. But these references to the ‘Former Buddhas’ in different Jataka stories have generally been explained in a casual manner and ignored by the scholars as mere mythological mention and stories. These have not been taken seriously to be historical evidences. These were overlooked as not real. The Brahmanical writers have also tried to confuse these references to the ‘Former Buddhas’ as the stories of the Bodhisattwa, as the tales of the previous births of Gautama himself.

But this is nothing but an old attitude of suppressing the facts of history of the native people of this country. Even the entire Buddhist literature were made to be forgotten even by the literate people of this country. The British scholars discovered the ancient Indian language; Pali has been the aboriginal language of India. Nobody, be it foreign Aryas (learned Brahmins) who the autochthon Indians (illiterate Shudras) or the Muslim scholars in the pre-British period, was aware of the names of the languages called Prakrit or Pali, the language which Gautama Buddha used as the medium to preach his religion. Prakrit and Pali were the spoken languages of the common people, the masses of the country.

Besides, the early presence of the Pali scripts led us to the conclusion that, it was not Devanagari script in which Sanskrit is written, but it was the script which was used to write Pali language was the earliest available script in India. The earliest written texts in India, happens to be in the Asokan scripts (called Kharosthi and Brahmi). These were written in the 3rd century B.C. Initially, this script was considered to be the outcome of the impact of the Phoenician scripts of the cities of Sidon-Bybol situated on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean sea. It was concluded that the ancient Indian language was scribed with the scripts of foreign origin. We, Indians especially the ruling classes, do not hesitate to mortgage anything, everything to the foreign source. However, the discovery of Indian scripts in the Mohenjo-Daro-Harappa city-culture proved it beyond doubt, that the pre-Vedic Indians were highly literate, they had their own scripts, language and literature that was developed independently. At the same time, it has also been decisively established that the genesis of the scripts of the Asokan pillars and rock-edicts on which Pali language was written, rests with the scripts of Indus region for 4500-5000 years ago. This situation also place Pali language and Pali literature in a very ancient period.

Since the barbaric Aryans had no script of their own they could not jot down anything before a time span of around one thousand years elapsed in the new land. “From Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa (2500–1500 B.C.) to the Maurya period (about 300 B.C.) is a big jump; yet we have no vestiges of writings in between this long period. In the pre-Asokan and Asokan inscriptions of Mauryan period, we find a fully developed system of writing, in which the Aryan dialect, then current in North India, are found to be written.” That is why we find that the scripts used by the emperor Asoka the Maurya, an aboriginal Indian who held not the Aryan religion but the Buddhism, originated in India. The discovery of the Mohenjo-Daro writing has called for a revision of the view that India was indebted to the Semitic world for her scripts. Has been found that quite a number of symbols occurring in the Mohenjo-daro writings have resemblance to the letters of the Brahmi alphabets.”

Though no original copy of these sacred Buddhist literature has been found anywhere, translations and translations of translated works have been collected by the European scholars from Ceylon, Burma, Tibet, Japan, China etc. The foreigners rediscovered all these and retrieved the history of Gautama Buddha and Buddhism. Even at this stage, no efforts were spared to make Lord Gautama Buddha as the first of the preachers of Buddhism. Attempts were made to prove that Buddhism emerged out of Brahmanism as a reaction to the Brahmanical supremacy; it was the outcome of Kshatriya challenge to the Brahmin arrogance and cruelty against animal in the Hindu sacrificial Yajna.

Firstly, when the endeavours of the Brahmin scholars, to annihilate every bits of the vestige of Gautama’s and Asoka’s contributions to develop and spread of Buddhism was foiled by the protracted research work of the Europeans, the Brahmanical school quickly arranged to assimilate Gautama and to suppress the history of the former Buddhas and Buddhism by declaring Gautama Buddha as the first and the pioneer Buddha. Secondly, they made Gautama one of the Avatars of Vishnu, the major Hindu pantheon.

There have, however, been many references to the Buddhas who lived even before Siddhartha Gautama, in many places. But with a view to making Buddhism an offshoot of Hinduism, not an original faith and independent philosophy or not a path of religion of pre-Vedic India, the references to the “Former Buddha” available in Pali and Sanskrit literature have been ignored deliberately.

Conclusion: The True Origin and Destiny of Humanity in Light of Christ {#conclusion:-the-true-origin-and-destiny-of-humanity-in-light-of-christ}

Throughout this study, we have journeyed through centuries of history, language, and faith—examining how a single word, Aryan, became one of the most misunderstood and misused terms in human civilization. Scholars from Max Müller to Reich, from Boyce to Witzel, have wrestled with the meaning of this term, its origins, and its legacy. Yet beneath the layers of philology and archaeology lies a question far more profound than any debate about migration or ethnicity: What does it truly mean to be human? And beyond that, what is our ultimate purpose in the divine order of creation?

