User:NittyG/Draft: Indo-Aryan Migrations: Development of theory

See also: Indigenous Aryans and Out of India Theory

The Indo-aryan migration theory holds the position that the Aryans (Sanskrit: āryā, आर्य) that were the authors and protagonists of the Rigveda migrated to the Indian subcontinent, thus bringing Sanskrit as the predecessor of the Indo-Aryan languages that are the predominant languages of North India, along with Vedic culture and its associated cultural and social constructs such as caste, the domesticated horse, and technology such as chariots and weaponry. Proponents of Indo-Aryan origin outside of India generally consider migrations into South Asia from Central Asia, most likely the civilization of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC), to have started around 1500 BC, as a slow diffusion during the Late Harappan period.

The Indo-aryan migration theories began with the study of the Rig Veda in the mid 1800s by Max Muller as a theory of a large scale invasion of a racially and technologically superior people. The theory also indicentally led to the the theory of a pure Aryan race originating "Aryan" or Indo-European languages, which had a profound influence on identity in the Western World. Gradually, the theory evolved from an Aryan invasion to being a slow diffusion of small numbers of nomadic people that had a disproportionate societal impact on a large urban population. The theory has primarily drawn evidence from linguistic and literary sources, and contemporary evidence is also drawn from genetic and archaeological sources. Throughout the evolution of the theory, many have rejected the claim of Indo-aryan origin outside of India entirely, continuing the traditional indigenous historical narrative that the Aryans were indigenous to the Indian Subcontinent. Some furthermore claim that all Indo-European languages originated in India. Proponents of an origin of Indo-Aryan languages outside India and those who are proponents of an indigenous origin claim to have debunked the other.

The debate about the origin of Indo-Aryan peoples is highly controversial, relating to the indigenous origin of peoples and culture, thus inflaming political agitation and sentiments. The Dravidian Movement bases much of its identity on the idea of the indigenous origin of Dravidians as opposed to transgressing Indo-Aryans. Many furthermore link Indo-Aryan migrations to the origin of caste discrimination and thus the theory is a basis of sentiments around the origin of caste discrimination, as many believe that Indo-Aryans formed the upper castes. And on the other end, many people express grievances against the idea that Vedic Hinduism was born out of such transgressions and not indigenous to the people and place they identify with. The debate furthermore inflames issues around racism and the idea of race, as the origin of the theory was intertwined with the desire of many in the Western world to find the origin of a pure Aryan race, the division of castes by racial basis, and the idea of an Indo-Aryan and Dravidian relating to language families rather than race.

Development of Theory
The theory of Indo-Aryan migrations developed with the 19th Century study of the origin and spread of Indo-European languages and their subfamilies. The Indo-Aryan subfamily of Indo-European languages were believed to have originated in the Indian Subcontinent from invasions around 1500 BC, a theory that was drawn from interpretations of the Rigveda, a sacred oral text composed in ancient Sanskrit, that was by far the oldest known Indo-European literature. The invaders were thought to have brought early Vedic literature, and imposed their beliefs and social order of caste on the indigenous population, which spoke Dravidian languages. Since its inception, with new discoveries and interpretations of archaeological, linguistic and even genetic evidence, the theory has gone through many revisions. Today, it is commonly believed by scholars that Indo-European languages began in the Pontic-Caspian steppe of Eastern Europe, and the Indo-Aryan subfamily was brought to the Indian Subcontinent through a slow migration of small numbers of nomadic tribes over the 2nd millennium BC, along with Sanskrit literature, the names of common deities, and the social order of caste, all of which which proliferated through a process of slow acculturation across a much larger urban population.

The Early Search for Linguistic and Racial Origins
The discovery of the relationship between Indo-European languages in the 17th Century gradually led linguists to believe they must have a common origin, and were thus driven to find the original place and people who spoke the first proto-Indo-European (PIE) language, as well as proto-languages of Indo-European subfamilies. Throughout the development of Indo-European studies, every part of the Indo-European world was proposed as the Urheimat, or linguistic place of origin, from Northern Europe to India, with corresponding debates around the origin of Indo-European subfamilies. This affected the narration of the early history of every part of the Indo-European world, including the Indian Subcontinent, where an ancient oral Sanskrit literature already formed an indigenous historical narrative. As the Rigveda, composed in archaic Sankrit, was by far the oldest known work in any Indo-European language, it was used as a key resource in determining the origin and migration of Indo-European languages throughout its geography, including the Indian Subcontinent. While the "primacy" of Sanskrit inspired some early scholars, such as Friedrich Schlegel in the late 18th Century, to assume that the Urheimat had been in India, an origin outside the Indian Subcontinent became the mainstream position by later scholars by the 19th Century. The theory was first proposed by Max Müller, a German linguist employed in Britain, using the Rigveda, where the "Aryans" that were mentioned in the text were interpreted as the originators of what were later dubbed "Indo-Aryan" languages in the Indian Subcontinent. The theory was thus called the "Aryan Invasion Theory", a term only recently modified. Indo-European studies were heavily intertwined with the desire to find a racially pure ancestry of European Christians, and the term "Aryan" was adopted as an original pure race that spread through invasions and gradually miscegenated with racially inferior people. As the Indo-Aryans were a part of a historic narrative that was built, they were seen as a racially inferior people who were in turn superior to the people they invaded and subjugated, ancestors of contemporary Dravidian speaking peoples of South India and the lower rungs of the varna caste hierarchy. The racial interpretation of the theory was rejected by many from the beginning, and was even rejected by Muller himself, who clarified that Indo-Aryan was a language family and not a race. In spite of this, it formed the narrative of Indian history for several decades, fitting into the continued development of the narration of a pure Aryan race and leading to the development of many political beliefs and movements around caste discrimination and the Dravidian Movement in 1925. However, the racial narrative stuck for decades to come, until the archaeological discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilization forced the narrative to be modified.

