Indus Valley Civilization

[Spirit_Warrior]

I find it prima-facie implausible that the Indo-European language family originated in India given the distribution. The language moved all the way to England and iceland and could not reach South India?? Migration or diffusion must be involved, but may have occured before Indus Valley came up. Maybe people really liked the language, like they like iphone today. Who knows?
http://www.worldgeodatasets.com/files/5613/1766/6886/Huffman-IndoEuropean_Langs-wlms.pdf

See I have no problem with this idea, it is possible that fairer skinned people(ANI) migrated in prehistoric times to join the darker skinned people(ASI) Although, this is all just speculation.

To answer your point why didn't Sanskrit travel as far as South India. There is a reason for this, because South India was covered by a mass of trees, that needed to cleared away, which needed iron tools, hence we do not see settlements arise in South India until the iron age. The drying up of the Saraswati, and we know this from archeaological evidence, forced the Indians to abandon their settlements and migrate. I cited earlier, it even says in the Rig Veda "Oh Saraswati, if you were to spurn us, we would migrate to distant lands" Is England and Iceland distant enough? In fact this is exactly when we find both Westwards and Eastwards settlements appearing in the Gangatic plains and IE speaking tribes appearing in Western Europe as well Indo-Aryan kingdoms in Mespotamia.

I think you also need to consider the idea of conquest, it says in the Mahabharata that the Mleccha kingdoms were conquered. This may also explain how Indian language, religion and culture spread. One of the obvious indications of this the Lithuanian people name their rivers exactly after the rivers of India re Ganga, Yamuna, Narmada, Saraswati. They also name their clans Purus, Yadavs etc The fact that even today, many Lithuanians believe they migrated from India, strongly suggests that they are one of the tribes that left from India when the Saraswati river dried up and tried to recreate a new India outside of India.

Another point regarding your point of a prehistoric migration. We actually have very clear MtDNA evidence that 40,000 years ago the Indians left and colonised Europe. Therefore, it is entirely possible, that the proliferation of the IE family happend much further in prehistory.

As I have asked repeatedly how the hell do you get dates by just analysing a list of words? How can you say x language emerged 3000BCE, y language 2000BCE? I argue there is a subconscious bias in the Western mind to only look at history of civilisation as only 6000 years due to the biblical bias. The biggest argument early Indologists had against India had nothing to do with science, it had to do with the fact that India recorded a history way beyond the usual 6000 years. It was seen as a direct threat to European and Christian civilisation;
This is what motivated early Indological research to shortern Indian history.

In any case my point is this AMT cannot be accepted as the null hypothesis, because it was never established in the first place. If suppose the colonial invasion never happened, do you seriously think Indian people would wholeheartedy throw away their 5000 years of recorded history. No of course not. They were forced to accept it, because they had no choice.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Sorry, but do you believe that modern languages are derived from Vedic Sanskrit? That is preposterous. The Prakrits were not derived from Sanskrit, which became a liturgical language. In any case, there is overwhelming evidence of Indo-European languages that were contemporary with Vedic Sanskrit. Where did you come up with this nonsense?

You just lost me. I never was talking of modern languages. I said to you how do you know as 100% fact that the IE languages do not descend from Sanskrit as the original mother language or how you can be certain PIE is 100% as it was spoken and PIE itself did not descend from India. I am asking you, because I have been told you have a Phd in Linguistics and work as a computational linguist for Boeing. Hence, I am really disappointed you cannot tell me the method you arrive at these conclusions. I am a reasonable person, if you can convince me by going from premise to conclusion and show that your conclusion follows from it, I will believe you. Until then, as I said before, "If you can't prove it, it didn't happen" Also, can you correct or add to what I did earlier by showing how words are reconstructed in PIE. Like in the Horse example, why can't the first sound be an 'a' why does it have to be 'e' If Hittie is indeed the oldest IE language, then even Hittie begins with an 'a' sound.

Why does PIE sound like a language which has basically been constructed by adding together all the sounds from every IE language to create gibberish?

 

[sayak83]

See I have no problem with this idea, it is possible that fairer skinned people(ANI) migrated in prehistoric times to join the darker skinned people(ASI) Although, this is all just speculation.