The Aryan question has never merely been about history—it has always been about identity. Ancient myths turned it into a tale of divine descent. Colonial powers used it to justify domination. Nationalists transformed it into a symbol of pride and purity. And modern thinkers have redefined it through science and genetics. But Scripture pierces through all these layers of confusion with clarity and grace, revealing that the true dignity and unity of humanity flow not from language or lineage, but from the image of God impressed upon every soul.

1. The Quest for Origins and the Problem of Pride

The story of the Aryans, as told by both ancient hymns and modern scholarship, reveals humanity’s enduring temptation to exalt itself. The Vedas celebrated kings like Yima (Jamshid) and Indra, who sought to establish order and power. The Avesta glorified Ahura Mazda and the chosen people of light. Centuries later, nationalist ideologues resurrected these myths to claim divine superiority for particular races and nations. Yet all these narratives share one tragic flaw: pride.

The Bible presents an entirely different vision of human worth and origin. Acts 17:26 affirms, “And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” This declaration demolishes the foundation of racial hierarchy and self-exaltation. Each person, regardless of race, nation, or culture, bears the same image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). Every people group descends from the same original pair—Adam and Eve—and shares the same corruption of sin through the Fall (Romans 5:12). Pride is the poison that stains all humanity, and it is pride that turned the noble Ārya—meaning “righteous” or “noble”—into a distorted idol of blood and soil.

In myth, Yima fell because he claimed the glory that belonged to God. In Scripture, Adam fell for the same reason—wanting to define good and evil apart from his Creator (Genesis 3:5). Both myths and histories, from the Tower of Babel to the ideologies of our age, repeat this rebellion: humanity seeking to be god without God. The true problem is not ignorance of our past but estrangement from our Maker.

2. The Tower of Babel and the Fragmentation of Nations

The migrations that scholars trace across the Eurasian steppes—what they call the “Aryan expansion”—are more than movements of tribes; they are symbols of mankind’s fragmentation. Genesis 11 tells us of a unified humanity, proud and ambitious, determined to build a tower that would reach the heavens. God’s response was to scatter and confuse them, not out of malice but mercy. The diversity of tongues, tribes, and nations was His way of restraining sin and ensuring the survival of humanity.

What archaeologists interpret as diffusion and conquest, Scripture interprets as judgment and preservation. The Indo-Iranians, who once shared a common cultural and linguistic heritage, became divided into the devas and asuras, each labeling the other as impious. This ancient fracture between the Indian and Iranian civilizations is a small echo of Babel’s greater division—a testimony to the human tendency to elevate tribal gods over the one true God.

The biblical worldview explains not only why these divisions exist, but why they cannot heal themselves. Human civilization, left to its own wisdom, perpetually builds new Babels—empires of ideology, race, or religion—that collapse under their own arrogance. The confusion of tongues was God’s judgment, but it was also His mercy, driving mankind to seek a unity not in self-glory but in divine grace.

3. Religion and the Shadow of Truth

Every civilization carries within it a memory of God’s truth, however distorted by time and sin. The Rigveda and the Avesta both preserve glimpses of moral order (ṛta) and cosmic justice (asha). Their hymns to creation, light, and purity echo fragments of the truth once known to all humanity before Babel. Paul explains this mystery in Romans 1:19–20: that God’s invisible attributes have been made plain in creation, yet people suppressed this truth and exchanged it for false gods. Thus, the Aryan pantheon, like the rest of world religion, became a mirror of humanity’s fallen search for transcendence.

Even in these shadows, we see grace. The longing for purity in Zoroastrian fire rituals, the reverence for order in Vedic sacrifice, and the yearning for immortality in mythic cycles of creation and destruction all testify to an inescapable truth: humanity remembers that something has gone terribly wrong. The conscience bears witness to a law beyond culture (Romans 2:14–15). But without the Word of God, these dim reflections lead only to confusion and idolatry. Human religion can sense that there is a Holy One, but only revelation reveals His name.

4. The Biblical Alternative: From Babel to Bethlehem

Into this fractured and striving world, God entered history. He did not speak through riddles or myths but through living revelation—His Word made flesh (John 1:14). In Jesus Christ, the eternal Logos became man, bridging the infinite gap between Creator and creature. Unlike Yima, who fell through pride, Christ humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant and obeying unto death, even death on a cross (Philippians 2:6–8). His humility reversed the rebellion of Babel and the arrogance of the ages.

At the cross, God shattered every wall of division. In the resurrection, He created a new humanity. And at Pentecost, the Spirit reversed Babel’s curse, enabling men of every tongue to proclaim one Gospel (Acts 2:6–11). In that moment, the unity humanity had sought through pride was restored through grace. The blood of Christ became the new covenant that unites not races, but souls—from east and west, north and south—into one people under one King. Revelation 5:9 declares that He ransomed “people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” The true Aryan—the truly noble humanity—is not defined by birth, but by rebirth through the Spirit of God.