Modifications and Contemporary Theory
When the Indus Valley sites of Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and Lothal were discovered in the 1920s, the theory was flipped from an invasion of racially superior people to a migration of nomadic people into an advanced urban civilization, comparable to the Germanic migrations after the Fall of Rome, or the Kassite invasion of Babylonia. As it was observed that the Indus Valley Civilization declined at precisely the period in history for which the Indo-Aryan invasion had been assumed, the changes still fit within the linguistic scenario, and the decline was associated with the invading Indo-Aryans. This argument is associated with the mid-20th century archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler, who interpreted the presence of many corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-daro as the victims of conquest wars, and who famously stated that "Indra stands accused", referring to the chief diety mentioned in the Rigveda. The corpses were later determined to be more likely casually buried centuries after Mohenjo-daro was abandoned. Gradually, as archeological surveying expanded and no archeological evidence was found of an invasion, the theory was further modified to being a gradual migration of Indo-Aryans, with the language and culture proliferated through acculturation. This was further backed by linguistic evidence, in line with changes in thinking about language transfer in general.

Effects and Responses to Theory
The theory has been very contentious from the time it was proposed, and has had an enormous impact on the identity and politics of peoples in the Indian Subcontinent. As the narrative of a violent invasion proliferated, it affected how people viewed their origins, forming identities that often did not exist prior to the theory. The belief of Dravidian identity spread across South India, and in 1925, the Dravidian Movement was born. As invading Aryans were seen as forming the upper castes, it formed a strong basis for sentiments around the origin of caste discrimination. The theory of an Aryan race invading the Indian Subcontinent formed a part of the racial narrative of history that influenced the Western world with the institutionalization of the belief in White supremacy. From the time of its inception, the theory has been rejected by many who claimed evidence to be lacking or flawed, and inconsistent with indigenous historical narratives. By many who rejected the theory, the denial of indigenous origin of peoples, languages, social structures and identities, and key elements of Hinduism has been seen as offensive and divisive. The theory remains controversial today, and has in recent years become a heated topic in historical narratives and politics in India and elsewhere.

As the theory of Indo-Aryan migrations are complex, efforts at revisions are often convoluted. While the theory has changed drastically in recent years, the common narrative has been slow to keep up. Though there are few academics in support of an invasion today, the narrative of an invasion is still repeated in contemporary textbooks and political discourse. Efforts at revisions have often come from people who reject the theory entirely, which have been met by opposition by academics and political groups. Many continue to reject the theory today who carry the legacy of imperialism and racism. Yet many of the people who reject the theory of Indo-Aryan migrations go further and claim that Aryans originated in the Subcontinent, which has led some critics of revisionists to claim that revisionists employ the same imperialist rhetoric they reject.

[note current theory by indigenists, that of the Saraswati civilization)

Contemporary Academic Theory
The consensus of academics today is of several migrations over time and a process of acculturation by peoples who spoke Indo-Aryan languages. The most widely held consensus for the entry of Indo-Aryan languages into the Indian Subcontinent is of a first wave of migration from the area of Central Asia east of the Caspian Sea over the Hindu Kush, forming the Gandhara grave culture in the Swat Valley, in either or both the headwaters of the Indus and Ganga rivers. The Gandhara grave culture is thus the most likely locus of the earliest bearers of Rigvedic culture, and some postulate the migration to the Punjab area between 1700-1400 BC or as early as 1900 BC, when they mixed with the declining Harrappan Civilization, establishing Vedic civilization. Some believe that there were multiple waves of migrations over 2000-1400 BCE from the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) region of Central Asia into the region of Baluchistan, as well as the Swat Valley, from where the early Vedic civilization spread eastward.

The debate about the origin of the Aryans centers around a few major topics, especially that of comparative linguistics, literary sources, cultural practices and key artifacts at archaeological sites, and genetic studies.

......

comparative linguistics, especially between Sanskrit and surrounding languages such as those in the Dravidian and Munda families and others in the Indo-European language family; literary sources, especially the Rig Veda, where the culture and geography of the Aryans is interpreted; cultural practices and key artifacts at archaeological sites, especially around pottery and burial practices and the horse and chariot; and genetic studies especially in the area surrounding North India and along caste lines.

[add rebutting beliefs]

Linguistics
As the question of Indo-Aryan migrations is primarily regarding the possible scenarios of the spread of Indo-Aryan languages, the theory largely rests on linguistic evidence. The question is regarding the origin of the Indo-Aryan language family and its predecessors within the larger Indo-European language family. It is the most widely held consensus of academics that Indo-European languages originated in the vicinity of the Black Sea. This is based largely on the linguistic center of gravity principle, where the most likely point of origin of a language family is in the area of its greatest diversity. By this criterion, as the Indian Subcontinent is home to only the Indo-Aryan subfamily it is an exceedingly unlikely candidate for the Indo-European homeland, compared to Central-Eastern Europe, for example, which is home to the Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Albanian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian and Greek branches of Indo-European. The geography of linguistic diversity is combined with the probable direction of language flow based on comparative linguistics. The evidence for the origin of Indo-Aryan languages in Central Asia follows the trend of expansion from the expansion from the Black Sea area, and the most common consensus of an origin in Central Asia is based on elements of vocabulary and speech and ancient texts. Yet there is considerable disagreement and contention about what linguistic features and texts of Indo-Aryan languages, if any, originated outside the Indian Subcontinent.

Substrate influence
Dravidian and other South Asian languages share with Indo-Aryan a number of syntactical and morphological features that are alien to other Indo-European languages, including even its closest relative, Old Iranian. Phonologically, there is the introduction of retroflexes, which alternate with dentals in Indo-Aryan; morphologically there are the gerunds; and syntactically there is the use of a quotative marker ("iti"). These are taken as evidence of substratum influence.

The presence of Dravidian structural features in Old Indo-Aryan is thus plausibly explained, that the majority of early Old Indo-Aryan speakers had a Dravidian mother tongue which they gradually abandoned. Even though the innovative traits in Indic could be explained by multiple internal explanations, early Dravidian influence is the only explanation that can account for all of the innovations at once – it becomes a question of explanatory parsimony; moreover, early Dravidian influence accounts for the several of the innovative traits in Indic better than any internal explanation that has been proposed.

Many academics are open to considering the evidence as internal developments rather than the result of substrate influences, or as adstratum effects.