To answer your point why didn't Sanskrit travel as far as South India. There is a reason for this, because South India was covered by a mass of trees, that needed to cleared away, which needed iron tools, hence we do not see settlements arise in South India until the iron age. The drying up of the Saraswati, and we know this from archeaological evidence, forced the Indians to abandon their settlements and migrate. I cited earlier, it even says in the Rig Veda "Oh Saraswati, if you were to spurn us, we would migrate to distant lands" Is England and Iceland distant enough? In fact this is exactly when we find both Westwards and Eastwards settlements appearing in the Gangatic plains and IE speaking tribes appearing in Western Europe as well Indo-Aryan kingdoms in Mespotamia.

I think you also need to consider the idea of conquest, it says in the Mahabharata that the Mleccha kingdoms were conquered. This may also explain how Indian language, religion and culture spread. One of the obvious indications of this the Lithuanian people name their rivers exactly after the rivers of India re Ganga, Yamuna, Narmada, Saraswati. They also name their clans Purus, Yadavs etc The fact that even today, many Lithuanians believe they migrated from India, strongly suggests that they are one of the tribes that left from India when the Saraswati river dried up and tried to recreate a new India outside of India.

Another point regarding your point of a prehistoric migration. We actually have very clear MtDNA evidence that 40,000 years ago the Indians left and colonised Europe. Therefore, it is entirely possible, that the proliferation of the IE family happend much further in prehistory.

As I have asked repeatedly how the hell do you get dates by just analysing a list of words? How can you say x language emerged 3000BCE, y language 2000BCE? I argue there is a subconscious bias in the Western mind to only look at history of civilisation as only 6000 years due to the biblical bias. The biggest argument early Indologists had against India had nothing to do with science, it had to do with the fact that India recorded a history way beyond the usual 6000 years. It was seen as a direct threat to European and Christian civilisation;
This is what motivated early Indological research to shortern Indian history.

In any case my point is this AMT cannot be accepted as the null hypothesis, because it was never established in the first place. If suppose the colonial invasion never happened, do you seriously think Indian people would wholeheartedy throw away their 5000 years of recorded history. No of course not. They were forced to accept it, because they had no choice.

You need to link the primary sources of your information. I cannot comment on things without doing research. Linking helps. Thanks.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You need to link the primary sources of your information. I cannot comment on things without doing research. Linking helps. Thanks.

Tell me what you need references on though, there are several points in there.

 

[sayak83]

Tell me what you need references on though, there are several points in there.

Precisely.
Lets focus on a specific point and go through pro-s and con-s systematically.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Precisely.
Lets focus on a specific point and go through pro-s and con-s systematically.

Okay, regarding genetics then, you can look at this article: Genetics and the Aryan Debate

 

[sayak83]

Okay, regarding genetics then, you can look at this article: Genetics and the Aryan Debate

Cool and you can look at the one below
Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

Genomic reconstruction of the history of extant populations of India reveals five distinct ancestral components and a complex structure

Crucially these latest results go for genome wide relationships instead of mt-DNA or Y Chromosome only.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Cool and you can look at the one below
Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

Genomic reconstruction of the history of extant populations of India reveals five distinct ancestral components and a complex structure

Crucially these latest results go for genome wide relationships instead of mt-DNA or Y Chromosome only.

This:

Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.

There is no doubt estimating a recent mixture of genes from Central Asia, Middle Eastern, Caucasians and Europeans, the foreign invasions of India started sometime between 1000BCE and 1AD. We know that and in the Puranas it is recorded how the Mlecchas attacked India relentlessly, we also know from Persian records the invasion from Persians and from the Greek records the invasion from Greeks. India has been invaded repeatedly since by various groups Kushans, Huns etc

This animation shows how relentless they were:

 

[sayak83]

This:



There is no doubt estimating a recent mixture of genes from Central Asia, Middle Eastern, Caucasians and Europeans, the foreign invasions of India started sometime between 1000BCE and 1AD. We know that and in the Puranas it is recorded how the Mlecchas attacked India relentlessly, we also know from Persian records the invasion from Persians and from the Greek records the invasion from Greeks. India has been invaded repeatedly since by various groups Kushans, Huns etc