5. The Fulfillment: From Eden to the New Earth

Ancient Aryan myths foresaw a world renewed by fire and flood, but without redemption. Their cycles ended as they began—in destruction. The Bible tells a greater story. History is not an endless wheel of karma; it is a line with purpose, pointing toward restoration. In Revelation 21, the risen Christ proclaims, “Behold, I am making all things new.” The New Heaven and New Earth are not the reset of creation—they are its resurrection. The curse of death is undone, and the nations walk in the light of the Lamb (Revelation 21:24). In that kingdom, diversity becomes harmony, not division. Every tribe, including the Indo-Iranian and every other people, will bring their unique glory into the New Jerusalem. Culture, language, and heritage will not be erased—they will be purified and perfected.

The Aryan imagination longed for immortality but could not attain it. The Indo-Iranian religions sensed cosmic order but could not uphold it. Christ fulfills both their longings and their failures. Where myth offered endless cycles, He offers resurrection. Where philosophy sought enlightenment, He offers union with the living God. Where sacrifice symbolized atonement, His blood provides it fully. The Gospel is not the denial of human history; it is its redemption.

6. The True Aryan and the True Homeland

If the term Ārya originally signified “noble,” then true nobility is found in the One who perfectly embodied righteousness. Jesus Christ is the true Ārya—holy, blameless, and undefiled. In Him, the distinctions of race and religion collapse, and the divisions of language and history are reconciled. Humanity’s restless search for homeland, from Airyana Vaeja to Āryāvarta, finds its final rest not in geography but in the heavenly city—the New Jerusalem—whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10).

Every theory of migration, every reconstruction of ancient lineage, and every linguistic connection between nations is but an echo of a deeper truth: that humanity longs for origin, meaning, and destiny. That longing is fulfilled in the crucified and risen Christ. Through Him, we find our true identity as children of God, our true citizenship in heaven (Philippians 3:20), and our true future in the New Creation. In Him, nobility is no longer inherited; it is imparted by grace.

The ancient Aryans looked to fire as the symbol of purity and divine presence. The Bible tells us that our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29)—not to destroy, but to refine. In the New Heaven and New Earth, the fire of judgment will become the fire of glory, and the nations will shine like gold tested in the furnace of God’s love. There, every echo of human myth will find its resolution in divine truth, and every search for righteousness will end at the feet of the Lamb.

“For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:36)

References {#references}

Anklesaria, Bahram. Zand-Āvesta: Pahlavi Texts of the Bundahishn. Bombay: 1956.

Anthony, David W. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Basham, Arthur Llewellyn. The Wonder That Was India. London: Macmillan, 1967.

Bedekar, V. M. “The Concept of Meru in Hindu Mythology.” Journal of the Oriental Institute 39, nos. 3–4 (1990): 183–194.

Boyce, Mary. A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. 1: The Early Period. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

———. Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984.

———. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge, 2001.

Brown, W. Norman. India and Indology: Selected Articles. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987.

Burrow, Thomas. The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber and Faber, 1973.

Buswell, Robert E., Jr., and Donald S. Lopez Jr. The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014.

Cardona, George. Panini: A Survey of Research. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1997.

Childe, V. Gordon. The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1926.

Dandekar, R. N. Vedic Mythological Tracts. Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1969.

———. Vedic Mythological Tracts. Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1979.

———. “The Vṛtrahā in the Ṛgveda.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 82, no. 1 (1962): 19–25.

Daryaee, Touraj. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Davidson, Olga M. Poet and Hero in the Persian Book of Kings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000.

Davis, Dick. Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings. London: Penguin Classics, 2006.

Dimmitt, Cornelia. Classical Hindu Mythology: A Reader in the Sanskrit Puranas. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978.

Doniger, Wendy. Splitting the Difference: Gender and Myth in Ancient Greece and India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

———. The Hindus: An Alternative History. New York: Penguin Press, 2010.

Eliade, Mircea. A History of Religious Ideas. Vol. 1: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Erdosy, George, ed. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.

Flood, Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Foltz, Richard. Religions of Iran: From Prehistory to the Present. London: I.B. Tauris, 2013.

———. Religions of the Silk Road: Premodern Patterns of Globalization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Frye, Richard N. The History of Ancient Iran. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1984.

Gershevitch, Ilya. The Avestan Hymn to Mithra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964.

Gnoli, Gherardo. The Idea of Iran: An Essay on Its Origin. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1989.

Gonda, Jan. Viṣṇuism and Śivaism: A Comparison. London: The Athlone Press, 1971.

Heesterman, Jan C. “The Veda and Indian Society.” In India and the Ancient World, edited by M. S. Nagaraja Rao, 91–105. Delhi: South Asia Books, 1989.

Herodotus. Histories. Various translations.

