Genetics and the Aryan debate: "Early Indians" Tony Joseph's Latest Assault

Those who think that the field of genetics has found the evidence for AIT are actually wrong.The book explains very eloquently that genetics has got nothing to do with this linguistic issue of AIT.This should be read by those who are seriously interested in knowing all the sides and aspects of the debate.

If one is initiated( which is not very hard, if one is interested enough), this book is a real thriller. A perfect page-turner, which expose the academic, socio-political crime of "ninety two scientists", and one tony joseph "step by step", convincingly with indisputable data and logic.

It is the first of it's kind. Written as a rejoinder to the western thoughts about the Aryan Debate, Mr Shrikant G Talageri the author of this book, has put forward a different perspective with the help of Rigveda, the very ancient text available in the whole world. The author exhibits his authority on the historical aspects of Rigveda in the book. He effectively counters the western narrative about the Aryan Invasion Theory and questions the applicability of the recent findings of Genetics. Amazingly he succeeds in raising pertinent questions about the AIT presented to us without any corroborative pieces of evidence. It is a must-read for history buffs.

Shrikant Talageri is a living legend, the greatest Indologist of all-time.

Author has presented his arguments in a lucid manner. It is based on evidence and hard facts. Author has provided a rebuttal of Tony Joseph book and simply has destroyed Tony Joseph’s arguments. A must read book for everyone.

Brilliant. This author has very well argued his case. Having also read the Early Indians, I can relate to all the inconsistencies and inaccuracies that Mr Talagiri discusses. I spent my entire life in statistics and am surprised that a research paper like the one discussed by Mr Joseph was even allowed to be published.

I like Shrikan Talageri's books. Very well researched, clearly expressed, Thought provoking.In this particular book, without going into the intricacies of Genetics, he annihilates the counter-theory put up by another author ( Mr Tony Joseph, whose book, incidentally, I have not yet read).A must-read for everyone who likes to get to know more about the ancient Indian civilisation.

Brilliant book by Shrikant Talagiri Sir, A tight slap to all those propaganda and there Masters who are trying to set the Aryan Invasion Theory for the last 200 years.

It has been written in a very concise manner and it challenges the prevalent discourse in the Indian academia concerning Arya culture and Sanskrit civilization.

Talageri is a great scholar who is often under-appreciated by Western scholarship in general. He presents us with some great research that gives us important insights inso the Harappan/Indus civilization.

I've rewritten this review a few times because there are many ways to come at this argument.Talageri is is not a geneticist, linguist or even really a religious scholar, and it shows.Here's the structure of the argument (and it is hard to see given the mass of text) - Talageri is completely convinced of his own idiosyncratic dating of the Rig Veda (which is not shared by scholars). So he pits his (in his mind) completely certain dating of the Rig Veda against all the genetic and linguistic evidence. The form of his argument is essentially - "Look, I'm certain about this date for the Rig Veda, and there may be some uncertainty in the other evidence, so my (religious text based) certainty trumps this mountain of other evidence". The argument is similar in structure to other arguments based on religious texts - it pokes at minor uncertainties in the other data, while assuming complete certainty in the religious data, and ignores the broad structure of evidence in the mainstream data.Linguistic: Having read Mallory and having a general background in linguistics, I found Talageri's analysis no where near the depth of what Mallory presents (or what I've encountered in other linguistic texts). Talageri seems to have a second-hand superficial understanding that often uses Wikipedia (!) to back up claims rather than actual scholarship (e.g. his quotes about Elamite!). I love wikipedia, but no self respecting researcher (or even popular science writer) would/should use Wikipedia as a *primary* source. He seems to mostly ignore the detailed knowledge of the branching of the IE languages that fully corresponds to geography and instead posits an alternative - a collection of pre-Sanskrit Indic languages that left the subcontinent and then settled in correct proximity in Europe, leaving no trace in India. He dismisses all the evidence from anatolian finds (like Hittite and Mittani) based on his own dating of events in the Rig Veda.Religious: Here's what I believe is know about the Rig Veda. Individual bits were likely handed down quite precisely over long periods of time. But the order of the bits and the completeness of the bits is questionable. And there are definitely questions about the location of the events, but every book I've read describes it as a movement from the west to the Doab and then further east. Doing detailed readings of religious texts based on their inerrancy is generally not a recipe for success. Moreover, Talageri's readings of the Rig Veda have been specifically rebutted by actual academics who work in the area who state that he fundamentally misunderstands them.Genetics: Talageri's lack of academic knowledge here is at its worst. He uses scare quotes for the word scientist and presents lots of dead-end arguments (I don't know why - they are confusing to follow and generally lead nowhere by his own account). The mainstream argumentis that there is no early indian DNA outside south asia so that it is pretty clear that early Indians did not migrate to Europe or elsewhere. That means that culture and language has to have spread without the people moving. That’s clearly possible, but it’s not easy (it happened with Buddhism migrating to China, but writing helped). However, given that the most plausible linguistic evidence lines up with an origin in the steppe, and the genetics says something very similar, the combination is very compelling. Against this, Talageri puts his own dating of the rig Veda and declares the mountain of evidence on the other side vanquished. His refutation of the genetics is has an ad hominem flavor (he mocks the scientists, and even the science of genetics).He has lots of arguments that lead nowhere (by his own account). There are a few substantial arguments but they are (as far as I can tell) about the details of steppe mixing of peoples. But that’s hardly relevant to the broader fact that early Indian data is not found outside India and Steppe data is found in India - the basic critical point of the direction in which people moved.Archaeology: There is the repeated claim of 'no archaelogical evidence' which seems untrue - there is evidence that dates the spread of the horse. There are very few horse skeletons in the Harappan remains, and many more after the putative date of the arrival of the steppe people. This is completely consistent with the genetics and the Rig Veda's emphasis on the horse and horse sacrifice. The writing found in anatolia etc. is also inconsistent in timeline with this out of India theory (except for the backdating based on the Rig Veda).Style: The book is hard to plough through partly because it feels like a talk show argument. It is full of weird dead-end arguments and lots of stuff in bold, italics and underline (sometimes all three!). He uses language with negative suggestions in much the way one might in a casual argument, often feeling ad hominem (using the phrase '92 scientists and their spokesperson' dozens of times rather than referring to the actual paper, the word scientist in scare quote). Perhaps worst of all, he refers to Tony Joseph's presumed religion as itself cause for concern (in the intro) as well as the etymology of the name of the publisher(!).While Talageri disavows any desire to be a Hindu nationalist, his argument has that flavor - of an amateur but dedicated reader of the literature. At some level, I found this interesting - it sharpened my understanding of the genetics and linguistics as I tried to follow the convoluted arguments against them. But at another level, this theory is so ridiculous today - it would be conclusively disproved by the linguistics, if nothing else. Add to that the genetics and OIT is a historic and political curiosity, with no scientific value. Which is why most of the people in this area are dabbling amateurs like Talageri. I realized that it is silly to waste time on this hypothetical that only makes sense if you are dead set on believing that India was the origin of the cultural indo european universe. Europeans seem perfectly comfortable with the fact that the the PIE culture and people did not originate in Europe. Russians don't take particular pride in being the source location of the PIE. However (some) Indians seem intent on claiming a history that is not theirs and not true.