This animation shows how relentless they were:

If you read the paper, it says that there was an initial large pulse of admixture of ANI-ASI at the earlier stages that is at 4200-3500 years before present (i.e. 2200 BCE-1500 BCE) throughout India (North and South) followed by a much more recent influx of ANI genes (<100 CE) especially for northern Indians and Pakistanis that caused their mean admixture date to drop. This second admixture is not seen deeper in India (Central and South) or among the tribal groups. Thus, they say, this shows an initial single-event mixing pulse at the early stages possibly after the collapse of Harappan civ. followed by a more recent and gradual influx of ANI in the North from which the South, Central and East India was not significantly affected.

 

[Copernicus]

You just lost me. I never was talking of modern languages. I said to you how do you know as 100% fact that the IE languages do not descend from Sanskrit as the original mother language or how you can be certain PIE is 100% as it was spoken and PIE itself did not descend from India. I am asking you, because I have been told you have a Phd in Linguistics and work as a computational linguist for Boeing. Hence, I am really disappointed you cannot tell me the method you arrive at these conclusions. I am a reasonable person, if you can convince me by going from premise to conclusion and show that your conclusion follows from it, I will believe you. Until then, as I said before, "If you can't prove it, it didn't happen" Also, can you correct or add to what I did earlier by showing how words are reconstructed in PIE. Like in the Horse example, why can't the first sound be an 'a' why does it have to be 'e' If Hittie is indeed the oldest IE language, then even Hittie begins with an 'a' sound.

First of all, historical reconstruction is not one of my specialties, but I have studied it in the past as part of the standard post-graduate curriculum. You need to understand that a reconstructed phoneme represents nothing more than a correspondence set across attested cognates. It is more of a symbolic place marker than an actual phonetic sound, although comparativists do try to use a symbol that is as close to the original phonetic representation as possible. That said, bear in mind that the symbolism for the phonemic system for PIE is controversial because of more recent work on the way phonological systems work and what counts as a plausible phonemic system (which is one of my specializations). Such details are well beyond the scope of this discussion and not really relevant anyway. What we are concerned with here is the family of word-based concepts in PIE vocabulary, not their precise historical pronunciation. Hence, your demand to know the precise means of reconstructing words and pronunciations, while sounding like an intelligent question, is really not germane to the discussion. You don't need that knowledge to understand the basic argument.

Secondly, you appear not to have realized your error with regard to Sanskrit. No known languages are descended from Sanskrit any more than they are descended from classical Latin. Those languages are fossilized literary systems that have had little or no effect on the way spoken vernaculars have evolved. I am not claiming 100% certainty of anything, including that the moon is not made out of cheese. However, there comes a point where you just don't expect some beliefs to be overturned by subsequent experiences. You are not an expert on languages, so you do not even know your own level of ignorance on this subject. My expertise only means that I understand my level of ignorance about language much better than you understand yours.

Why does PIE sound like a language which has basically been constructed by adding together all the sounds from every IE language to create gibberish?

That's a very good question, and it has to do with the fact that reconstructions are only an approximation of historical pronunciation. In fact, the traditional representations of reconstructed forms that you see in dictionaries are somewhat outdated and controversial. The symbols are just place holders for sound correspondences across a cognate set. Actual historical linguists know better than the take the symbolic representations too seriously as representations of the way those words were actually pronounced.

 

[sayak83]

This:



There is no doubt estimating a recent mixture of genes from Central Asia, Middle Eastern, Caucasians and Europeans, the foreign invasions of India started sometime between 1000BCE and 1AD. We know that and in the Puranas it is recorded how the Mlecchas attacked India relentlessly, we also know from Persian records the invasion from Persians and from the Greek records the invasion from Greeks. India has been invaded repeatedly since by various groups Kushans, Huns etc

This animation shows how relentless they were:

Both the papers I quoted are extensions on the paper below that was published in Nature 2009. So I think we will get more out of it once they are read in order.
http://home.iitk.ac.in/~sganesh/hmg/pdf/Reconstructing Indian population history.pdf

I will read the papers in your link.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sure, I can go with that. This is why I said your paricipation in the AMT debate is pointless, because you are arguing Tilak's theory not AMT. So I don't get why you are here loyally defending AMT and its proponents? They do not accept Rig Veda was around in 10,000 BCE. Copernicus has just said it explicitly above.