Hiltebeitel, Alf. The Cult of Draupadi: Mythologies from Gingee to Kurukshetra. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Hinnells, John R. The Zoroastrian Diaspora: Religion and Exile from Ancient Persia to Modern America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Jamison, Stephanie W., and Joel P. Brereton, trans. The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Kinsley, David R. Hindu Goddesses: Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.

Kuiper, F. B. J. Varuṇa and Vidūṣaka: On the Origin of the Sanskrit Drama. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1979.

Kulke, Hermann, and Dietmar Rothermund. A History of India. 4th ed. London: Routledge, 2004.

Lal, B. B. The Saraswati Flows On: The Continuity of Indian Culture. New Delhi: Aryan Books International, 2002.

Lazaridis, Iosif, et al. “Genomic Insights into the Origin of Farming in the Ancient Near East.” Nature 536, no. 7617 (2016): 419–424.

Lincoln, Bruce. Priests, Warriors, and Cattle: A Study in the Ecology of Religions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.

———. Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Mallory, James P. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson, 1989.

Mallory, James P., and D. Q. Adams, eds. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997.

Masson, V. M. The Bronze Age in Central Asia: Recent Soviet Discoveries. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992.

Mayrhofer, Manfred. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1986.

McDermott, Rachel Fell. Singing to the Goddess: Visions of a Hindu Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Müller, F. Max. Lectures on the Science of Language. 7th ed., Vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1875.

Narten, Johanna. Der Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1986.

O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. Hindu Myths: A Sourcebook Translated from the Sanskrit. London: Penguin Books, 1975.

Parpola, Asko. The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

———. The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and Their Migrations to the Greater Indus Valley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Paul, George Anthony. “Untitled Document.” Google Docs. (User manuscript, unpublished.)

Reich, David. Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. New York: Pantheon, 2018.

Renfrew, Colin. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape, 1987.

Samuel, Geoffrey. The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Shaki, Mansour. “Bundahišn.” In Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. IV, Fasc. 5, 547–551. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2005.

———. “Zoroastrianism.” In A New Dictionary of Religions, edited by John R. Hinnells, 110–117. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.

Strabo. Geographica. Various translations.

Thapar, Romila. Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

van Driem, George. Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Warner, Arthur G., and Edmond Warner Atkinson, trans. The Shahnameh of Ferdowsi. Vols. 1–9. London: Kegan Paul, 2001.

Wells, Spencer. Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 2007.

West, E. W. Pahlavi Texts, Part I: The Bundahishn, Bahman Yasht, and Shayast la-Shayast. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880.

Witzel, Michael. “Rgvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Politics.” In The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, edited by George Erdosy, 307–359. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.

———. “Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Rigvedic, Middle and Late Vedic).” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 5, no. 1 (1999): 1–102.

———. “Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts.” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7, no. 3 (2001): 1–115.

———. “The Home of the Aryans.” In The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, edited by George Erdosy, 85–120. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.

———. “The Origins of the Vedic People.” In Georg Feuerstein and Subhash Kak, eds., In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 2012.

Yarshater, Ehsan, ed. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3(1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

---

References A to Z

Anklesaria, Bahram. Zand-Āvesta: Pahlavi Texts of the Bundahishn. Bombay, 1956.

Anthony, David W. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Basham, Arthur Llewellyn. The Wonder That Was India. London: Macmillan, 1967.

Bedekar, V. M. “The Concept of Meru in Hindu Mythology.” Journal of the Oriental Institute 39, nos. 3–4 (1990): 183–194.

Boyce, Mary. A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. 1: The Early Period. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
———. Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984.
———. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge, 2001.

Brown, W. Norman. India and Indology: Selected Articles. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987.

Burrow, Thomas. The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber and Faber, 1973.

Buswell, Robert E., Jr., and Donald S. Lopez Jr. The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014.

Cardona, George. Panini: A Survey of Research. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1997.

Childe, V. Gordon. The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1926.

Dandekar, R. N. Vedic Mythological Tracts. Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1969.
———. Vedic Mythological Tracts. Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1979.
———. “The Vṛtrahā in the Ṛgveda.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 82, no. 1 (1962): 19–25.

Daryaee, Touraj. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Davidson, Olga M. Poet and Hero in the Persian Book of Kings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000.

Davis, Dick. Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings. London: Penguin Classics, 2006.

Dimmitt, Cornelia. Classical Hindu Mythology: A Reader in the Sanskrit Puranas. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978.

Doniger, Wendy. Hindu Myths: A Sourcebook Translated from the Sanskrit. London: Penguin Books, 1975.
———. Splitting the Difference: Gender and Myth in Ancient Greece and India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
———. The Hindus: An Alternative History. New York: Penguin Press, 2010.

Eliade, Mircea. A History of Religious Ideas. Vol. 1: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Erdosy, George, ed. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.

Flood, Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Foltz, Richard. Religions of Iran: From Prehistory to the Present. London: I. B. Tauris, 2013.
———. Religions of the Silk Road: Premodern Patterns of Globalization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Frye, Richard N. The History of Ancient Iran. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1984.