Texts
The debate of origins of Aryans, or speakers of Indo-European languages, began with the study of the Rigveda, and Vedic texts continue to fuel the debate of the origins of Indo-Aryan languages and texts themselves, which are considered by many to be sacred. The dieties that are mentioned in the Rigveda and several common words appear in a few texts across a wide geography. The earliest known evidence was revealed much later among Hittite records in northern Syria. These records mention many Vedic dieties and words. Most academics reject the possibility that the Indo-Aryans of Mitanni came from the Indian subcontinent as well as the possibility that the Indo-Aryans of the Indian subcontinent came from the territory of Mitanni, leaving migration from the north the only likely scenario. The presence of some BMAC loan words in Mitanni, Old Iranian and Vedic further strengthens this scenario. The widely held consensus on the geography and dating of the Rigveda also influence the closely related Iranian Avesta and later Vedic texts, anchoring the dates and geographic placement of the civilizations in which they were produced.

As the Rigveda is the only ancient Indo-Aryan text that existed in the Indian Subcontinent, it is central to the question of where Indo-Aryan languages originated. During the early inception of the theory, the references to war and conflict, which mentioned Aryans as victorious conquerors and metaphors such as "light" and "dark" were taken to refer to racial differences. Later as the theory was modified with the discovery of an urban civilization, the question shifted to whether the Rigveda was written by a pastoral or urban people, and an analysis of the language to reflect the environment and geography of its origin. While the Rigveda does not explicitly refer to an external homeland or to a migration, it does refer to the destruction of urban fortifications, such as the reference of "Indra overthrew a hundred fortresses of stone." This has led some scholars to believe that the civilization of Aryans was not an urban one. However, the Rigveda is seen by some as containing phrases referring to elements of an urban civilization. For example, in Griffith's translation of the Rigveda, Indra is compared to the lord of a fortification (pūrpati), while quotations such as a ship with a hundred oars and metal forts (puras ayasis) all occur in mythological contexts. Additional geographic references, such as the reference to major rivers such as the Saraswati, are believed by some to refer to features that exist in the regions that Indo-Aryans migrated across into the Indian Subcontinent, while others believe they refer to features that exist today or have disappeared in the centuries after the Rigveda was composed.

Archaeology
The current consensus of proponents of Indo-Aryan migrations in the Indian Subcontinent is that there is no substantial evidence of an invasion, and only cultural changes and population shifts. The Harrappan Civilization clearly declined in the late 2nd Millennium BC, which is believed to be contemporaneous with the arrival of Indo-Aryans, who brought their pottery styles, burial patterns, and chariot technology that is characteristic of the cultures of the region of Central Asia where the linguistic and textual evidence points.

The archaeological studies surrounding Indo-Aryan migrations began with the discovery of the urban settlements of the Indus Valley Civilization. At the time, the widely held belief of an Aryan invasion thus shifted from a nomadic group of warring tribes that destroyed the urban civilization they subdued. Yet over time the evidence for an invasion was found to be lacking, and the theory changed from being the cultural influence of migrations seen in excavatons and population shifts. The discovery of changes in the pottery styles, from the Ochre Colored Pottery culture that was the Late Harrappan period that was succeeded by the Painted Grey Ware culture. Excavations of copper hoards, assemblages of copper-based artifacts are also seen over the period. The Gandhara Grave Culture in the Swat Valley is the major candidate for early Indo-Aryan presence, with its introduction of new ceramics, new burial rites, and the horse. Before the appearance of the Gandhara Grave Culture, the horse and these burial patterns were not found in Harrappan Civilization but were found in the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) culture of Central Asia, in the area north of Iran and Afghanistan in present-day Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The two new burial rites—flexed inhumation in a pit and cremation burial in an urn—were, according to early Vedic literature, both practiced in early Indo-Aryan society. Horse-trappings indicate the importance of the horse to the economy of the Gandharan grave culture. Two horse burials indicate the importance of the horse in other respects. Horse burial is a custom that Gandharan grave culture has in common with Andronovo, though not within the distinctive timber-frame graves of the steppe. There is also limited evidence of Indo-Aryan migrations from the Andronovo culture, which is believed to have originated the chariot, located north of the BMAC region, encompassing most of present-day Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

Genetic evidence
There is evidence of an elitist and/or male-predominant Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent, as in fact the patterns of historical conquest and migration are ultimately reflected in terms of sex-biased admixture, with the mitochondrial heritage being more stable and of more local origin and the Y-chromosomal heritage reflecting an external influence upon the population genetic structure, as can be seen in not only such regions as South Asia, but also in such regions as Northeastern Africa (Semitic Y chromosomes vs. Niger-Kordofanian mtDNA) and Latin America (Iberian Y chromosomes vs. Amerindian mtDNA). Furthermore, the majority of researchers have found significant evidence in support of Indo-European migration and even "elite dominance" of the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, usually pointing to three separate lines of evidence:
 * the previously widespread distribution of Dravidian speakers, now confined to the south of India;
 * the fact that upper caste Brahmins share a close genetic affinity with West Eurasians, whereas low caste Indians tend to have more in common with aboriginals or East Asians;
 * and the comparatively recent introgression of West Eurasian DNA into the aboriginal population of the post-Neolithic Indo-Gangetic plain.

Other studies also claim that there is genetic evidence in support of the traditional hypothesis of Indo-Aryan migration. Basu et al. argue that the Indian subcontinent was subjected to a series of massive Indo-European migrations about 1500 BC. In the case of paternal-line Y-chromosome DNA, the Indo-Aryan migration is associated with the R1a haplogroup, especially the R1a1a subgroup, which clusters in Eastern Europe and the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, and nicely dovetails with the observed similarities between Lithuanian and Sanskrit, and more broadly, satem languages as a whole. The strongest such claims, though, are based upon studies of autosomal DNA, not only Y DNA. Several such studies have isolated two major components of ancestry amongst Indians, one being more common in the south, and amongst lower castes, and the other more common amongst upper caste Indians, Indians speaking Indo-European languages, and also Indians living in the northwest. This second component is shared with populations from the Middle East, Europe and Central Asia, and is thought to represent at least one ancient influx of people from the northwest. According to one researcher, there is "a major genetic contribution from Eurasia to North Indian upper castes" and a "greater genetic inflow among North Indian caste populations than is observed among South Indian caste and tribal populations."