Tilak's theory depends on he movement of Aryans from Central Asia into India. That is why I support AMT. It also makes Aryans living within Arctic Circle prior to Kurgan period, which makes the Aryan story older than 5,000 BC. And yes, if Aryans were a people, they must have existed earlier than 5,000 BC also and must have had their lore/beliefs/rituals/shamans (Atharvans and Angirasas, whom the Aryans called their fathers). This I take to be Rig/SamaVeda. Religion is old.

"Examples of Upper Paleolithic remains associated with religious beliefs include the lion man, the Venus figurines, cave paintings from Chauvet Cave and the elaborate ritual burial from Sungir. ..

Çatalhöyük: A striking feature of Çatalhöyük are its female figurines. Mellaart, the original excavator, argued that these well-formed, carefully made figurines, carved and molded from marble, blue and brown limestone, schist, calcite, basalt, alabaster, and clay, represented a female deity of the Great Goddess type. Although a male deity existed as well, 'statues of a female deity far outnumber those of the male deity, who moreover, does not appear to be represented at all after Level VI'."
History of religions - Wikipedia

You see, Spirit_Warrior (also people of your kind, the chauvinistic Hindus), all information is available on internet. The problem is that because of your prejudices, you don't read it and therefore, you do not understand it. You are the Hindu equivalent of Biblists and Quranists (the 'Kūpa Mandukas').

Löwenmensch, a lion-headed figurine found in Germany, dating to the Upper Paleolithic of about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago

Venus figurines from Hohlefels (40,000 BP), Wilendorf, Laussel, Lespugue, Dolni Vestonice (25,000 BP)

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

If you read the paper, it says that there was an initial large pulse of admixture of ANI-ASI at the earlier stages that is at 4200-3500 years before present (i.e. 2200 BCE-1500 BCE) throughout India (North and South) followed by a much more recent influx of ANI genes (<100 CE) especially for northern Indians and Pakistanis that caused their mean admixture date to drop. This second admixture is not seen deeper in India (Central and South) or among the tribal groups. Thus, they say, this shows an initial single-event mixing pulse at the early stages possibly after the collapse of Harappan civ. followed by a more recent and gradual influx of ANI in the North from which the South, Central and East India was not significantly affected.

Sayak, even if I take this conclusion to be true, though it seems to be based on the speculation of the author and more studies would need to be done, it does not confirm nor dis-confirm AIT/AMT. It is possible there was a lot of mixing happening between ANI and ASI, meaning India could have been the ancient melting pot of many cultures. Even the Mahabharata mentions several Mlecchas from outside of India living side by side in India.

I take genetic studies with a bit of grain of salt, as I read far too many studies which came up with conflicting results. If you read the article I posted you will find nearly a dozen studies giving an opposite conclusion.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Tilak's theory depends on he movement of Aryans from Central Asia into India. That is why I support AMT. It also makes Aryans living within Arctic Circle prior to Kurgan period, which makes the Aryan story older than 5,000 BC. And yes, if Aryans were a people, they must have existed earlier than 5,000 BC also and must have had their lore/beliefs/rituals/shamans (Atharvans and Angirasas, whom the Aryans called their fathers). This I take to be Rig/SamaVeda. Religion is old.

Sir, as you are my senior, I must be civil and respectful, but I think you are quite confused. You say you support AMT too as you support Tilak's Arctic theory, without actually realising they are mutually opposed. AMT theory says Aryans migrated to India in 1500BCE and then composed the Rig Veda in 1500-1200BCE. Tilak's theory says the Rig Veda was composed in 10,000BCE and prior in a pre-glacial age.

I sort of understand what you are getting at that if the Aryans came down from the Arctic circle, they would have passed through Central Asia and hence the migration would have passed through there to India. So that is a migration into India --- but that is not AMT theory.