Gershevitch, Ilya. The Avestan Hymn to Mithra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964.

Gnoli, Gherardo. The Idea of Iran: An Essay on Its Origin. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1989.

Gonda, Jan. Viṣṇuism and Śivaism: A Comparison. London: The Athlone Press, 1971.

Heesterman, Jan C. “The Veda and Indian Society.” In India and the Ancient World, edited by M. S. Nagaraja Rao, 91–105. Delhi: South Asia Books, 1989.

Herodotus. Histories. Various translations.

Hiltebeitel, Alf. The Cult of Draupadi: Mythologies from Gingee to Kurukshetra. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Hinnells, John R. The Zoroastrian Diaspora: Religion and Exile from Ancient Persia to Modern America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Jamison, Stephanie W., and Joel P. Brereton, trans. The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Kinsley, David R. Hindu Goddesses: Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.

Kuiper, F. B. J. Varuṇa and Vidūṣaka: On the Origin of the Sanskrit Drama. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1979.

Kulke, Hermann, and Dietmar Rothermund. A History of India. 4th ed. London: Routledge, 2004.

Lal, B. B. The Saraswati Flows On: The Continuity of Indian Culture. New Delhi: Aryan Books International, 2002.

Lazaridis, Iosif, et al. “Genomic Insights into the Origin of Farming in the Ancient Near East.” Nature 536, no. 7617 (2016): 419–424.

Lincoln, Bruce. Priests, Warriors, and Cattle: A Study in the Ecology of Religions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
———. Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Mallory, James P. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson, 1989.
Mallory, James P., and D. Q. Adams, eds. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997.

Masson, V. M. The Bronze Age in Central Asia: Recent Soviet Discoveries. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992.

Mayrhofer, Manfred. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1986.

McDermott, Rachel Fell. Singing to the Goddess: Visions of a Hindu Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Müller, F. Max. Lectures on the Science of Language. 7th ed. Vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1875.

Narten, Johanna. Der Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1986.

O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. Hindu Myths: A Sourcebook Translated from the Sanskrit. London: Penguin Books, 1975.

Parpola, Asko. The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
———. The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and Their Migrations to the Greater Indus Valley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Paul, George Anthony. “Untitled Document.” Google Docs (manuscript, unpublished).

Reich, David. Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. New York: Pantheon, 2018.

Renfrew, Colin. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape, 1987.

Samuel, Geoffrey. The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Shaki, Mansour. “Zoroastrianism.” In A New Dictionary of Religions, edited by John R. Hinnells, 110–117. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
———. “Bundahišn.” In Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. IV, Fasc. 5, 547–551. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2005.

Strabo. Geographica. Various translations.

Thapar, Romila. Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

van Driem, George. Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Warner, Arthur G., and Edmond Warner Atkinson, trans. The Shahnameh of Ferdowsi. Vols. 1–9. London: Kegan Paul, 2001.

Wells, Spencer. Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 2007.

West, E. W. Pahlavi Texts, Part I: The Bundahishn, Bahman Yasht, and Shayast la-Shayast. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880.

Witzel, Michael. “Rgvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Politics.” In The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, edited by George Erdosy, 307–359. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.
———. “Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Rigvedic, Middle and Late Vedic).” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 5, no. 1 (1999): 1–102.
———. “Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts.” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7, no. 3 (2001): 1–115.
———. “The Home of the Aryans.” In The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, edited by George Erdosy, 85–120. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.
———. “The Origins of the Vedic People.” In Georg Feuerstein and Subhash Kak, eds., In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 2012.

Yarshater, Ehsan, ed. The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 3(1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

---

David W. Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (2007) stands as a seminal text in this domain. Anthony’s extensive research meticulously explores the profound impact of Bronze Age nomadic groups originating from the Eurasian steppes on the trajectory of global history. His work is particularly instrumental in elucidating the dispersal of Indo-European languages, linking technological innovations like the horse and wheel to vast human movements. This book is a cornerstone for comprehending the "Aryan migration" or "Indo-Aryan migration" theory, offering a robust archaeological and linguistic foundation that traces the cultural and genetic lineage of these groups. Anthony's synthesis of archaeological data, linguistic reconstruction, and material culture provides a compelling narrative of how these steppe pastoralists influenced not only language but also social structures and technologies across vast territories.

Complementing Anthony's work is J. P. Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth (1989), another foundational volume that undertakes a meticulous examination of the linguistic, archaeological, and mythological evidence pertinent to the origins and subsequent spread of Indo-European peoples. Mallory's scholarship is lauded for its balanced and critical assessment of various competing theories, including the influential steppe hypothesis. He carefully navigates the complexities of correlating linguistic families with archaeological cultures, offering a nuanced perspective on the challenges and successes of these interdisciplinary endeavors. His comprehensive approach helps to contextualize the Indo-European question within a broader framework of cultural evolution and interaction.