A more recent study has provided support for an influx of Indo-European migrants into the Indian subcontinent, but not necessarily an "invasion of any kind", further corroborating the findings of previous investigators, such as Bamshad et al. (2001), Wells et al. (2002) and Basu et al. (2003).

Ethno-linguistics
The terms North Indian and South Indian are ethno-linguistic categories, with North Indian corresponding to Indo-European-speaking peoples and South Indian corresponding to Dravidian-speaking; however, because of admixture, these two groups often overlap. Certain sample populations of upper caste North Indians show affinity to Central Asian caucasians, whereas southern Indian Brahmins' relationship is further.

Language change resulting from the migration of numerically small superstrate groups would be difficult to trace genetically. Historically attested events, such as invasions by Huns, Greeks, Kushans, Mughals and modern Europeans, may have had negligible genetic impact, and if they did it can be hard to trace it. For example, despite centuries of Greek rule in Northwest India, no trace of either the I-M170 or the E-M35 Y DNA paternal haplogroups associated with Greek and Macedonian males lines have been found. On the other hand, evidence of E-M35 and J-M12, another supposed Greek or Balkan marker, has been found in three Pakistani populations – the Burusho, Kalash and Pathan – who claim descent from Greek soldiers.

Controversy
The debate about the origin of Indo-Aryan peoples is highly controversial, relating to the indigenous origin of peoples and culture, thus inflaming political agitation and sentiments.

Dravidian response
The Dravidian Movement bases much of its identity on the idea of the indigenous origin of Dravidians as opposed to transgressing Indo-Aryans. This in turn lead to further responses from Indian nationalists: "From a nationalist point of view, it is clear that the concept of an Aryan-Dravidian divide is pernicious to the unity of the Hindu state, and an important aim for Hindutva and neo-Hindu scholarship is therefor to introduce a counter-narrative to the one presented by Western academic scholarship."

Hindu nationalism
Nationalistic movements in India oppose the idea that Hinduism has partly endogenous origins. For the founders of the contemporary Hindutva movement, the Aryan migration theory presented a problem. The Hindutva-notion that the Hindu-culture originated in India was threatened by the notion that the Aryans originated outside India. Later Indian writers regarded the Aryan migration theory to be a product of colonialism, aimed to denigrate Hindus. According to them, Hindus had existed in India from times immemorial, as expressed by Golwalkar: "Undoubtedly ... we Hindus have been in undisputed and undisturbed possession of this land for over 8 or even 10 thousand years before the land was invaded by any foreign race. (Golwakar [1939] 1944)"

Racism
The debate inflames issues around racism and the idea of race, as the origin of the theory was intertwined with the desire of many in the Western world to find the origin of a pure Aryan race, the division of castes by racial basis, and the idea of an Indo-Aryan and Dravidian relating to language families rather than race.

Concurring views
Archaeologists in India remain quite skeptical: "The vast majority of professional archaeologists I interviewed in India insisted that there was no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins. This is part of a wider trend: archaeologists working outside of South Asia are voicing similar views."

Within India, alternative visions on the origins of the Aryan language and culture have been developed, which emphasize indigenous origins.

"Indigenous Aryans"
The notion of Indigenous Aryans posits that speakers of Indo-Aryan languages are "indigenous" to the Indian subcontinent. Scholars like Jim G. Shaffer and B.B. Lal note the absence of archaeological remains of an Aryan "conquest", and the high degree of physical continuity between Harappan and Post-Harappan society. They support the controversial theory that the Aryan civilization was not introduced by Aryan migrations, but originated in pre-Vedic India.

Shaffer - Continuity
Jim Shaffer has noted several problems with the arguments that the ancient Harappans were Aryans. According to Shaffer, archaeological evidence consistent with a mass population movement, or an invasion of South Asia in the pre- or proto- historic periods, has not been found. Instead, Shaffer proposes a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from prehistoric to historic periods. Shaffer contends: "There were no invasions from central or western South Asia. Rather there were several internal cultural adjustments reflecting altered ecological, social and economic conditions affecting northwestern and north-central South Asia."

Lal - Fire altars
Lal notes that at Kalibangan (at the Ghaggar river) the remains of what some writers claim to be fire altars have been unearthed that are claimed to have been used for Vedic sacrifices, although the presence of animal bones does not seem consistent with Vedic rites. In addition the remains of a bathing place (suggestive of ceremonial bathing) have been found near the altars in Kalibangan. S.R. Rao found similar "fire altars" in Lothal which he thinks could have served no other purpose than Vedic ritual. The sites in Kalibangan are dated back to pre-Harappan times i.e. 3500 BC, well before any likely date for the Indo-Aryan migrations, so this may suggest that Vedic rites are indigenous to India and not brought in from outside.

Out of India Theory
In recent years, the concept of "Indigenous Aryans" has been increasingly conflated with an "Out of India" origin of the Indo-European language family. This contrasts with the model of Indo-Aryan migration which posits that Indo-Aryan tribes migrated to India from Central Asia. Some furthermore claim that all Indo-European languages originated in India. These claims remain problematic.

Linguistics and Texts
Moved Temporarily

ca. 1700-1400 BC, but he also postulates a first wave of immigration from as early as 1900 BC, corresponding to the Cemetery H culture.

The Gandhara grave people have been associated by most scholars with early Indo-Aryan speakers, and the Indo-Aryan migration into theIndian Subcontinent, that, fused with indigenous elements of the remnants of the Indus Valley Civilization (OCP, Cemetery H), gave rise to the Vedic Civilization.

Kochhar argues that there were three waves of Indo-Aryan immigration that occurred after the mature Harappan phase:
 * 1) the "Murghamu" (BMAC) related people who entered Baluchistan at Pirak, Mehrgarh south cemetery, etc. and later merged with the post-urban Harappans during the late Harappans Jhukar phase (2000-1800 BCE);
 * 2) the Swat IV that co-founded the Harappan Cemetery H phase in Punjab (2000-1800 BCE);
 * 3) and the Rigvedic Indo-Aryans of Swat V that later absorbed the Cemetery H people and gave rise to the Painted Grey Ware culture (to 1400 BCE).