Again with all due respect, but you do seem to confuse a lot of things by interpreting words as you like rather than as they are. Like saying you are an Advaitist because you only believe in matter. So I will respectfully say because your position is so confused, I would rather not argue with you

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sir, as you are my senior, I must be civil and respectful, but I think you are quite confused. You say you support AMT too as you support Tilak's Arctic theory, without actually realising they are mutually opposed. AMT theory says Aryans migrated to India in 1500BCE and then composed the Rig Veda in 1500-1200BCE. Tilak's theory says the Rig Veda was composed in 10,000BCE and prior in a pre-glacial age.

Again with all due respect, but you do seem to confuse a lot of things by interpreting words as you like rather than as they are. Like saying you are an Advaitist because you only believe in matter. So I will respectfully say because your position is so confused, I would rather not argue with you

Thanks for being courteous to us Oldies, bless you. I expect progress from young people and not regression. You are retreating from the position that I achieved years ago. Be more scientific than me

I have never given a date for Aryan migration in India. It could be 7,000 BC (Mehrgarh) or 2,500 BC (IVC). The 1,500 BC date is given by Indologists of previous centuries. I do not accept it. Personally,I give a date earlier than IVC to coming of Aryans in India because I think their coming, assimilation with the indigenous people, establishment of Aryan kingdom of Sudasa, Battle of Ten King, codification of Vedas, could not have been achieved between 1,500 BC and Buddha's time. It would have required more time.

Whether you would argue with me or not is your choice. What is Matter/Material/Substance/Mass and what is energy, the question has not been settled satisfactorily till now. That is about 'advaita'. I am amused when people term me as materialist because I do not even accept the existence of material at the 'Parmarthika' level. Material is but an illusion - maya.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

First of all, historical reconstruction is not one of my specialties, but I have studied it in the past as part of the standard post-graduate curriculum. You need to understand that a reconstructed phoneme represents nothing more than a correspondence set across attested cognates. It is more of a symbolic place marker than an actual phonetic sound, although comparativists do try to use a symbol that is as close to the original phonetic representation as possible. That said, bear in mind that the symbolism for the phonemic system for PIE is controversial because of more recent work on the way phonological systems work and what counts as a plausible phonemic system (which is one of my specializations). Such details are well beyond the scope of this discussion and not really relevant anyway. What we are concerned with here is the family of word-based concepts in PIE vocabulary, not their precise historical pronunciation. Hence, your demand to know the precise means of reconstructing words and pronunciations, while sounding like an intelligent question, is really not germane to the discussion. You don't need that knowledge to understand the basic argument.

You did not answer my question though, in the example I gave of horse, why is the PIE word beginning with an 'e' sound and not an 'a' sound. You see this is important, because it on this basis that a distance is created between India and PIE. If the original language had an 'e' sound for horse, than does it not preclude Sanskrit?

Secondly, you appear not to have realized your error with regard to Sanskrit. No known languages are descended from Sanskrit any more than they are descended from classical Latin. Those languages are fossilized literary systems that have had little or no effect on the way spoken vernaculars have evolved. I am not claiming 100% certainty of anything, including that the moon is not made out of cheese. However, there comes a point where you just don't expect some beliefs to be overturned by subsequent experiences. You are not an expert on languages, so you do not even know your own level of ignorance on this subject. My expertise only means that I understand my level of ignorance about language much better than you understand yours.

I am really confused now. You are saying that no language has descended from Sanskrit? Isn't practically 80% of all modern Indian languages descended from Sanskrit? Hindi, Gujurati, Bengali etc? Or are you saying they have descended from prakrits? Isn't that just vulgarised Sanskrit, like Pali, Ardhamagadhi? I am asking this as a question.

OIT theorists say that Sanskrit is the original mother language of all IE languages. Our claim is Sanskrit on transit from India to Western Europe has undergone modification i.e. lost the original number of cases, declensions, genders and sounds etc Hence we find that Avestan is extremely close to Sanskrit as Persia was India's direct neighbour, and then the second most closest is Lithuanian and and the furthest is Celtic.

Another group of OIT theorists accept PIE but they say PIE was spoken in India.

I want to know the reasons why both are impossible according to linguistics.