Offering a distinct, albeit critically debated, alternative perspective is Colin Renfrew's Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (1987). Renfrew provocatively proposes an Anatolian origin for Indo-European languages, positing a strong correlation with the spread of early agriculture from the Near East. While more recent genetic studies and refined linguistic analyses have largely favored the steppe hypothesis, Renfrew's work remains an undeniably important contribution to the ongoing scholarly debate. It spurred considerable discussion and forced researchers to re-evaluate established paradigms, contributing to the rigorous academic discourse surrounding Indo-European origins.

For a deeper dive into the specific context of the Indian subcontinent, several works are particularly illuminating. B. B. Lal's The Sarasvatī Flows On: The Continuity of Indian Culture (2002) is a pivotal work that investigates archaeological evidence linked to the ancient Sarasvati River. Lal's research often argues for a profound continuity of Indian culture, a perspective frequently invoked to support the "Out of India" theory, which posits indigenous origins for Indo-Aryan speakers. His work emphasizes the deep historical roots of Indian civilization and challenges narratives of external imposition.

Romila Thapar's Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300 (2002) and her earlier A History of India provide expansive and authoritative historical overviews of ancient India. These works are essential for establishing the broad historical backdrop against which various cultural, political, and social developments unfolded. Thapar's scholarship is characterized by its meticulous attention to textual sources, archaeological findings, and socio-economic analyses, offering a comprehensive narrative of India's ancient past.

More specifically addressing the ancestral lineage of modern Indians through the lens of genetic and archaeological evidence is T. Joseph's Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and Where We Came From (2018). Joseph's accessible yet rigorously researched book synthesizes complex scientific findings to construct a compelling narrative about the diverse genetic heritage of contemporary Indian populations, tracing their migratory paths and interactions over millennia.

Further archaeological insights are provided by J. M. Kenoyer's Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Kenoyer's extensive work is a fundamental resource for understanding the sophisticated urban planning, societal structures, and material culture of the Harappan civilization, offering crucial insights into one of the world's earliest great urban cultures. Similarly, V. Sarianidi's Margiana and Protozoroastrism sheds critical light on the Bronze Age cultures of Central Asia, particularly the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC), which is often considered a significant cultural intermediary and point of interaction for early Indo-Iranian groups.Linguistic and Textual Analysis: Deciphering Ancient Tongues and Sacred Texts

Linguistic studies form an indispensable pillar of the Indo-Aryan debate, providing direct evidence of historical language relationships and evolutions.

M. Witzel's The Origins of the 'Aryan' Migration Theory (2012) and his work The Origins of the Young Avestan and Rgvedic Indo-Aryan Communities offer detailed and rigorous linguistic analyses of the Avesta and the Rigveda. These ancient texts are the oldest literary monuments of Indo-Iranian culture, and Witzel's scholarship provides invaluable insights into their chronology, geographical context, and the linguistic shifts that occurred over time. His work is crucial for understanding the internal linguistic evidence that supports migration hypotheses.

Complementing Witzel's contributions, H.-P. Schmidt's The Avesta and the Rigveda: The Oldest Literary Monuments of Indo-Iranian Culture further enriches this specialized field by providing comparative analyses and historical linguistic perspectives on these foundational texts. N. Sims-Williams' Indo-Iranian Languages offers a broader general overview of this significant linguistic family, mapping its branches and their historical development. For a deeper understanding of the sophisticated grammatical traditions of ancient India, G. Cardona's A Panini-Vyakarana Paricaya would be an essential reference, focusing on the works of Panini, one of the greatest grammarians in history.Genetic Studies and Population History: Tracing Human Migrations Through DNA

The rapid advancements in genetic research have revolutionized our understanding of human migration and population history, providing powerful new tools to reconstruct ancestral movements.

The pioneering works of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, including Genes, Peoples, and Languages (2000) and his collaboration with Menozzi and Piazza in The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994), laid the foundational groundwork for using genetic data to map and trace human migrations across continents. These seminal volumes demonstrated how genetic markers could serve as powerful historical records.

Building upon this foundation, more recent and highly influential genetic studies have provided unprecedented detail. David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (2018) synthesizes the latest groundbreaking findings from ancient DNA research, including highly relevant discoveries concerning the population history of the Indian subcontinent. Reich's work, often at the forefront of this field, integrates archaeological and linguistic evidence with genetic data to paint a comprehensive picture of human prehistory.

Several specific research papers further illuminate genetic patterns critical to understanding Indian population history. Reich et al.'s "Reconstructing Indian population history" (2009) is a landmark study that employed advanced genetic techniques to reconstruct the complex demographic history of Indian populations, successfully identifying and characterizing ancestral population groups that contributed to the present-day genetic landscape of India.

Poznik et al.'s "Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences" (2016) offers profound insights into male demographic history on a global scale. This study, by analyzing a vast dataset of Y-chromosome sequences, provides crucial data relevant to the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, which is frequently associated with Indo-European expansions into various regions, including parts of India. Underhill et al.'s "Separating the post-glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a" (2010) specifically focuses on the R1a haplogroup, meticulously tracing its origins, subsequent dispersal patterns, and substructures across European and Asian populations.