[linguistics]
Contemporary claims of Indo-Aryan migrations are drawn from linguistic, literary, cultural, archaeological and genetic sources.

Accumulated linguistic evidence points to the Indo-Aryan languages as intrusive

into South Asia, some time in the 2nd millennium BC. The language of the Rigveda, the earliest stratum of Vedic Sanskrit, is assigned to about 1500–1200 BC.

Dialectical variation
It has been recognized since the mid-19th century, beginning with Schmidt and Schuchardt, that a binary tree model cannot capture all linguistic alignments; certain areal features cut across language groups and are better explained through a model treating linguistic change like waves rippling out through a pond. This is true of the Indo-European languages as well. Various features originated and spread while Proto-Indo-European was still a dialect continuum. These features sometimes cut across sub-families: for instance, the instrumental, dative and ablative plurals in Germanic and Balto-Slavic feature endings beginning with -m-, rather than the usual -*bh-, e.g. Old Church Slavonic instrumental plural synъ-mi 'with sons', despite the fact that the Germanic languages are centum, while Balto-Slavic languages are satem.

The strong correspondence between the dialectical relationships of the Indo-European languages and their actual geographical arrangement in their earliest attested forms makes an Indian origin for the family unlikely.

Iranian Avesta

The religious practices depicted in the Rgveda and those depicted in the Avesta, the central religious text of Zoroastrianism—the ancient Iranian faith founded by the prophet Zarathustra—have in common the deity Mitra, priests called hotṛ in the Rgveda and zaotar in the Avesta, and the use of a hallucinogenic compound that the Rgveda calls soma and the Avesta haoma. However, the Indo-Aryan deva 'god' is cognate with the Iranian daēva 'demon'. Similarly, the Indo-Aryan asura 'name of a particular group of gods' (later on, 'demon') is cognate with the Iranian ahura 'lord, god,' which 19th and early 20th century authors such as Burrow explained as a reflection of religious rivalry between Indo-Aryans and Iranians.

Most linguists such as Burrow argue that the strong similarity between the Avestan language of the Gāthās—the oldest part of the Avesta—and the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rgveda pushes the dating of Zarathustra or at least the Gathas closer to the conventional Rgveda dating of 1500–1200 BC, i.e. 1100 BC, possibly earlier. Boyce concurs with a lower date of 1100 BC and tentatively proposes an upper date of 1500 BC. Gnoli dates the Gathas to around 1000 BC, as does, with the caveat of a 400 year leeway on either side, i.e. between 1400 and 600 BC. Therefore the date of the Avesta could also indicate the date of the Rigveda.

There is mention in the Avesta of Airyanəm Vaējah, one of the '16 the lands of the Aryans' as well as Zarathustra himself. Gnoli's interpretation of geographic references in the Avesta situates the Airyanem Vaejah in the Hindu Kush. For similar reasons, Boyce excludes places north of the Syr Darya and western Iranian places. With some reservations, Skjaervo concurs that the evidence of the Avestan texts makes it impossible to avoid the conclusion that they were composed somewhere in northeastern Iran. Witzel points to the central Afghan highlands. Humbach derives Vaējah from cognates of the Vedic root "vij," suggesting the region of fast-flowing rivers. Gnoli considers Choresmia (Xvairizem), the lower Oxus region, south of the Aral Sea to be an outlying area in the Avestan world. However, according to, the probable homeland of Avestan is, in fact, the area south of the Aral Sea.

Srauta Sutra of Baudhayana
According to Romila Thapar, the Srauta Sutra of Baudhayana... "... refers to the Parasus and the arattas who stayed behind and others who moved eastwards to the middle Ganges valley and the places equivalent such as the Kasi, the Videhas and the Kuru Pancalas, and so on. In fact, when one looks for them, there are evidence for migration."

Kalpasutra notes that Pururavas had two sons by Urvasi, named Ayus and Amavasu, Ayus went east and Amavasu went west.

Later Vedic and Hindu texts
Texts like the Puranas and Mahabharata belong to a much later period than the Rigveda, making their evidence less than sufficient to be used for or against the Indo-Aryan migration theory.

Vedic
Later Vedic texts show a shift of location from the Panjab to the East: according to the Yajur Veda, Yajnavalkya (a Vedic ritualist and philosopher) lived in the eastern region of Mithila. Aitareya Brahmana 33.6.1. records that Vishvamitra's sons migrated to the north, and in Shatapatha Brahmana 1:2:4:10 the Asuras were driven to the north. In much later texts, Manu was said to be a king from Dravida. In the legend of the flood he stranded with his ship in Northwestern India or the Himalayas. The Vedic lands (e.g. Aryavarta, Brahmavarta) are located in Northern India or at the Sarasvati and Drsadvati River. However, in a post-Vedic text the Mahabharata Udyoga Parva (108), the East is described as the homeland of the Vedic culture, where "the divine Creator of the universe first sang the Vedas." The legends of Ikshvaku, Sumati and other Hindu legends may have their origin in South-East Asia.

Puranas
The Puranas record that Yayati left Prayag (confluence of the Ganges & Yamuna) and conquered the region of Sapta Sindhu. His five sons Yadu, Druhyu, Puru, Anu and Turvashu correspond to the main tribes of the Rigveda.

The Puranas also record that the Druhyus were driven out of the land of the seven rivers by Mandhatr and that their next king Gandhara settled in a north-western region which became known as Gandhara. The sons of the later Druhyu king Pracetas are supposed by some to have 'migrated' to the region north of Afghanistan though the Puranic texts only speak of an "adjacent" settlement.

Move to Archeology
There are other views such as, according to Gupta (as quoted in ), "ancient civilizations had both the components, the village and the city, and numerically villages were many times more than the cities. (...) if the Vedic literature reflects primarily the village life and not the urban life, it does not at all surprise us.". Gregory Possehl (as cited in ) argued that the "extraordinary empty spaces between the Harappan settlement clusters" indicates that pastoralists may have "formed the bulk of the population during Harappan times".