That's a very good question, and it has to do with the fact that reconstructions are only an approximation of historical pronunciation. In fact, the traditional representations of reconstructed forms that you see in dictionaries are somewhat outdated and controversial. The symbols are just place holders for sound correspondences across a cognate set. Actual historical linguists know better than the take the symbolic representations too seriously as representations of the way those words were actually pronounced.

So really effectively it is just guessing. Okay, all I am saying is how you arrive at a theory is irrelevant. You could have got it in a dream or given it by aliens --- but it has to be tested. How do we know that PIE as it has been reconstructed is correct?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Thanks for being courteous to us Oldies, bless you. I expect progress from young people and not regression. You are receding from the position that I achieved years ago. I have never given a date for Aryan migration in India. It could be 7,000 BC (Mehrgarh) or 2,500 BC (IVC). The 1,500 BC date is given by Indologists of previous centuries. I do not accept it.

Then you do not accept AMT, because that is what AMT says the Indo-Aryans arrived in India in 1500BCE and then composed the Rig Veda from 1500BCE to 1200BCE.

The 1500BCE date is completely arbitrary.

 

[sayak83]

Sayak, even if I take this conclusion to be true, though it seems to be based on the speculation of the author and more studies would need to be done, it does not confirm nor dis-confirm AIT/AMT. It is possible there was a lot of mixing happening between ANI and ASI, meaning India could have been the ancient melting pot of many cultures. Even the Mahabharata mentions several Mlecchas from outside of India living side by side in India.

I take genetic studies with a bit of grain of salt, as I read far too many studies which came up with conflicting results. If you read the article I posted you will find nearly a dozen studies giving an opposite conclusion.

I am less interested in supporting one hypothesis or the other and more interested in seeing of the various genetic studies can be integra red into something coherent. So some studying reqd. I will get back to u.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

@Copernicus Can I add a question, suppose that I accept there really was a migration of Indo-Aryan speaking people into India from the Steeps or wherever, how do you know the date of this event? What if the Indo-Aryan speakers were already in India in 7000BCE? What if they entered India in 10,000BCE? How do you know dates by just analysing linguistic data?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then you do not accept AMT, because that is what AMT says the Indo-Aryans arrived in India in 1500BCE and then composed the Rig Veda from 1500BCE to 1200BCE. The 1500BCE date is completely arbitrary.

Friend, AMT means Aryans migrated into India. I agree to that. As for date, when it happened, I am non-committal.

Wow, now buddha's historicity is now being questioned. Then why not question the historicity of the Aryans as well.

Yes, historicity of Buddha also is questioned. See it here: Google (38,60,000 result). Same with Aryans as a people. I believe it because we have the Vedas, reference to Panchajanas, the Avesta, etc. It is good to question things, nothing wrong with that. It is the scientific method. That is what Buddha said to Kalamas (Kalama Sutta - Wikipedia):

1. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), 2. nor upon tradition (paramparā), 3. nor upon rumor (itikirā), 4. nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), 5. nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), 6. nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu), 7. nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), 8. nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā), 9. nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), 10. nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū).

"Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them'."

(1. Oral history, 2. Tradition, 3. News sources, 4. Scriptures or other official texts, 5. Suppositional reasoning, 6. Philosophical dogmatism, 7. Common sense, 8. One's own opinions, 9. Experts, 10. Authorities or one's own teacher)

Why would AMT utilise any evidence from non-linguistic fields, when it's about linguistics? Not to mention parallel cultural similarities.

AMT is not just linguistics and myth, it is about archaeology also.

AMT, meaning Aryan migration theory is making a historical claim that there was this group of PIE people, a branch of this that migrated into India in 1500BCE and then completely took over it. It carries a HUGE burden of proof, because it falsifies the entire history of India maintained for over 5000 years.

Completely took over it? Now, who said that? What really happened was that the Aryans came here, interacted with the indigenous people, merged into them, had marital relations, obliterated the difference between the two people, took up worshiping indigenous Gods and accepted the Vedic God in secondary positions. After that, there was no question of one being an Aryan or an indigenous. So, what if some one established a kingdom?

@sayak83 , one of your links says that endogamy was estblished firmly around 70 generations ago. That would be some 1,700 years ago coinciding with the rise of Gupta empire, which brought the modern variant of Hinduism.