A more recent genetic perspective on population movements within India is provided by Richards et al.'s "A genetic chronology for the Indian subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals" (2017). This study utilizes refined genetic analyses to highlight significant sex-biased migration patterns, suggesting that certain migrations involved a disproportionate number of males or females, which has important implications for understanding social structures and cultural interactions. Popularizing this complex genetic research and its profound implications for human origins and migrations are Spencer Wells' The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (2002) and his later work Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project (2007), which brought these scientific discoveries to a wider audience.Other Notable Works and References: Broadening the Historical and Cultural Lens

The comprehensive list also includes other significant works that, while perhaps not directly categorized under the above headings, offer essential historical context, alternative interpretations, and foundational knowledge.

A. L. Basham's The Wonder That Was India is a classic and highly revered overview of ancient Indian civilization, providing a rich tapestry of its cultural, religious, and philosophical achievements. Its enduring popularity stems from its comprehensive nature and accessible writing style.

S. K. Biswas's Buddhism, the Religion of Mohenjodaro, Harrappa Cities presents an intriguing, albeit debated, interpretation of religious practices within the Indus Valley Civilization, suggesting an early presence or influence of Buddhist thought.

F. Engels's The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State offers a historical materialist perspective on the evolution of socio-economic structures in ancient societies, which can be a valuable lens for analyzing power dynamics, social stratification, and property relations in the context of early civilizations and migrations.

A. J. F. Griffiths et al.'s An Introduction to Genetic Analysis serves as a standard and authoritative textbook for understanding fundamental genetic principles and methodologies, crucial for anyone delving into the genetic studies cited.

R. Kochhar's The Aryan Chromosome and The Vedic People offer his specific and often provocative interpretations of the Aryan issue, contributing another voice to the complex and ongoing scholarly dialogue surrounding the origins and identity of the Vedic people.

About the Author: Naveen Kumar Vadde {#about-the-author:-naveen-kumar-vadde}

Naveen Kumar Vadde is first and foremost a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, called to proclaim God’s Word and expose falsehood for His glory alone. Born and raised in India, he carries a deep burden to see Christ exalted, Scripture defended, and people set free through the power of the gospel. Professionally, he serves as a Facility Management Professional, working with integrity “as unto the Lord” (Colossians 3:23). In ministry, Naveen is a Christian apologist and member of the Sakshi Apologetics Network, dedicated to equipping believers and engaging skeptics with biblical clarity and conviction. His earlier work, Vedas: Eternal or Made-Up, examines the origin and reliability of the Vedas in light of God’s Word, calling readers to the living truth of Scripture. Above all, Naveen’s heart beats for the Great Commission — to see souls saved, believers strengthened, and Christ exalted in every sphere of life.

About the Author: George Anthony Paul {#about-the-author:-george-anthony-paul}

George Anthony Paul is a sinner saved by grace, called to proclaim Jesus Christ and contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). A founder of the Sakshi Apologetics Network, George seeks to glorify God by defending the gospel and pointing people to the only source of truth and salvation — the Lord Jesus Christ. Professionally, he is a management consultant with over two decades of experience in Compliance, Risk Management, and Project Management, striving to serve faithfully “as unto the Lord” (Colossians 3:23). In ministry, George is a teacher and author known for clear, biblical reasoning rooted in a presuppositional, Christ-centered worldview. He has engaged in dialogue with people of diverse faiths and worldviews, demonstrating that apart from Christ, all knowledge collapses into contradiction. His writings and teaching aim to show that every question finds its answer in the crucified and risen Lord. His passion is to see the church strengthened in truth, the lost drawn to repentance, and all glory given to the Triune God who alone is worthy.

Books By Naveen Kumar Vadde {#books-by-naveen-kumar-vadde}

Vedas: Eternal or Made-up

Is Sanskrit Mother of All Languages? The Nationalist Lie

Christ and Caste: A Biblical Answer to India’s Struggle for Justice and Dignity

Caste in India: British Creation or Brahmin Tradition?

Books by George Anthony Paul {#books-by-george-anthony-paul}

Unshaken: Biblical Answers to Skeptics Questions Genesis

Blind Men and the Elephant : A Biblical Compass to Indian Philosophy

Atheism: A Comedy of Errors

Creation Myths and The Bible: Did we get it all wrong?

The Logos of Logic: A Christian's Guide to Clear and Faithful Thinking

What Is Reality?: Cracking the Blueprint of Reality with the Bible

The Qur’an’s Failed Claim to Clarity: Who’s Telling the Story—Qur’an or Bible?