Mitanni

The earliest written evidence for an Indo-Aryan language is found not in India, but in northern Syria in Hittite records regarding one of their neighbors, the Hurrian-speaking Mitanni. In a treaty with the Hittites, the king of Mitanni, after swearing by a series of Hurrian gods, swears by the gods Mitrašil, Uruvanaššil, Indara, and Našatianna, who correspond to the Vedic gods Mitra, Varuṇa, Indra, and Nāsatya (Aśvin). Contemporary equestrian terminology, as recorded in a horse-training manual whose author is identified as "Kikkuli the Mitannian," contains Indo-Aryan loanwords. The personal names and gods of the Mitanni aristocracy also bear significant traces of Indo-Aryan. Because of the association of Indo-Aryan with horsemanship and the Mitanni aristocracy, it is presumed that, after superimposing themselves as rulers on a native Hurrian-speaking population about the 15th-16th centuries BC, Indo-Aryan charioteers were absorbed into the local population and adopted the Hurrian language.

Brentjes argues that there is not a single cultural element of central Asian, eastern European, or Caucasian origin in the Mitannian area and associates with an Indo-Aryan presence the peacock motif found in the Middle East from before 1600 BC and quite likely from before 2100 BC.

Most scholars reject the possibility that the Indo-Aryans of Mitanni came from the Indian subcontinent as well as the possibility that the Indo-Aryans of the Indian subcontinent came from the territory of Mitanni, leaving migration from the north the only likely scenario. The presence of some BMAC loan words in Mitanni, Old Iranian and Vedic further strengthens this scenario.

Rigveda
The Rigveda is by far the most archaic testimony of Vedic Sanskrit. Bryant suggests that the Rigveda represents a pastoral or nomadic, mobile culture, centered on the Indo-Iranian Soma cult and fire worship. The purpose of hymns of the Rigveda is ritualistic, not historiographical or ethnographical, and any information about the way of life or the habitat of their authors is incidental and philologically extrapolated from the context. Nevertheless, Rigvedic data must be used, cautiously, as they are the earliest available textual evidence from India.

Views on Rigvedic society (pastoral or urban?)
Fortifications (), mostly made of mud and wood (palisades) are mentioned in the Rigveda. s sometimes refer to the abode of hostile peoples, but can also suggest settlements of Aryans themselves. Aryan tribes have more often been mentioned to live in , a term translated as "settlement, homestead, house, dwelling", but also "community, tribe, troops". Indra in particular is described as destroyer of fortifications, e.g. RV 4.30.20ab:
 * "Indra overthrew a hundred fortresses of stone."
 * "Indra overthrew a hundred fortresses of stone."

This has led some scholars to believe that the civilization of Aryans was not an urban one.

However, the Rigveda is seen by some as containing phrases referring to elements of an urban civilization, other than the mere viewpoint of an invader aiming at sacking the fortresses. For example, in Griffith's translation of the Rigveda, Indra is compared to the lord of a fortification (pūrpati) in RV 1.173.10, while quotations such as a ship with a hundred oars in 1.116.5 and metal forts (puras ayasis) in 10.101.8 all occur in mythological contexts only.

There are other views such as, according to Gupta (as quoted in ), "ancient civilizations had both the components, the village and the city, and numerically villages were many times more than the cities. (...) if the Vedic literature reflects primarily the village life and not the urban life, it does not at all surprise us.". Gregory Possehl (as cited in ) argued that the "extraordinary empty spaces between the Harappan settlement clusters" indicates that pastoralists may have "formed the bulk of the population during Harappan times".

Views on Rigvedic reference to migration
Talageri speculates that some of the tribes that fought against king Sudas and his army on the banks of the Parusni River during the Dasarajna battle have migrated to western countries in later times, as they are connected with what he assumes are Iranian peoples (e.g. the Pakthas, Bhalanas).

Just like the Avesta does not mention an external homeland of the Zoroastrians, the Rigveda does not explicitly refer to an external homeland or to a migration. Later texts than the Rigveda (such as the Brahmanas, the Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranas) are more centered in the Haryana and  Ganges region. This shift from the Punjab to the Gangetic plain continues the Rigvedic tendency of eastward expansion.

Rigvedic Rivers and Reference of Samudra
The geography of the Rigveda seems to be centered around the land of the seven rivers. While the geography of the Rigvedic rivers is unclear in some of the early books of the Rigveda, the Nadistuti hymn is an important source for the geography of late Rigvedic society.

The Sarasvati River is one of the chief Rigvedic rivers. The Nadistuti hymn in the Rigveda mentions the Sarasvati between the Yamuna in the east and the Sutlej in the west, and later texts like the Brahmanas and Mahabharata mention that the Sarasvati dried up in a desert.

Most scholars agree that at least some of the references to the Sarasvati in the Rigveda refer to the Ghaggar-Hakra River, while the Afghan river Haraxvaiti/Harauvati Helmand is sometimes quoted as the locus of the early Rigvedic river. Whether such a transfer of the name has taken place from the Helmand to the Ghaggar-Hakra is a matter of dispute. Identification of the early Rigvedic Sarasvati with the Ghaggar-Hakra before its assumed drying up early in the second millennium would place the Rigveda BC, well outside the range commonly assumed by Indo-Aryan migration theory.

A non-Indo-Aryan substratum in the river-names and place-names of the Rigvedic homeland would support an external origin of the Indo-Aryans. However, most place-names in the Rigveda and the vast majority of the river-names in the north-west of South Asia are Indo-Aryan. onghold of Indus populations.

Archaeology
Moved Temporarily

Attempts have been made to supplement the linguistic evidence with archaeological data. Erdosy notes that"... combining the discoveries of archaeology and linguistics has been complicated by mutual ignorance of the aims, complexity and limitations of the respective disciplines."

The two disciplines focus on two different problems: linguistics tries to explain the linguistic map of south Asia, while archaeology tries to understand the transition between the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Gangetic Civilisations. Archaeological artifacts may not prove or disprove migrations an sich, and it may not be possible to identify language within material culture, but archaeological remains can reflect cultural and societal change, which may correspond to changes in the population: "Evidence in material culture for systems collapse, abandonement of old beliefs and large-scale, if localised, population shifts in response to ecological catastrophe in the 2nd millennium B.C. must all now be related to the spread of Indo-Aryan languages."

According to Erdosy, the postulated movements within Central Asia can be placed within a processional framework, replacing simplistic concepts of "diffusion", "migrations" and "invasions".

Population movements
Erdosy, testing hypotheses derived from linguistic evidence against hypotheses derived from arcaeological data, states that there is no evidence of "invasions by a barbaric race enjoying technological and military superiority", but "...some support was found in the archaeological record for small-scale migrations from Central to South Asia in the late 3rd/early 2nd millennia BC.""

Shaffer & Lichtenstein contend that in the second millennium BCE considerable "location processes" took place. In the eastern Punjab 79,9% and in Gujarat 96% of sites changed settlement status. According to Shaffer & Lichtenstein, "It is evident that a major geographic population shift accompanied this 2nd millennium BCE localisation process. This shift by Harappan and, perhaps, other Indus Valley cultural mosaic groups, is the only archaeologically documented west-to-east movement of human populations in South Asia before the first half of the first millennium B.C."

Associated cultures
The Andronovo, BMAC and Yaz cultures have been associated with Indo-Iranian migrations, with separation of Indo-Aryans proper from Proto-Indo-Iranians dated to roughly 2000–1800 BC. The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures are candidates for subsequent cultures associated with Indo-Aryan movements, their arrival in the Indian subcontinent being dated to the Late Harappan period.

It is believed that Indo-Aryans reached Assyria in the west and the Punjab in the east before 1500 BC: the Hurrite speaking Mitanni rulers, influenced by Indo-Aryan, appear from 1500 in northern Mesopotamia, and the Gandhara grave culture emerges from 1600. This suggests that Indo-Aryan tribes would have had to be present in the area of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (southern Turkmenistan/northern Afghanistan) from 1700 BC at the latest (incidentally corresponding with the decline of that culture).

Andronovo


The conventional identification of the Andronovo culture as Indo-Iranian is disputed by those who point to the absence south of the Oxus River of the characteristic timber graves of the steppe.

Based on its use by Indo-Aryans in Mitanni and Vedic India, its prior absence in the Near East and Harappan India, and its 19-20th century BC attestation at the Andronovo site of Sintashta, Kuzmina (1994) argues that the chariot corroborates the identification of Andronovo as Indo-Iranian. Klejn (1974) and Brentjes (1981) find the Andronovo culture much too late for an Indo-Iranian identification since chariot-wielding Aryans appear in Mitanni by the 15th to 16th century BC. However, dated a chariot burial at Krivoye Lake to about 2000 BC and a BMAC burial that also contains a foal has recently been found, indicating further links with the steppes.

Mallory (as cited in ) admits the extraordinary difficulty of making a case for expansions from Andronovo to northern India, and that attempts to link the Indo-Aryans to such sites as the Beshkent and Vakhsh cultures "only gets the Indo-Iranian to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans". However he has also developed the "kulturkugel" model that has the Indo-Iranians taking over BMAC cultural traits but preserving their language and religion while moving into Iran and India.

Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC)
Some scholars have suggested that the characteristically BMAC artifacts found at burials in Mehrgarh and Baluchistan are explained by a movement of peoples from Central Asia to the south.

Jarrige and Hassan (as cited in ) argue instead that the BMAC artifacts are explained "within the framework of fruitful intercourse" by "a wide distribution of common beliefs and ritual practices" and "the economic dynamism of the area extending from South-Central Asia to the Indus Valley."

Either way, the exclusively Central Asian BMAC material inventory of the Mehrgarh and Baluchistan burials is, in the words of, "evidence of an archaeological intrusion into the subcontinent from Central Asia during the commonly accepted time frame for the arrival of the Indo-Aryans". However, archaeologists like B.B. Lal have seriously questioned the BMAC and Indo-Iranian "connections", and thoroughly disputed all the proclaimed relations.

Gandhara grave culture


About 1800 BC, there is a major cultural change in the Swat Valley with the emergence of the Gandhara grave culture. With its introduction of new ceramics, new burial rites, and the horse, the Gandhara grave culture is a major candidate for early Indo-Aryan presence. The two new burial rites—flexed inhumation in a pit and cremation burial in an urn—were, according to early Vedic literature, both practiced in early Indo-Aryan society. Horse-trappings indicate the importance of the horse to the economy of the Gandharan grave culture. Two horse burials indicate the importance of the horse in other respects. Horse burial is a custom that Gandharan grave culture has in common with Andronovo, though not within the distinctive timber-frame graves of the steppe.

Indus Valley Civilization
Indo-Aryan migration into the northern Punjab is approximately contemporaneous to the final phase of the decline of the Indus-Valley civilization (IVC).

Continuity
According to Erdosy, the ancient Harappans were not markedly different from modern populations in Northwestern India and present-day Pakistan. Craniometric data showed similarity with prehistoric peoples of the Iranian plateau and Western Asia, although Mohenjodaro was distinct from the other areas of the Indus Valley.

Many scholars have argued that the historical Vedic culture is the result of an amalgamation of the immigrating Indo-Aryans with the remnants of the indigenous civilization, such as the Ochre Coloured Pottery culture. Such remnants of IVC culture are not prominent in the Rigveda, with its focus on chariot warfare and nomadic pastoralism in stark contrast with an urban civilization.

Decline of Indus Valley Civilisation
The decline of the IVC from about 1,900 BC is not universally accepted to be connected with Indo-Aryan immigration. A regional cultural discontinuity occurred during the second millennium BC and many Indus Valley cities were abandoned during this period, while many new settlements began to appear in Gujarat and East Punjab and other settlements such as in the western Bahawalpur region increased in size.

Kenoyer notes that the decline of the Indus Valley Civilisation is not explained by Aryan migrations, which took place after the decline of the Indus Valley Civilisation.