Christian Epistemology: Without God, We Know Nothing

Vedas: Eternal or Made-up

Is Sanskrit Mother of All Languages? : The Nationalist Lie

Christ and Caste: A Biblical Answer to India’s Struggle for Justice and Dignity

Sources for only study:

Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja, in the Avesta. Aryan lands and Zoroastrianism.

Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja, Location. Aryans and Zoroastrianism.

Parsa, Persia. Page 3. Pre- Achaemenian History, Parsua. c 1000-700 BCE.

Avesta Texts- Zoroastrian Scriptures

AVESTA: VENDIDAD (English): Fargard 2: Yima (Jamshed) and the deluge.

Ferdowsi Shahnameh Introduction

Shahnameh Ferdowsi Page 3

Zoroaster / Zarathushtra Zarathustra. Zoroastrianism Founder

Shahnameh Ferdowsi Page 30

Balkh, Bakhdhi, Bakhtrish, Bactria, Afghanistan Region & Zoroastrianism

Uzbekistan Region. Turan / Tuirya, Sugd, Sogd, Sogdiana, Sogdania & Zoroastrianism

Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja, in the Avesta. Aryan lands and Zoroastrianism.

Greater Bundahishn [text]

The Bundahishn ("Creation"), or Knowledge from the Zand

Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja, Location. Aryans and Zoroastrianism.

Pre-Zoroastrian Aryan Religions & Religious Wars. Page 2

The Bundahishn ("Creation"), or Knowledge from the Zand

Parsa, Persia. Page 3. Pre- Achaemenian History, Parsua. c 1000-700 BCE.

Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja, in the Avesta. Aryan lands and Zoroastrianism.

Page 2: Tajikistan Region. Sugd, Sogd, Sogdiana, Sogdania & Zoroastrianism

https://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/tajikistan/page3.htm

Sad Dar, chapters 0-10

Dadestan-i Denig ('Religious Decisions'): Chapters 1-41

Upanayana - Wikipedia

Navjote, Sudreh Pooshi, Zoroastrian Initiation Ceremony

Pre-Zoroastrian Aryan Religions & Religious Wars. Page 1

Zoroastrianism Overview. Zoroastrian, Zoroaster, Zarathushtra, Zarathustra, Mazdayasni, Mazdayasna

Avesta Texts- Zoroastrian Scriptures

Zoroaster / Zarathushtra Zarathustra. Zoroastrianism Founder

Pre-Zoroastrian Aryan Religions & Religious Wars. Page 1

Pre-Zoroastrian Aryan Religions & Religious Wars. Page 1

Legendary Aryan Kings. Pishdadian and Kayanian

The Bundahishn ("Creation"), or Knowledge from the Zand: chapters 18-23

The Bundahishn ("Creation"), or Knowledge from the Zand: chapters 29-32

AVESTA: KHORDA AVESTA (English): Frawardin Yasht (Hymn to the Guardian Angels)

Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja, in the Avesta. Aryan lands and Zoroastrianism.

Ferdowsi Shahnameh Introduction

Shahnameh Ferdowsi Page 30

AVESTA: KHORDA AVESTA (English): Frawardin Yasht (Hymn to the Guardian Angels)

Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja, in the Avesta. Aryan lands and Zoroastrianism.

Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja, in the Avesta. Aryan lands and Zoroastrianism.

Avesta Texts- Zoroastrian Scriptures

Pre-Zoroastrian Aryan Religions & Religious Wars. Page 1

Aryans and Zoroastrianism

http://archive.org/stream/urgeschichtedera00brunuoft#page/n9/mode/2up

Aryan Prehistory

Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja, in the Avesta. Aryan lands and Zoroastrianism.

Suppiluliuma (Hittite) -Shattiwaza (Mitanni) Treaty

mitanniaryanpantheons.pdf

The Horse, the Wheel, and Language | Princeton University Press

P. N. Oak - Wikipedia

Video: an animated map shows how Sanskrit may have come to India

http://clubweb.interbaun.com/~mward/gmc/24b_ie_langs.gif

Proto-Indo-Iranian language - Wikipedia

Review: [Untitled] on JSTOR

Andronovo culture - Wikipedia

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8488.html

https://scroll.in/article/721012/the-curious-case-of-dressing-up-an-8th-century-arab-as-the-true-founder-of-pakistan

Evolutionary biology can't prove any theory about how Sanskrit came to India: Koenraad Elst

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20180910-rakhigarhi-dna-study-findings-indus-valley-civilisation-1327247-2018-08-31

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the-big-story/story/20170807-vedic-aryan-race-genetics-dna-europe-indians-europe-caspian-1026540-2017-07-28#close-overlay

http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/dravidian-proof-of-the-indus-script/article10310982.ece#vuukle_div

https://scroll.in/article/732899/video-an-animated-map-shows-how-sanskrit-may-have-come-to-india

https://scroll.in/article/882497/do-rakhigarhi-dna-findings-debunk-the-aryan-invasion-theory-or-give-it-more-credence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration_to_Assam