According to Kennedy, there is no evidence of "demographic disruptions" after the decline of the Harappa culture. Kenoyer notes that no biological evidence can be found for major new populations in post-Harappan communities. Hemphill notes that "patterns of phonetic affinity" between Bactria and the Indus Valley Civilisation are best explained by "a pattern of long-standing, but low-level bidirectional mutual exchange."

Spread of Vedic-Brahmanic culture


During the Early Vedic Period (ca.1500-800 BCE ) the Vedic culture was centered in the northern Punjab, or Sapta Sindhu. During the Later Vedic Period (ca.800-500 BCE ) the Vedic culture started to extend into the western Ganges Plain, centering around Kuru and Panchala, and had some influence at the central Ganges Plain after 500 BCE. Sixteen Mahajanapada developed at the Ganges Plain, of which the Kuru and Panchala became the most notable developed centers of Vedic culture, at the western Ganges Plain

The Central Ganges Plain, were Magadha gained prominence, forming the base of the Mauryan Empire, was a distinct cultural area, with new states arising after 500 BCE during the socalled "Second urbanisation". It was influenced by the Vedic culture, but differed markedly from the Kuru-Panchala region. It "was the area of the earliest known cultivation of rice in South Asia and by 1800 BCE was the location of an advanced neolitgic population associated with the sites of Chirand and Chechar". In this regio the Shramanic movements flourished, and Jainism and Buddhism originated.

Genetics
Moved Temporarily

The Austro-Asiatic tribals are hypothesized to have been the earliest inhabitants of India, while incoming Indo-European tribes may have displaced Dravidian-speaking tribals southward. However, the study's authors posit that a major influx into India occurred from the Northeast as well. It has also been noted that there is an underlying unity of present-day female lineages in India, and that historical gene flow has led to the obliteration of congruence between genetic and cultural affinities.

Pre-Holocene origins
Some reports emphasize the finding that tribal and caste populations in South Asia derive largely from a common maternal heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians, with only limited gene flow from external regions since the start of the Holocene. A 2011 genetic study "confirmed the existence of a general principal component cline stretching from Europe to south India." They also concluded that the Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP

Published sources

 * Chakrabarti, D.K. The Early use of Iron In India. Dilip K. Chakrabarti.1992. New Delhi: The Oxford University Press.
 * Chakrabarti, D.K. 1977b. India and West Asia: An Alternative Approach. Man and Environment 1:25-38.
 * Dhavalikar, M. K. 1995, "Fire Altars or Fire Pits?", in Sri Nagabhinandanam, Ed V Shivananda and M. K. Visweswara, Bangalore.
 * Lal, B.B., (1984) Frontiers of the Indus Civilization.1984.
 * Lal, B.B., (1998) New Light on the Indus Civilization, Aryan Books, Delhi 1998
 * Lal, B.B. 2005. The Homeland of the Aryans. Evidence of Rigvedic Flora and Fauna & Archaeology, New Delhi, Aryan Books International.
 * Lal, B.B. 2002. The Saraswati Flows on: the Continuity of Indian Culture. New Delhi: Aryan Books International
 * Pargiter, F.E. [1922] 1979. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. New Delhi: Cosmo.
 * S.R. Rao. The Aryans in Indus Civilization.1993
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Chakrabarti, D.K. 1977b. India and West Asia: An Alternative Approach. Man and Environment 1:25-38.
 * Dhavalikar, M. K. 1995, "Fire Altars or Fire Pits?", in Sri Nagabhinandanam, Ed V Shivananda and M. K. Visweswara, Bangalore.
 * Lal, B.B., (1984) Frontiers of the Indus Civilization.1984.
 * Lal, B.B., (1998) New Light on the Indus Civilization, Aryan Books, Delhi 1998
 * Lal, B.B. 2005. The Homeland of the Aryans. Evidence of Rigvedic Flora and Fauna & Archaeology, New Delhi, Aryan Books International.
 * Lal, B.B. 2002. The Saraswati Flows on: the Continuity of Indian Culture. New Delhi: Aryan Books International
 * Pargiter, F.E. [1922] 1979. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. New Delhi: Cosmo.
 * S.R. Rao. The Aryans in Indus Civilization.1993
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Lal, B.B., (1984) Frontiers of the Indus Civilization.1984.
 * Lal, B.B., (1998) New Light on the Indus Civilization, Aryan Books, Delhi 1998
 * Lal, B.B. 2005. The Homeland of the Aryans. Evidence of Rigvedic Flora and Fauna & Archaeology, New Delhi, Aryan Books International.
 * Lal, B.B. 2002. The Saraswati Flows on: the Continuity of Indian Culture. New Delhi: Aryan Books International
 * Pargiter, F.E. [1922] 1979. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. New Delhi: Cosmo.
 * S.R. Rao. The Aryans in Indus Civilization.1993
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Lal, B.B., (1984) Frontiers of the Indus Civilization.1984.
 * Lal, B.B., (1998) New Light on the Indus Civilization, Aryan Books, Delhi 1998
 * Lal, B.B. 2005. The Homeland of the Aryans. Evidence of Rigvedic Flora and Fauna & Archaeology, New Delhi, Aryan Books International.
 * Lal, B.B. 2002. The Saraswati Flows on: the Continuity of Indian Culture. New Delhi: Aryan Books International
 * Pargiter, F.E. [1922] 1979. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. New Delhi: Cosmo.
 * S.R. Rao. The Aryans in Indus Civilization.1993
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Lal, B.B. 2002. The Saraswati Flows on: the Continuity of Indian Culture. New Delhi: Aryan Books International
 * Pargiter, F.E. [1922] 1979. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. New Delhi: Cosmo.
 * S.R. Rao. The Aryans in Indus Civilization.1993
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Pargiter, F.E. [1922] 1979. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. New Delhi: Cosmo.
 * S.R. Rao. The Aryans in Indus Civilization.1993
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * S.R. Rao. The Aryans in Indus Civilization.1993
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * S.R. Rao. The Aryans in Indus Civilization.1993
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8
 * Thapar, Romila. 1966. A History of India: Volume 1 (Paperback). ISBN 0-14-013835-8